![]() | Economic impact of immigration to Canada was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
Concerns arise in this article in the minimal statement of positive impacts, and then the overwhelming refutation of them, and/or comprehensive argumentative support of views that consider their economic impact negative. To ensure this article paints an accurate picture, there should be a better balance of positive and negative support of the economic benefit debate. This article does not fulfill this critieria at this moment, and therefore, I have added a neutrality tag.
For example: in economy-wide impacts, there is not a single dedicated paragraph for positive economic contributions.
This article mentions positive economic impacts of immigration. These include:
"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."
"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."
"...the theory that it results in a stronger Canadian economy."
As per Wikipedia guidelines:
"Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.163.210 ( talk) 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There are exceptionally few sources, studies, and/or articles for these statements, nor close to the level of development of anti-economic impact immigrant arguments. This article must be more balanced. 142.151.163.210 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be careful in conflating a lack of contribution by Wikipedia members with a lack of positive economic impacts on the whole, as per your note that an issue of Wikipedia censorship is present. I have little quarrel with the validity of the negative economic impacts presented here, in that they each are well developed and supported. It stands to say, however, that two briefly referred to positive economic impacts have minimal elaboration, these are:
"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."
and
"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."
I will try to locate supporting evidence for these, but do not have the time to effectively commit to their development. I would suggest examining some pro-immigration websites to begin. As it stands, however, that does not mean the POV tag should be removed. The qualifications of the POV tag, principally "that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner" still stand, even if there is an unfortunate dearth of individuals who can contribute to the other side.
To address your last concern, I was referring to there being few sources, studies and articles for the positive economic impacts, not the negative ones.
142.151.163.210 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please identify and explain your concerns with my justifications for the POV tag. As previously mentioned, the concern arises from the qualification for a POV tag that "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to the best of its ability." This is where my concern in relation to POV with the article lies.
The article dedicates considerable and astute elaboration to the negative economic impacts of immigration to Canada. It does not, however, do the same for examining positive economic impacts. This is exemplified by the following:
1. The section on economy-wide impacts contains few lines (these being those at the start of the Expanded economy section, as you pointed out) addressing positive impacts. The vast majority of this section, two large paragraphs, addresses negative impacts only.
2. The two major positive impacts identified, "Canada can use the skills worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs." and "New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities." are not elaborated upon beyond these statements, nor are there any supporting studies, articles, and sources of the like. This is in contrast to negative economic impacts, which as aforementioned, are discussed at length.
You identified this as occurring because:
1. There has been a lack of response on the part of Wikipedia members to contribute.
2. You have been unable to locate information that supports this position.
I understand your explanation of difficulty in fostering a better balance between the two sides. This does not mean, however, that a POV concern does not exist. That concern does exist, which is why you have undertaken the various steps you talked about. The fact these moves have not proved fruitful does not mean that the POV concern has been eliminated. Therefore, the POV tag is justified.
Accordingly, the POV tag is governed by Wikipedia guidelines re: resolution, not individual assessment and unilateral decision. These should outline when the POV tag should be removed, not individual decision to "leave it [POV tag] for a time".
142.151.163.210 04:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem, IMO, is that this article attempts to itself analyze the problem, which is not our job at Wikipedia. We shouldn't be looking for positive or negative statistics, but instead should summarize the current state of the debate itself, with reference to existing secondary sources. What does the government say about it? What do Canadian and foreign economists say about it? Can we write an article that both sides of the debate would agree is a fair summary of the debate? As it stands this article reads more like it's itself an entry into the debate, digging into primary sources, presenting arguments based on them, refuting contrary arguments, etc., rather than acting as a neutral summary of the debate. Parts of the article are perfectly fine of course—it does actually do a good deal of quoting pro and con arguments, but somehow reading it I don't come away with a neutral impression, but instead it seems like the article "takes sides" in the debate. -- Delirium 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I recall reading this article a few months back and was glad to see that it stuck to the facts. However it seems that a few sentences were slipped into the first paragraph that are entirely misleading and are in fact negated by content found further in the article.
Here are the questionable sentences (highlighted):
The economic impact of immigration is an important topic in Canada. Throughout its history Canada has depended on a large stream of immigrants for its economic success. While the immigration rate has declined sharply from its peak early in the 20th century, Canada still accepts more immigrants per capita than any other major country. Modern economic theory[citation needed] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[2] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration.
Do I have support to revert the first part of this article to a previous version?
Original enquirer here.
I've removed the following sentences from the first paragraph as they do not fit into the article subject. Explanation below each respective sentence.
Modern economic theory[2] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Link points to a Frasier Institute study on the income status of immigrants. It is not at all related to economic theory and does not link "immigration and the free movement of labour" as positive contributions to the economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[3] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration. Popular opinion has no weight on the economic ramifications of immigration. Additionaly, two major political parties (Quebecois and Conservative) have voiced concern and made steps to curb current immigration levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.121.24 ( talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dr. Steinhardt has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
There should be some information about naturalizations and its economic impact.
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:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The new additions to the lead read like a personal essay. The thesis seems to be:
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)
Shouldn’t this be part of the page? 2607:FEA8:5362:1E00:C81A:8754:14B2:F3E9 ( talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hello everyone. I have added a rewrite cleanup tag to this article because, in its present state, it presents multiple issues.
There are numerous and consistent issues with grammar in this article. Example sentences include:
Several sentences read like a high school essay with severe tone issues that are not appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Here are some examples:
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)
![]() | Economic impact of immigration to Canada was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
Concerns arise in this article in the minimal statement of positive impacts, and then the overwhelming refutation of them, and/or comprehensive argumentative support of views that consider their economic impact negative. To ensure this article paints an accurate picture, there should be a better balance of positive and negative support of the economic benefit debate. This article does not fulfill this critieria at this moment, and therefore, I have added a neutrality tag.
For example: in economy-wide impacts, there is not a single dedicated paragraph for positive economic contributions.
This article mentions positive economic impacts of immigration. These include:
"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."
"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."
"...the theory that it results in a stronger Canadian economy."
As per Wikipedia guidelines:
"Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.163.210 ( talk) 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There are exceptionally few sources, studies, and/or articles for these statements, nor close to the level of development of anti-economic impact immigrant arguments. This article must be more balanced. 142.151.163.210 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be careful in conflating a lack of contribution by Wikipedia members with a lack of positive economic impacts on the whole, as per your note that an issue of Wikipedia censorship is present. I have little quarrel with the validity of the negative economic impacts presented here, in that they each are well developed and supported. It stands to say, however, that two briefly referred to positive economic impacts have minimal elaboration, these are:
"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."
and
"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."
I will try to locate supporting evidence for these, but do not have the time to effectively commit to their development. I would suggest examining some pro-immigration websites to begin. As it stands, however, that does not mean the POV tag should be removed. The qualifications of the POV tag, principally "that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner" still stand, even if there is an unfortunate dearth of individuals who can contribute to the other side.
To address your last concern, I was referring to there being few sources, studies and articles for the positive economic impacts, not the negative ones.
142.151.163.210 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please identify and explain your concerns with my justifications for the POV tag. As previously mentioned, the concern arises from the qualification for a POV tag that "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to the best of its ability." This is where my concern in relation to POV with the article lies.
The article dedicates considerable and astute elaboration to the negative economic impacts of immigration to Canada. It does not, however, do the same for examining positive economic impacts. This is exemplified by the following:
1. The section on economy-wide impacts contains few lines (these being those at the start of the Expanded economy section, as you pointed out) addressing positive impacts. The vast majority of this section, two large paragraphs, addresses negative impacts only.
2. The two major positive impacts identified, "Canada can use the skills worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs." and "New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities." are not elaborated upon beyond these statements, nor are there any supporting studies, articles, and sources of the like. This is in contrast to negative economic impacts, which as aforementioned, are discussed at length.
You identified this as occurring because:
1. There has been a lack of response on the part of Wikipedia members to contribute.
2. You have been unable to locate information that supports this position.
I understand your explanation of difficulty in fostering a better balance between the two sides. This does not mean, however, that a POV concern does not exist. That concern does exist, which is why you have undertaken the various steps you talked about. The fact these moves have not proved fruitful does not mean that the POV concern has been eliminated. Therefore, the POV tag is justified.
Accordingly, the POV tag is governed by Wikipedia guidelines re: resolution, not individual assessment and unilateral decision. These should outline when the POV tag should be removed, not individual decision to "leave it [POV tag] for a time".
142.151.163.210 04:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem, IMO, is that this article attempts to itself analyze the problem, which is not our job at Wikipedia. We shouldn't be looking for positive or negative statistics, but instead should summarize the current state of the debate itself, with reference to existing secondary sources. What does the government say about it? What do Canadian and foreign economists say about it? Can we write an article that both sides of the debate would agree is a fair summary of the debate? As it stands this article reads more like it's itself an entry into the debate, digging into primary sources, presenting arguments based on them, refuting contrary arguments, etc., rather than acting as a neutral summary of the debate. Parts of the article are perfectly fine of course—it does actually do a good deal of quoting pro and con arguments, but somehow reading it I don't come away with a neutral impression, but instead it seems like the article "takes sides" in the debate. -- Delirium 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I recall reading this article a few months back and was glad to see that it stuck to the facts. However it seems that a few sentences were slipped into the first paragraph that are entirely misleading and are in fact negated by content found further in the article.
Here are the questionable sentences (highlighted):
The economic impact of immigration is an important topic in Canada. Throughout its history Canada has depended on a large stream of immigrants for its economic success. While the immigration rate has declined sharply from its peak early in the 20th century, Canada still accepts more immigrants per capita than any other major country. Modern economic theory[citation needed] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[2] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration.
Do I have support to revert the first part of this article to a previous version?
Original enquirer here.
I've removed the following sentences from the first paragraph as they do not fit into the article subject. Explanation below each respective sentence.
Modern economic theory[2] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Link points to a Frasier Institute study on the income status of immigrants. It is not at all related to economic theory and does not link "immigration and the free movement of labour" as positive contributions to the economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[3] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration. Popular opinion has no weight on the economic ramifications of immigration. Additionaly, two major political parties (Quebecois and Conservative) have voiced concern and made steps to curb current immigration levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.121.24 ( talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dr. Steinhardt has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
There should be some information about naturalizations and its economic impact.
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:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The new additions to the lead read like a personal essay. The thesis seems to be:
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)
Shouldn’t this be part of the page? 2607:FEA8:5362:1E00:C81A:8754:14B2:F3E9 ( talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hello everyone. I have added a rewrite cleanup tag to this article because, in its present state, it presents multiple issues.
There are numerous and consistent issues with grammar in this article. Example sentences include:
Several sentences read like a high school essay with severe tone issues that are not appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Here are some examples:
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)