Talk:Points-based immigration system

Contested edits

So, are you going to attempt to justify your edit? And just what point is it you are trying to make?

The daily Mail is not an acceptable source, as I have previously told you. See the RFC on this at WP:DAILYMAIL "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. " This RFC supersedes anything in WP:PUS, which is just an essay. The essay says the Daily Mail may not be a reliable source. The RFC says it is not a reliable source. We cannot use it.

I did read the content, just as I also did the previous times you added this WP:POV material. The first time you attempted to add this [1] you said that the system was covertly revamped in an attempt to attract white immigrants. You sourced it to a ref that stated that the Australian government had announced the changes (so certainly not covert). The second time you added this [2] you kept the covert claim, changed "white" to "diverse" and added the Daily Mail source. So, still not covert. Is this bad faith editing or do you just not know what covert means? The Daily Mail source is not an acceptable source and says nothing about diversity. In fact it says there will be harder for foreign workers to get visas. The third time you added this material [3] you removed the bogus "covert" claim, and changed "diverse" to "specific". So, while you are no longer explicitly saying "white", you are seem to be claiming that these changes are intended to attract a specific ethnicity, which the supplied sources do not support. You kept the non-RS Daily Mail and added another source, which says that New Zealanders already in Australia will take some of the visa previously available. I see nothing in the new source that support the claim that these changes are specifically intended to attract a particular ethnicity. The fact that the changes may do so does not mean that is why the changes were made. Meters (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the content, before posting the generalities used for templating. "Daily mail should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims." Use article talk page in the future to air out personal viewpoints regarding Wiki edits.

• Daily Mail: Substantiated with secondary reference.
• Attract a specific ethnicity: Take the hint from the Title: Government's immigration tweak sees overseas Asians out...; Covert (In this case)= not publicized through official channels (if you have sources that points to publicizing of the changes in the weeks before or during 18th July 2018, happy to look into). The news broke out through the fourth estate. Change of ethnicity (white, diverse, specific, asians, etc.): because wiki is not a venue and to maintain neutrality.

Hope it helps, if at all the contend is content-wise. 174.4.26.61 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Per WP:TPYES sign your talk page posts, and per WP:TPO do not insert your response in the middle of someone else's text. It makes it impossible to tell who had written what. Meters (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand what "covert" is. The Australian Government announced the changes in 2016, per one of your own sources. That is not covert. Your additional source does not support your contentions that the change is covert or that it is intended "to attract white population in the baseline pool."

As for your explanation, "Change of ethnicity: because not a venue and to maintain neutrality." I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Meters (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading everything. The changes were brought froth in July, 2018. Either have the presence of mind to read it through and do the work, if you have a genuine contention. Do not export your burden onto others, at least read it through and respond with clarity and clear objective about Wiki. Signing shows who's comment is what. Stop beautifying the page. You can either take it or leave it.174.4.26.61 (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is verging on WP:CIR. If you cannot read and understand what other editors are saying or what the sources that you are adding say, you should probably not be editing English Wikipedia. I said The Australian Government announced the changes in 2016 not that the changes were implemented in 2016. One of the sources you added says 'The new visa was announced in 2016 as an acknowledgment of "the special relationship between the two nations", according to a statement from the Prime Minister.'

Since you are now following me around and undoing my edits on unrelated articles I no longer have any WP:AGF in you. Meters (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you brought forward CIR, What do you think the section is about and which Visa does the article you mentioned talks about plus what viewpoint is used from the article. Because saying it directly is not helping you, it is only aggravating you. Regarding AGF, I also have the same feeling about you for some time, I have asked you many times to stop stalking when there are many edits happening per minute in English Wiki, but this is not what I am going to spend my time in this space.174.4.26.61 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• This prose: It has been reported that audio transcripts of conversation between Trump and Turnbull suggest that the latter has influenced the former in immigration viewpoints.[4] Australia under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull is changing its basic intake strategy for reducing the influx of immigrants and refugees that affect the economic system of the country.[5] [6] [7] Though, the economist cadre of the country does not back-up the simplistic viewpoints and intent of the schemes of Turnbull's claims.[8] Furthermore, others consider the lack of leadership and orientation for refugees gives rise to negative notions about immigration.[9] Associated factors have resulted in changes in the country's immigration policy between 2017 and 2018, like lowering the number of overall intake from 2000's to 600's and 300's.[10] is nowhere near good enough. There are, as called out in my edit summaries, fairly obvious grammatical & comprehensibility errors. The language is also far from the neutral encyclopedic tone that we require. And it doesn't appear to be well supported by the sources referenced. I've removed this previously, but it is being edit warred back in. Can we go back to the status quo, and have a discussion, please? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Thank you for initiating a decent discussion and moving the content to talk for better refactoring. Kindly explain your statements more, it is obvious that the edit does not have grammatical or comprehensibility errors. The language is also neutral and the tone is fair per resource content. The sources support the sentences. So I would like to know your view points and lets edit it together. Do not message, I will check it on July 28th.174.4.26.61 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

We may need to agree to disagree about the neutrality of some of the sentences above; but, for mine, Though, the economist cadre of the country does not back-up the simplistic viewpoints and intent of the schemes of Turnbull's claims is not something that could reasonably be considered WP:IMPARTIALly worded. That sentence is also not particularly informative to the reader, given that it fails to provide details of the viewpoints, intent or schemes. This fault is not found in that sentence alone, but runs through the passage. The biggest issue, however, and perhaps the best starting point, is that the vast majority of the referenced sources do not mention this article's subject, "Points-based immigration system"s. I think the best first approach is to review the sources, and trim the text which relies only on such sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific and rewording the statement. Now the issue is bit more clear.174.4.26.61 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

References