Talk:H1b crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i want to know the hiring models like fth fts... can you guide

[edit] Hyperbolic, unnecessary article

There are two main problems with this article, as I see it:

• It doesn't deserve its own article since there's not enough info to justify one.
• It's hyperbolic: the scant references provided to back up the article do not describe what happened as any kind of "crisis". It's newsworthy and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, sure, but the article overstates the severity of what appears to be little more than a story covering the fact that the H-1B quota is not able to meet the demand for visas, and that "something needs to be done".

-- Hux (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

oppose merger. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your opinion and your edits strange. Just because an immigration attorney and a random poster on a Chinese web forum call it a crisis doesn't mean that it really is one. For something to be a genuine crisis it surely must be covered as such by the major news media (for comparison, see Cuban Missile Crisis, or Iran hostage crisis). Also, the article is now contradictory, describing this "crisis" as occurring in 2007, then going on to say it has occurred in "five of the last eight years".

This is getting silly. I'll give it another week and then I'm merging the worthwhile parts of the article into H-1B visa. -- Hux (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cease the ad hominem attacks and stick to the issues. The literature is mixed as to when the crisis occurs. The article needs to express all the opinions, which in this case are contradictory. More importantly, a merge cannot be conducted without consensus. Tynetrekker (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I made no ad hominem attack. And no, an article must not "express all the opinions"; the only opinions that matter are those that are notable. But that's irrelevant in this case anyway - what we're discussing is whether or not there is a legitimate reason for the article to exist in the first place. Right now, this is a manufactured story that reeks of original research. I say again: where is the coverage of this so-called crisis in the major news outlets? There is a visa problem in the eyes of some, sure, but there's no crisis and if there's no crisis then this article should be deleted.

You're correct regarding consensus, so I think the appropriate thing to do would be to get other editors to take a look. I'll submit an RFC and we'll see what happens. -- Hux (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding another editor's edits "strange" is an ad hominem attack and violation of Wikipedia's policy on Civility. Perhaps some editors will find the sources in this article which include Bill Gates testimony to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate itself and the Wall Street Journal as "opinions that matter" [quote of Hux]. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Finding another editor's edits "strange" is an ad hominem attack" Um, no, it isn't. An ad hominem attack is an attack on someone's person (ad hominem means, literally, "to the man"). If I'd said, "you are strange", then that would be ad hominem. Characterizing your edits as strange, however, is not ad hominem, nor is it uncivil. It's simply another way of saying, "your edits made no sense to me".

Regarding the sources you mention, you're still missing the point, which is that none of them characterize the H-1B visa situation as a crisis. Instead, they simply talk about how there aren't enough H-1B visas and that we need more in order to get more skilled workers to the US, or that there are too many and that we need to scale the numbers back because the system hurts American workers, etc. etc. None of this is crisis talk, which means it doesn't justify its own article. We already have an appropriate place to note the success (or not) of the H-1B system: the H-1B visa article. -- Hux (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requent for Comment: article deletion/merge

This is a discussion about whether this article should be deleted/merged into H-1B visa, or whether it should stay as is.

• Merge - this article is tiny, and has everything to to with the article about the visas, and nothing to do with anything else. I see no purpose served by keeping it split out. MilesAgain (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. This article is highly notable as evinced by sources that include sources Bill Gates testimony to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate itself and the Wall Street Journal. Gates for example indicates that this issue threatens the entire U.S. economy. The article is already much longer than hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia and is now better sourced than 95 percent of Wikipedia articles. Tynetrekker (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. The phenomena itself is well-documented, but there doesn't seem to be much to say about it that cannot be covered in a paragraph (or two at the outside) in the main visa article. Sections should be spun off from parent articles only if and when the subtopic outgrows the main article. "Other stuff exists" is not a good reason to keep the article as-is. There's plenty of "noise" in Wikipedia and outside of best practices other articles shouldn't be used as a measuring rod. Additionally, the material in the article is peppered with personal commentary (such as the comments about Microsoft and smaller companies) and original research (Hadrian's Wall commentary). Take the lean meat from this article and place it in the main visa article as a single paragraph section. Vassyana (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - There seems to be an issue with these visas. Fair enough. Now, the H-1B visa page can document this issue nicely. There's no need for a separate page.Ngchen (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - As per my opinion above. -- Hux (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's make this clear: the visa article is about the visa. This article is about a series of events and their fallout, which is related, but notable in its own right. Relata refero (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. There is no factual crisis, only POV. There are a certain amount of visas available. They are all used up. Some would think that is bad some would think it is good, in either event it is properly located with the description of the underlying visa. Bevinbell (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Difficulty in replacing US citizens with cheap foreign labor is not a crisis. uFu (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The "crisis" is really just about corporate executives and corporate HR not being able to bring to the U.S. as many foreign workers, usually from third world countries, as they would like. Between 1985 and 2000, there were about three graduates in science and technology for every job created in that field. Furthermore, between 2001 and 2005, over 400,000 tech jobs were lost in the U.S. The only crisis seems to be that 1) our government is allowing foreign companies to use our visa programs to bring cheap foreign labor to the U.S. to further off-shoring of good-paying, high-skilled American jobs. 2) It is currently perfectly legal for American citizens to be bypassed, and/or outright displaced with cheap, foreign labor, mostly from third world countries like India or China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.181.128 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)