Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom

Somali Education

Middayexpress - sorry, but you appear to have overlooked a rather crucial point about the survey carried out by Africa Education Trust: that is, it was based on the interviews of a *total* of 356 interviews, "refugees and asylum seekers living in Barnet, Enfield, Haringey or Waltham Forest", of which just 23 per cent were Somalis. Therefore the figures you blithely quote as representing the entire Somali community in fact only represents some 83 or 84 individuals - hardly representative of a community which numbers tens of thousands. We must be clear in presenting this in the article: not to do so, but to present the figures as if representative of the entire Somali group in the UK is inescapably WP:OR. Alfietucker (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Most surveys include limited samples. That's how they work since obviously not every last immigrant can be sampled. On the other hand, the IIPR paper did not sample any Somalis for their educational background. It just gives two figures but doesn't indicate which surveys if any those numbers were drawn from in the first place. The Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council paper, by the way, applies to Somali UK immigrants in general:

Large numbers of the Somali community live in Tottenham, Colindale, Edmonton and Edgware. In general the Somali community are highly educated. Approximately half had completed secondary education and a further fifth of those interviewed had completed university. Most Somalis had attended education or training courses in the UK and over half had done a course at FE or HE level. Most Somali women had accessed education or training in the UK. The vast majority of Somalis have English skills of intermediate level or above. Over half of the Somali community have worked in the UK. 20% of Somalis had worked in professional employment in Somalia. Many of these people had worked as engineers or teachers. Only 4% had found professional employment in the UK. Half had worked in semi-skilled or manual jobs in the UK compared to 13% in Somalia.

The foregoing is on page 23, in the section aptly titled Summary of each community [1] Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"On the other hand, the IIPR paper did not sample any Somalis for their educational background. It just gives two figures but doesn't indicate which surveys if any those numbers were drawn from in the first place". Presuming you mean IPPR, that's not true. The IPPR report in question is their Beyond Black and White. It uses Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04. However, the figures that were previously cited do not refer to all Somalis in the UK, rather than just those who had arrived in the previous ten years. The relevant quote is: "Education levels among the new Somali-born immigrants are the lowest of the countries compared, with the highest proportion of people having no qualifications (50.1 per cent) and the lowest proportion of those having a higher qualification (2.8 per cent)". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The educational levels of Somalis over a decade ago are outdated and do not reflect the current situation. The 2013 IPPR paper on the educational attainment of Somali students gives a 33% GCSE figure, but it concedes that its data is not robust. I've therefore replaced it with a 2014 La Sainte Union School study, which notes the actual latest GCSE figures for 2010-2012. Additionally, the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's detailed 2009 study on Somali students indicates that their attainment is rising and is directly related to relative command of English ("the evidence is that once Somali children reach a competent level of English, they forge ahead in their learning and can reach the highest standards" [2]). Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Which 2013 IPPR report is this? The one discussed above is from 2005. Anyway, there's no reason to remove mention of it. If there is more data now available, that can be added to the article - it doesn't have to replace what is already there. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've now added the IPPR and other material you deleted back in, while keeping your additions. I have to say though, the La Sainte Union School is just one school. Isn't it WP: UNDUE to be even reporting what this source says, when the topic is Somalis in the UK as a whole? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the data refer to one borough, not just that one school. Still, I think we need to be careful - what applies in Camden might be different elsewhere (or might not, but it would be better to rely on national sources where possible). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That editorial is not a reliable source [3]. Neither is the data from over a decade ago; that does not reflect the current situation. Also, the IPPR itself concedes in its paper that its data is not robust. The actual scholastic performance of Somali pupils is covered in detail in the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's 2009 study on Somali students in the UK. Additionally, the La Sainte Union School paper isn't for that one school, but rather for Camden as a whole. It notes specific GCSE results in keeping with what the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates. At any rate, per WP:BRD, changes of that magnitude first require discussion then consensus. WikiProject Africa regular AcidSnow already thanked me for my edit, so that's a start. If additional input is needed, I'll ask if it would be alright for me to alert the Somalinet forum members of this discussion. There are several thousand of them, so their expertise in this area should be helpful. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Economist isn't a reliable source now? That's news to me. You're also replacing much more than just that, including national-level research by educationalists (e.g. [4]), with data from just two London boroughs, Lambeth and Camden. That's odd if you ask me, but I'm happy to wait for others to give their views. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, data being old doesn't make it not a reliable source. Why can't the historical situation of Somalis be included in the article, if it is clearly identified which time period the data is from? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and can you provide a link for the claim that "the IPPR itself concedes in its paper that its data is not robust"? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that that specific Economist editorial was unreliable, not the news organization as a whole. This is because it is an editorial (which aren't reliable sources on living persons per WP:BLP), doesn't name its source for the GCSE figures (its numbers may have been drawn from a 2013 IPPR study [5]), and there are other factual inaccuracies as well [6]. The 2005 IPPR is a decade old and does not reflect the current situation. Additionally, the 2010 Strand paper is unrepresentative because its Somali sample is small (98 pupils), and the coding it uses is different from that used by the Local Authorities that actually tabulated the total number of Somali students in Table 4 (~33,979 students). Similarly, several of Rutter's suggested main factors for underachievement, particularly her claim that UK-born pupils of Somali heritage do not achieve better exam results than Somali-born children, are not borne out by the comparative data. As the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit notes, higher attainment among the Somali students is in fact directly related to English language proficiency ("Somali pupils' performance at KS2 increases at the stage of proficiency in English increases. Bilingual Somali speakers who were fully fluent in English were more likely to gain level 4+ than pupils who only spoke English" [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We now seem to be on the same page - or somewhat more, at least. On the editorial, I take your point, but does BLP apply here, per WP:BLPGROUP? On the 2005 IPPR report, I don't see that it being old discounts it. Sure, we shouldn't suggest that it necessarily represents the current situation, but the article isn't just about the current situation, is it? I would have thought there was space for historical material. On the Rutter point, her argument might not apply in the specific case of Lambeth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't apply elsewhere. She's not saying that her argument applies to each and every local area. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob. WP:BLP "applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages[...] such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies". BLPGROUP instead applies to "material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons. That said, how some pupils may or may not have performed a decade ago has no bearing on and should not be used against those of today, who are necessarily not the same students. The Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit also uses a series of case studies at various schools to represent the Somali student community as a whole. As such, it is not comparable with Rutter's dated speculations. Middayexpress (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP also states "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group". I wouldn't say that Somalis in the UK are a small group in this sense. Anyway, I've asked for opinions on the BLP noticeboard on that. The Lambeth study might well be representative of Somali pupils in Lambeth or perhaps even London as a whole, but what is to say it is representative of Somali pupils in, say, Cardiff? I think we need to draw on more sources that give a national picture (which is not to say we can't use the Lambeth source too).

Also, the IPPR data is not about pupils. It's about the education levels of Somalis in the Labour Force Survey. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the main aims of the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit study was to "discover factors which contribute to the success of Somali heritage pupils" in the United Kingdom and "to explore strategies used by schools to raise achievement of Somali heritage pupil". It did this "using a case study approach, [where] 7 primary and 2 secondary schools with high number of Somali pupils were selected". The 2005 IPPR data also pertains to over a decade ago, not now. It is therefore unrepresentative vis-a-vis the present per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. BLPGROUP applies to companies, coporations, etc.. For WP:BLP not to apply here, we'd have to be dealing with non-living persons or entities, which obviously isn't the situation ("Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page[...] People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise"). Middayexpress (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can help as I have just glanced this info. But if something is 10 years old, it obviously has problems in stat terms in the context of this article. I guess you could state the period in which it was accurate and that would fix that problem. It is also true no stats are inclusive of everyone, and sampling error is pretty common. I dont think I can add more than this as I have not monitored the issues heavily enough to offer more.--Inayity (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I'm not suggesting that the IPPR source is representative of the present. I'm suggesting that it be discussed in the past tense, as per Inayity's suggestion above. May I suggest the following wording?

"In the mid 2000s, research showed completed education within the Somali community to be low. For instance, in 2005 the Institute for Public Policy Research published analysis of Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04, and found that, of Somali-born immigrants who had arrived between 1990 and 2004 (who made up 761 of 812 Somali-born people in the sample), 50.1 per cent had no qualification and 2.8 per cent had higher qualifications". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Inayity wrote that such outdated data is statistically problematic. It is also contradicted by the contemporaneous Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, which indicates that: "In general the Somali community are highly educated. Approximately half had completed secondary education and a further fifth of those interviewed had completed university. Most Somalis had attended education or training courses in the UK and over half had done a course at FE or HE level. Most Somali women had accessed education or training in the UK." At any rate, WP:SCHOLARSHIP discourages outdated or controversial material ("some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field[...] try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That report is only making reference to London and is based on a smaller sample size, though. Moreover, there's a difference between scholarly material being outdated (e.g. claiming the earth is flat) and it being about a previous time period. I still haven't seen a good reason why this article can only include material on the present situation of Somalis in the UK, and not give a historical picture. Actually, I did include the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report in my edits alongside the IPPR one, but you removed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report's summary of each community on page 23 actually pertains to Somalis in the UK as a whole. The report directly contradicts the other contemporaneous paper's claims, and both are in any event outdated per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They'd be outdated if we were using them to describe the current situation. What's wrong with using them to describe the situation a decade ago? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we're dealing with actual people here and their purported qualifications. WP:SCHOLARSHIP also applies to such outdated, conflicting material in general; it's stated right there. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how I understand that policy. As far as I understand, scholarly material is outdated when it is proven to be false, not when it simply refers to a past time period. Also, I'm yet to be convinced that BLP applies here. Anyway, let's wait for outside opinions since we're having difficulty agreeing on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated means its old and doesn't reflect the present situation. A decade worth of new arrivals will do that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, the article shouldn't discuss the history of Somali migration to the UK. As long as it's clear that the statistics are historical, I don't understand the problem. The article needn't only be about "the present situation". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information. Information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it. It requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current. We cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. I would actually go further and say that even if more recent information is available, it is still acceptable to include older data (as long as the more recent data is cited too), because it might be of historical interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, depending on context that could be the case. Especially if what is being described is a demographic progression or similarly.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, outdated means it has been superceded by more recent data. The stats weren't even necessarily accurate a decade ago. Another contemporaneous (not contemporary) example: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that the experience of other Muslim groups – particularly recent migrants like the Kosovars, Somalis and Afghans – is often not dissimilar, though Muslims of Indian (and East African) origin tend to have a higher socio-economic profile and higher levels of educational achievement" [8]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think statistical evidence can ever be superceded by anecdotal evidence. Though anecdotal evidence can supplement, critique and nuance statistical evidence. In this particular case I don't see exactly the relevance of the passage you quote?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, nor do I, particularly since the quote is about children, whereas the IPPR data is about the education levels of the Somali-born population of the UK as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just found data on the qualifications of Somali-born working-age adults in London in the 2001 census (table 5 here). It shows that the Somali-born group had the lowest percentage of people with higher level qualifications of all groups. That broadly fits with the picture suggested by the IPPR analysis of the Labour Force Survey. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, though; nor is it consistent with that small sample 2010 study (the one that asserted that Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first generation immigrant parents). The anecdotal evidence, though admittedly not statistical, likewise suggests otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but they had very small sample sizes compared to the number of people completing the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's also a good decade older than one of the other papers. Middayexpress (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. As stated many times above, I don't want to present it as current. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. WP:SCHOLARSHIP clearly discourages outdated material, which has just been defined as material that has been superceded by more recent information. In this instance, superceded by a good decade. Middayexpress (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have not shown that it has been superseded at all, sinc eyou havent presented any comparable data of a newer date.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see the thread below on the newer 2010 Strand study that Larry first linked to. The contradictory material is in it on page 141. Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also see my comments on why that data is not comparable to the IPPR data. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And please see my note below on the contemporaneous study exclusively on these qualifications, which is indeed not comparable with the IPPR's interpreted data [9]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were what it meant, we would have to delete the data in the table on asylum applications for the years before 2013, because it's been superseded by more recent information. We don't do that, because it's of interest to understand the historical situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion. This dispute isn't a great candidate for a third opinion, which is meant for disagreements where only two editors have participated. But since I've already read through everything, I'll give my two cents. Relying on 2001 census data isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean we should uncritically accept the 2002 study, which is just as dated and only studied Somali migrants in four boroughs in North London. If we want to mention it, we must (1) mention its year as we would do for any data, (2) describe its geographic limitations, (3) avoid it dominating the section like it does now, and (4) present it as subordinate, not equivalent, to the 2001 census data.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I asked for a third opinion inappropriately. Actually, User:Maunus contributed after I requested a third opinion, but I see that there were actually a couple of other contributors before then (although the vast majority of the discussion has been between me and Middayexpress). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the 2005 IPPR study, which is based on the Labour Force Survey? That's the biggest sample-size study we have for the whole country, as the census data is only for London. Also, any thoughts on use of the Economist article? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, no worries! If I had noticed that Maunus posted after the request was made, I wouldn't have even mentioned it. The IPPR report seems like a very strong source, and the Economist article also seems useful. Both seem stronger than the 2002 study, although it may still make sense to include a few points from that one in the proper context—I can't access the full text so I can't say for sure.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusion is my fault, I actually came here because I saw it ad WP:3O I just didnt remove it from the listing since I thought more participation would be better still.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Neil, the 2005 IPPR report is contradicted by a newer 2010 study that Larry himself linked to. The Economist editorial he links to above likewise does not identify from where it culled its purported nationwide education figure. By contrast, the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no such nationwide statistics are in fact available, nor is the size of the student population indeed even known [10]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I check what source the 2010 one is, Middayexpress? There's quite a few sources being discussed here and I can't remember which one that is just by the year. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the small sample Strand study I mentioned above and to which you responded that the census, though a good decade older, had way more respondents. Middayexpress (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue there is that those two sources are about different things. The 2005 IPPR analysis of the LFS presents data on the proportion of Somalis in the UK who have each level of qualification, from none up to higher degree level, as does the London census source. The 2010 Strand study is about the GSCE results of Somali pupils in British schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual passage from the Strand study that I'm alluding to is the one that indicates that the sampled Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first-generation parents. That, like the 2002 Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, indeed directly contradicts the 2005 IPPR paper's claims. Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a contradiction. Just because Somali parents are better educated than some other groups, doesn't mean that Somalis as a whole have a high level of education. Firstly, not all Somalis are parents, and secondly it might be the case that the groups they're being compared to also have low levels of qualifications. If you want to provide a page number, I could look at the passage in more detail? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on page 141. And yes, it obviously is a contradiction because the 2005 IPPR paper claimed they had the lowest education levels among immigrants. Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPPR study says that Somalis had the lowest level of qualifications amongst immigrants who had arrived in the past 10 years, not amongst all immigrants, so it's not a contradiction. The lower-qualified amongst the other groups may well have been in the UK longer. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2005 IPPR paper claims that the education levels among the new Somali-born immigrants were the lowest of the countries compared. That is indeed a direct contradiction since the 2010 paper indicates that the sampled Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first-generation parents, including both the recent and more established immigrants. Middayexpress (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the Somalis who were surveyed in the 2010 paper aren't all newly arrived according to the definition that the IPPR study employs. The IPPR study indicates that longer established Somali immigrants have higher levels of qualifications. Also, not all Somalis are parents, and the 2010 paper is discussing parents only on p. 141. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What definition does the 2005 IPPR study employ for its "newly arrived"? It appears to allude to new Somali-born immigrants and adult qualifications like the 2010 report. Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's people who arrived from Somalia between 1990 and 2004. I've just realised that the 2010 source isn't actually talking about Somali parents, but Somali parents of current school pupils. That's an even smaller subset, which further explains the discrepancy with the IPPR figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition of "newly arrived" doesn't sound much different from that of the 2010 report. At any rate, like the contemporaneous Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, a 2002 study by Goldsmith's College similarly indicates high levels of educational qualifications for Somali immigrants during the period. The study exclusively aimed to obtain a profile of the professional capacity of Somali nationals living in the UK. In conjunction with 26 Somali community organizations, the researchers interviewed respondents in seven different cities across Britain, and found that: "59% had a qualification from the Somali region, and 9.5% from outside Britain or the Somali regions. 11.5% had a degree or higher degree from the Somali regions compared to 3.5% from beyond Britain and the Somali regions. Since being in Britain, 14% had gained a degree and 12.5% were studying for a degree." The study also notes that "despite considerable skills and experience brought to Britain through previous employment, 'occupational downgrading' and 'segregation' was prevalent amongst respondents". It seems that this lack of recognition of prior qualifications gained in the Somali region may be why the 2005 IPPR's educational qualification figures are lower. The study concludes that: "the research found that the respondents were highly skilled and educated, often having achieved a large amount of employment experience" [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that different, no, but it is looking at the whole of the UK unlike the Africa Education Trust report, and includes a much larger set of Somalis than just parents of current schoolchildren, which is what the 2010 report focuses on. The Goldsmiths report sounds interesting. We could include data from that alongside the LFS data from the IPPR report. I'll have a read. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the Goldsmiths report (which was in part commissioned by the IOM), the IPPR paper isn't exclusively on Somali qualifications, nor were community organizations involved in its formulation. It's apparently just the authors interpreting other, already published data. Middayexpress (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2005 report contains IPPR's original analysis of raw Labour Force Survey data, which isn't published as such. It's available to download as a dataset, but then it needs to be analysed using statistical software to produce the kind of analysis that IPPR did. It's worth noting that the LFS is the largest household survey undertaken in the UK, is used to generate official government employment and unemployment data, etc. It's conducted to Eurostat standards and is generally a very highly regarded source of data. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is what I just wrote. The IPPR authors published their own original interpretation of other, already published data. They're not simply relaying government figures. Middayexpress (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not already published in any form that can be understood by a human without the use of statistical analysis tools. The dataset is just a massive file full of coding. In order to produce the kind of statistics that the IPPR did, they have to analyse that primary raw data, which is a skilled job and requires, amongst other things, the analyst to weight the data to make it representative, decide on the definitions that will be used, etc. The government hasn't published the figures that the IPPR have. They made the dataset available, which enabled the calculation of the figures, but they didn't publish the findings on the qualifications of Somalis. This guide will give you some idea of the work involved in calculating these figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate this with an example, I doubt very much that the British government publishes statistics on the average number of children that Austrian-born people living in Liverpool have. However, by downloading a LFS dataset and doing some analysis using Stata, I could generate those statistics. That doesn't mean that I'm interpreting already published data. I would be analyzing primary data collected by the government but not published in that form. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But regardless of that side issue, the fact remains that the Labour Force Survey is pretty much the best nationally representative survey that exists in the UK, which is why it is used for so much social scientific research. Analysis produced using it is a very good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, if one of your objections to use of the 2005 IPPR source is that it's old, can I ask why you yourself replaced it in the article with an even older source, from 2002? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That was of course from before when I was aware of what WP:SCHOLARSHIP actually indicates on scholarly material that is "outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field". Hence, why I later replaced both with newer data. At any rate, the IPPR is not relaying government figures; it is indeed producing its own analysis based on publicly available raw data. You could probably do the same with that raw data, but that wouldn't make either of your interpretations necessarily accurate. By contrast, the Goldsmith researchers directly profiled Somali respondents, so there was no interpretation required on their part. Additionally, their study is exclusively on the professional qualifications of Somali nationals; that was its sole purpose. It was also facilitated by many Somali community organizations, and in part commissioned by the International Organization for Migration [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think our understanding of how the IPPR produced the analysis is now on the same page. Sure, they could have conducted the analysis inaccurately, but is there any evidence that they did? Has their methodology been criticised in other, reliable sources, for instance? There are potentials for inaccuracy in the Goldsmiths source too - for example sampling bias (e.g. the fact that community organisations facilitated it might mean that those Somalis with close ties to those organisations were selected to be part of the sample over other Somalis not known to the organisations). At least the LFS is statistically representative. That said, there is no reason why we can't use both the IPPR and Goldsmiths studies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Labour Force Survey didn't actually produce those figures; the IPPR authors did based on their own analysis of the Labour Force Survey's raw data. How broad the Labour Force Survey's sample is thus doesn't make the IPPR's analysis any less of a methodologically obscure interpretation. On the other hand, the Goldsmiths report directly profiled actual Somali respondents. It also notes therein several measures that the researchers put in place specifically to avoid any sampling bias. I don't think either paper should be used, as they are over a decade old and don't reflect the current situation and they are in competition with each other. I just linked to the Goldsmiths paper to show you that even at that time, the IPPR paper's interpreted figures were not necessarily accurate at all. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the same as all research using the LFS. The data is made available to researchers who then analyse it and publish the results. There were many actual Somali respondents in the LFS sample. Can you explain in what way the IPPR analysis is "methodologically obscure"? You seem to be suggesting that there are faults with their analysis, but haven't actually specified what these faults are. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the sources coming to alternative conclusions, I quote WP:VERIFY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that the IPPR itself already explained the discrepancy between its own earlier Labour Force Survey-derived tabulations and the actual, higher educational qualifications of its Somali immigrants. It has to do with the LFS' own questions. From the IPPR:

"The LFS includes questions on qualifications based on equivalent National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) levels, but using these variables to assess the qualification levels of immigrants is problematic since, due to difficulties assessing the UK equivalent of overseas qualifications, foreign qualifications tend to be characterised under a general ‘other qualifications’ heading. As Manacorda et al (2006) note, when native-born respondents report holding ‘other qualifications’, this is generally indicative of very low-level qualifications, whereas when immigrants’ qualifications are classified in this group they are often of a much higher level. This results in the qualification levels of immigrants being under-estimated. In order to avoid this problem, we have used the measure preferred by Dustmann et al (2007): the average age at which each of our groups left full-time education."

The IPPR itself thus instead now uses, and recommends using, the age when the immigrants completed full-time education as a more accurate indication of their general educational levels. It indicates this on its Table 5.4; for Somalia nationals, that age is 17.5. This, then, would be the actual measure to go by [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although the IPPR study doesn't report a high proportion of Somalis reporting "other qualifications". Many answered the LFS question with "no qualifications". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right, it doesn't. The IPPR indicates that foreign qualifications tend to be characterised on the LFS under a general 'other qualifications' heading. And it's this 'other qualifications' heading that is subsequently misinterpreted because for native-born residents, holding 'other qualifications" usually means that they hold very lower-level qualifications. This is then wrongly assumed for foreigners as well (especially those with unrecognized degrees), the end result being that they are registered as having no qualifications. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that doesn't really prove to be a problem here, because the IPPR analysis isn't reporting many Somalis in that "other" group. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good find. I'm not sure we can imply that that explains the discrepancy (I think stating that in the article would be OR, because there are other possible explanations), and average age of leaving education is measuring something different from the percentage of a group who has each level of qualifications, but I'd support using that source in the article. Given your previous objection to "outdated" sources and that it's from 2007, would you object to that? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is from the IPPR's 2007 report i.e. published after its 2005 paper. Maunus wrote that "outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information[...] information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it[...] it requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current[...] we cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current." That is precisely what has just been demonstrated. The IPPR itself indicates that using the LFS' National Vocational Qualification levels -- as it previously did in its 2005 paper -- is problematic, as doing so underestimates the immigrants' actual qualifications, which "are often of a much higher level". Consequently, the IPPR has abandoned its own earlier methodology for the age when the immigrants completed full-time education. This would thus be the actual measure to go by. Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that it supersedes it as such, as it's a different measure (an average versus a percentage breakdown of qualifications). One could leave school education at 18 with no qualifications in theory, I suppose. The "are often of a much higher level" point applies to the "other qualifications" category, but that's not what I was proposing we include - it was the proportion who answered that they had no qualifications. I'm also a bit baffled that you were claiming that 2005 was too old but that 2007 is OK. Nevertheless, I agree that this is worth adding to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

2007 is old as well, but Maunus wrote that such material is still relevant if it hasn't been superceded by anything. This is apparently why you insisted on that 89.3% figure from 2001 for the number of Muslim adherents. At any rate, the IPPR's 2005 methodology is indeed different from its more recent 2007 methodology, and specifically because it scrapped that earlier methodology due to its inaccuracy for a newer one. It's written right there, so I'm not sure what's difficult to understand. Ergo, the IPPR's age when the immigrants completed full-time education would be the actual measure to go by. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you want to use the 2007 figures. I just don't understand why you thought a 2005 source had been superseded days ago, when you've only just found this 2007 source that you say supersedes it. But anyway, we don't need to agree on that I suppose. Do you want to add it to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me who indicates that the IPPR's 2007 methodology supercedes its own, earlier 2005 methodology; it's the IPPR itself. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: I think I've found some data on GCSE results that you might like. It's from 2012, covers the whole of England (sadly not the whole UK) and is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I'm just reading the article now. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Kindly link to it. I'd like to have a look at it and see if it's official and consistent with the Tower Hamlets local authority's GCSE scores. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how you'd assess that "consistency". It's an average for the whole country, so it probably won't be the same as Tower Hamlets. Anyway, here it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Who calculated the average and what is it, if I may ask? Middayexpress (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the author works for our friends at the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit, as it happens (I've only just noticed that!). I'm not sure yet whether he has calculated the average himself or whether he's just reporting an average from the government statistics - I'm still reading it. Either way though, the source is pretty much the best there is. As WP:RS says: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". As we've established, there's no complete ethnicity data for GCSE results available, because not all local authorities use the detailed ethnicity codes, but the article takes an alternative approach. It uses home language instead of ethnicity, which is apparently recorded by all schools in England. Of course, we'd have to note that it's based on language, not ethnicity (or country of birth, etc.). Does that sound OK to you? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed her name; she is indeed with the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit. The paper's methodology sounds interesting. I'd like if possible to read it first. I think I may be able to access a copy by tomorrow, so we'll discuss it then. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

His, I think. ;-) Here's another useful source. I should have done more searching on Google Scholar before! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to draft something to add to the article here on the talk page tomorrow, depending on how busy I am, to get feedback before hopefully being able to improve that education section. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What again was the GCSE in that 2014 LRSU paper? Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the journal article? I hope you agree that we should be selecting the source on how reliable it is, not whether we like the figure it provides or not! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two different topics being discussed here: the level of education held by Somalis in the UK (this is what the debate about the 2005 IPPR source relates to) and the performance of Somali pupils in British schools. Now that we're making some progress with the discussion, let's separate these two things out with subheadings. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Level of education of Somali population in the UK

There are two IPPR studies based on analysis of the Labour Force Survey that give us data on this. One, from 2005, looks at the proportion of Somali-born people who have each level of qualification (subject to caveats about the difficulties of classifying foreign qualifications) and the other, from 2007, gives an average education leaving age. I think we have everyone's agreement to use the latter one in this article. Middayexpress objects to use of the first one, but perhaps we can park that issue for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me who indicates that the IPPR's 2007 methodology supercedes its own, earlier 2005 methodology; it's the IPPR itself, as shown above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they note some caveats about their previous figures. However, they clearly still think the qualifications breakdown is of value, because they return to using it in subsequent research such as this from 2008. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, please post a quote or screenshot from that closed access paper demonstrating this. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I will do, but my copy is at work, so it will have to wait until next week. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BURDEN says nothing about me having to provide a quote or screenshot, but that the burden "is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Anyway, I'm happy to go above and beyond. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good, because that verifiability policy indeed stipulates this ("When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy"). Please oblige. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, except I haven't actually proposed a piece of text based on that source yet. I will do when I have it to hand though, and will happily provide you with quotes to support it as you see fit. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. I asked you to prove your claim above that the IPPR returned to using its abandoned 2005 methology in its subsequent 2008 paper. Per WP:BURDEN, please provide direct quotes or a screenshot to that effect. Otherwise, the claim has no substance. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Since it's hard to quote a chart (although I suppose I could quote the figures from it), a photo would probably be easiest. Does anyone know what the copyright situation is there? Am I OK to post a photo of the page of a copyrighted publication? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's possibly a copyright problem. No worries; I can acess the paper myself. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, getting back to this, I propose that we include information on the education level of the Somali adult population in the UK based on two sources: average leaving age from this 2007 report and level of qualifications from this 2008 report. Both need to be caveated: the average leaving age with the fact that it's not necessarily an indication of qualification achieved, and the qualification levels with the fact that some foreign qualifications are hard to categorise using the Labour Force Survey categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the 2007 IPPR report doesn't indicate that the school leaving age is not necessarily an indication of qualification achieved. It asserts the opposite i.e. that this is a more reliable gauge of the educational levels of immigrants. In its 2008 paper, it writes that "Bangladesh-born and Somalia-born populations were most likely to have no qualifications at all and least likely to possess qualifications at Level Three and above (A-level equivalent)." However, as can be seen, this is based on the same National Vocational Qualification levels that it indicates are problematic for immigrants since it is often difficult to ascertain equivalent UK qualifications for degrees that they earned abroad. Something like the following would thus be more accurate:

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Labour Force Survey relies on questions on educational qualifications that are predicated on equivalent National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) levels. This is problematic for immigrants since it is often difficult to ascertain equivalent UK qualifications for degrees that they earned abroad. Consequently, alongside some local qualifications, foreign degrees tend to be processed as 'other qualifications'. For native-born respondents this generic variable implies very low-level qualifications, while conversely the 'other qualifications' of immigrants are often of a much higher level. The actual qualification levels of immigrants are thus underestimated using this method. A more accurate assessment of the educational levels of immigrants is the average age at which immigrants left full-time education, or their school leaving age. For immigrants to the UK that were born in Somalia, this average leaving age was 17.5 years for 2005/2006. Middayexpress (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Average leaving age is an imperfect measure of educational achievement. In some countries pupils are required to repeat years if they fail to pass exams. They could stay at school to 18 and never gain a qualification. The question in the labour force survey is also imperfect. BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPPR aren't suggesting that leaving age is more accurate as such, but rather presenting it as an alternative measure (it doesn't actually measure the same thing). They return to using qualification levels in a subsequent report, which is why I'm suggesting that we present both. The latter should of course be caveated with the points you make about about the classification of foreign qualifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, kindly refrain from adding controversial material without prior discussion and consensus. That said, here is what the IPPR 2007 paper actually indicates: "The LFS includes questions on qualifications based on equivalent National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) levels, but using these variables to assess the qualification levels of immigrants is problematic since, due to difficulties assessing the UK equivalent of overseas qualifications, foreign qualifications tend to be characterised under a general ‘other qualifications’ heading. As Manacorda et al (2006) note, when native-born respondents report holding ‘other qualifications’, this is generally indicative of very low-level qualifications, whereas when immigrants’ qualifications are classified in this group they are often of a much higher level. This results in the qualification levels of immigrants being under-estimated. In order to avoid this problem, we have used the measure preferred by Dustmann et al (2007): the average age at which each of our groups left full-time education."". Middayexpress (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't added this material from the LFS yet. Yes, the 2008 report includes a similar disclaimer, but they don't judge the problem to be so severe that they don't report the data. I'm suggesting that we include it, with the caveat. Actually, the issue is about foreign qualifications being classified as "other". As a starting point, we could report the proportion of Somali-born population holding no qualifications, since this avoids the "other qualifications" problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the following text to the article, but it was reverted as "dubious". I'm not sure why - it was suitably referenced to a reliable source.

According to a 2008 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, most early Somali labour migrants to the UK were literate in English or Arabic, but only a small minority had completed secondary education. When refugee movements started to increase from 1988 onwards, a greater proportion of the refugees had completed secondary education than previous Somalis migrants, and some held university degrees. The report notes that the educational profile of Somali migrants arriving in the UK has changed again since the arrival of this early wave of refugees. Many educational institutions in Somalia have been destroyed by the war and while some have reopened, many young Somali migrants will not have had the chance to attend university and "are likely to have had a very interrupted education or none at all".

Any comments on this and why it can't be added to the article? It provides useful context to the education section, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Here again is why: Per WP:BRD, kindly refrain from adding controversial material without prior discussion and consensus. That said, Rutter's assertion that Somalis allegedly had "no qualifications" is indeed dubious. As already shown, like the contemporaneous Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, a 2002 study by Goldsmith's College similarly indicates high levels of educational qualifications for Somali immigrants during the period. The study exclusively aimed to obtain a profile of the professional capacity of Somali nationals living in the UK. In conjunction with 26 Somali community organizations, the researchers interviewed respondents in seven different cities across Britain, and found that:

"59% had a qualification from the Somali region, and 9.5% from outside Britain or the Somali regions. 11.5% had a degree or higher degree from the Somali regions compared to 3.5% from beyond Britain and the Somali regions. Since being in Britain, 14% had gained a degree and 12.5% were studying for a degree."

The study also notes that "despite considerable skills and experience brought to Britain through previous employment, 'occupational downgrading' and 'segregation' was prevalent amongst respondents". It concludes that: "the research found that the respondents were highly skilled and educated, often having achieved a large amount of employment experience" [14]. Thus, as the 2007 IPPR paper explains, the LFS-derived assessment is indeed underestimating the actual qualification levels of the immigrants. Middayexpress (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph I added from the Rutter et al. source isn't based on the LFS. I don't really see it as controversial. She doesn't claim that Somalis have "no qualifications". She says young Somali migrants "are likely to have had a very interrupted education or none at all". Yes, you've found another study that comes to different conclusions. That doesn't automatically override Rutter's analysis. It's older, for a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the same paper that claims that "Bangladesh-born and Somalia-born populations were most likely to have no qualifications at all and least likely to possess qualifications at Level Three and above (A-level equivalent)" (I have access to it). This is indeed derived from the LFS. So everything else on the purported educational levels of Somali immigrants in that paragraph by default revolves around this dubious claim. The info should instead be sourced to the Lambeth local authority paper, which is more factual and official. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Their LFS analysis doesn't differentiate between early and later arrivals. The report draws on other sources of information as well as the LFS - a literature review and focus groups with Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote, I have access to the paper. The only thing it claims with regard to the actual educational levels of Somalis is the phrase above on the A-level equivalent; it's on page 4. Middayexpress (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that you have access to the executive summary, which is online, but not the whole book, which isn't online? Also, the Lambeth report is about a different issue. It's on the performance of Somali pupils in British schools, whereas the IPPR report is about the education level of working-age Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The executive summary summarizes the book, and it clearly uses LFS-derived equivalent qualifications. The actual paragraph above is also on prior educational levels of Somali immigrants, which the comprehensive Lambeth local authority paper in part touches on, but more factually. It is also official [[15]]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you haven't got access to the whole book, you won't have seen this passage, which I based the above suggested text on: "Although the early Somali labour migrants were usually literate in Arabic or English, few had completed secondary education. The educational profile of the Somali community changed in 1988, as a greater proportion of the first refugees had completed secondary education, with some holding university degrees. Since then, the educational profile of this community has again changed. The war in Somalia has gravely affected all education. In the north - now the Republic of Somaliland - most urban schools, as well as higher education institutions were destroyed in 1988. In southern Somalia, education has been completely destroyed by the fighting. Some schools have now reopened, often funded by non-governmental organisations. However, younger Somalis who have come directly from Somalia will not have attended university and are likely to have had a very interrupted education or none at all". I think I have paraphrased it accurately. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's as I thought. The only thing it claims with regard to the actual educational levels of Somalis is the phrase from the executive summary on the A-level equivalent. It is interesting, though, how it describes Somaliland -- which is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia -- as a "republic". There's thus possibly a political pov as well. Funny how that A-level blurb also completely contradicts the actual study by Goldsmiths on the qualifications of Somali immigrants [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you did a good job paraphrasing Rutter, Larry. She is one of the main experts on Somali education in Britain and this would be good context for the education section. I don't understand Middayexpress' objection about 'actual educational levels'. It doesn't include stats if that is what you mean, but it is still good material. BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable how this newly registered account just so happens to agree with Larry in his absence [17]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know; people have agreed with me before and I wouldn't be surprised if they did so again! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

A request was made at the third opinion noticeboard for a third opinion on sources about the level of education of Somalis in the United Kingdom. The threaded discussion is lengthy, and I haven't read through all of the comments, let alone browsed the sources. Can the two editors, User:Middayexpress and User:Cordless Larry, please each summarize concisely (in one paragraph each) what they are asking? I'd like to help, but the comments are too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure - thanks for offering to help. I'm suggesting that we make a couple of additions. First, I propose that we include information on the education level of the Somali adult population in the UK based on two sources: average leaving age from this 2007 report and level of qualifications from this 2008 report. The qualification levels need to be caveated with the fact that some foreign qualifications are hard to categorise using the Labour Force Survey categories, as stated in the source.

Second, I propose adding the following paragraph: "According to a 2008 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, most early Somali labour migrants to the UK were literate in English or Arabic, but only a small minority had completed secondary education. When refugee movements started to increase from 1988 onwards, a greater proportion of the refugees had completed secondary education than previous Somalis migrants, and some held university degrees. The report notes that the educational profile of Somali migrants arriving in the UK has changed again since the arrival of this early wave of refugees. Many educational institutions in Somalia have been destroyed by the war and while some have reopened, many young Somali migrants will not have had the chance to attend university and "are likely to have had a very interrupted education or none at all"".

I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

As explained above, the only thing the 2008 paper claims with regard to the actual educational levels of Somalis is the following phrase: "Bangladesh-born and Somalia-born populations were most likely to have no qualifications at all and least likely to possess qualifications at Level Three and above (A-level equivalent)". However, this blurb is contradicted by another 2007 report by the same IPPR, which indicates that such LFS-derived educational estimates are inaccurate, as they underestimate the actual qualifications of immigrants [18]:

"The LFS includes questions on qualifications based on equivalent National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) levels, but using these variables to assess the qualification levels of immigrants is problematic since, due to difficulties assessing the UK equivalent of overseas qualifications, foreign qualifications tend to be characterised under a general ‘other qualifications’ heading. As Manacorda et al (2006) note, when native-born respondents report holding ‘other qualifications’, this is generally indicative of very low-level qualifications, whereas when immigrants’ qualifications are classified in this group they are often of a much higher level. This results in the qualification levels of immigrants being under-estimated. In order to avoid this problem, we have used the measure preferred by Dustmann et al (2007): the average age at which each of our groups left full-time education."

Similarly, a 2002 study by Goldsmith's College similarly indicates high levels of educational qualifications for Somali immigrants during the period. The study exclusively aimed to obtain a profile of the professional capacity of Somali nationals living in the UK. In conjunction with 26 Somali community organizations, the researchers interviewed respondents in seven different cities across Britain, and found that:

"59% had a qualification from the Somali region, and 9.5% from outside Britain or the Somali regions. 11.5% had a degree or higher degree from the Somali regions compared to 3.5% from beyond Britain and the Somali regions. Since being in Britain, 14% had gained a degree and 12.5% were studying for a degree."

The study also notes that "despite considerable skills and experience brought to Britain through previous employment, 'occupational downgrading' and 'segregation' was prevalent amongst respondents". It concludes that: "the research found that the respondents were highly skilled and educated, often having achieved a large amount of employment experience" [19]. Thus, as the 2007 IPPR paper explains, the LFS-derived assessment is indeed underestimating the actual qualification levels of the immigrants. So everything else on the purported educational levels of Somali immigrants in that paragraph by default revolves around this dubious claim. The info should instead therefore be sourced to the Lambeth local authority, which is more factual and official [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to pass on this issue. I don't entirely understand the issue, and neither of the summaries is short enough to get the point across to me. Maybe you need someone else's third opinion. Thank you for trying a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for your time. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Somali pupils

Right, I said I'd come up with some suggested text for the article based on the new source that I found. Here goes:

No reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom. Central government does not collect educational attainment data for specific migrant groups. Individual schools and local authorities can collect data using extended ethnicity codes, which provide a higher level of detail than the standard classification used in the UK. However, this is not the case in all local authority areas, including some ethnically diverse ones. As Rutter states, "It should be noted that the central government is extremely reticent to carry out a national analysis of educational outcomes by extended ethnicity codes, and spending cuts mean that fewer local authorities are now undertaking such analysis". However, Demie adopts an alternative approach to understanding the educational attainment of minority groups. He notes that while nationwide data by ethnicity is not available, since 2007 local authorities have been required by government to collect data on the main language spoken in the home of pupils, where that language is not English. He presents data from the National Pupil Database on pupils in schools in England who completed their GCSEs in the summer of 2012. Amongst the 2,748 pupils categorised as Black African whose home language was recorded as Somali, 47 per cent achieved five or more GCSEs including in maths and English at grades A* to C. This compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils and an overall average for pupils in England of 59 per cent.

References

There's more information in that source that we could usefully use as background material for the article, but I thought I'd stick to the above for now. We can expand the section further if there is agreement on adding this text. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I have no issue with the above text, I think it is suitable to be addedNograviti (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Larry, I've not managed to access all citations. The second half of the paragraph reads very well, however, I think there should be much less commentary on the trials and tribulations of data supply which currently occupies the first half of the paragraph, particularly as well because it distracts the reader from getting to the meat of the paragragh. It would be enough to say there are problems and limitations reported by commentators on accessing nationally-based data but useful (or sound) data based on 'pupil database returns' which are standardised across LA's is available. I do think there is more valuable information on the rise of achievement of the Somali community over the last 10 years or so and on barriers to achievement refered to in reference 1 which could be included in the section, particularly as by far the substantial majority of Somali's live in London where the study was undertaken. Tmol42 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tmol42. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this be the totality of the section. I agree that we should make use of the material on London as well. That's already in the article, hence why I was focusing on this part for now, but we need to think about how they fit together as I've used some material already in the article in the passage above. I sort of agree about the data supply discussion, but also feel that it is necessary to explain why the data is about language groups rather than ethnic groups per se. Any suggestions on how that could be explained more briefly would be gratefully received. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The passage could certainly be condensed to focus on the main figures. Also I think we are all in agreement here that the intention is not portray Somali academic attainment in the UK negatively, but merely provide accurate national figures and show improvements in average attainment where possible.Nograviti (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to show how things have changed over time. Middayexpress has been opposed to using historical statistics (which are obviously required if we want to demonstrate trends over time) if there are more recent figures available, but perhaps he will reconsider? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence starting "As Rutter states..." could be shunted to a footnote? That would help us get to the data more quickly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what WP:SCHOLARSHIP indicates. On this point, Maunus wrote that "outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information[...] information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it[...] it requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current[...] we cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current." Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying that you agree we can use old figures to compare with newer ones to demonstrate how Somali pupils' performance has improved, or that you don't think we should do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying the same thing as the post above from 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you not just answer my question? Do you think we should show how Somali pupils' performance has improved over time or not? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did answer that: Maunus wrote that such material is still relevant if it hasn't been superceded by anything. This is apparently why you insisted on that 89.3% figure from 2001 for the number of Muslim adherents. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't specifically address whether new and old data can be compared. Anyway, they obviously can be, as is pointed out by another editor below, so it's fine to demonstrate how the performance of Somali pupils has improved over time. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's okay if the paper itself does that and its figures are accurate and representative. However, if a Wikipedian tries to string together different sources to create a new narrative of his/her own, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. That's what I was after. What I had in mind was this article, which mentions that in Lambeth the proportion of Somali pupils getting five good GCSEs rose from 11 per cent to 61 per cent from 2007 to 2012. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is inadequate. It should be sourced to the official Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit report, which, unsurprisingly, has a different structure [21]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we could use that source. I don't know what policy says that it's preferable to the Economist in this instance, but I'm happy to use it. My only concern would be that people might question why we've singled out Lambeth (could be seen as OR), whereas if we cite the Economist then we can point to their choice of example. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Economist journalist again cites original research, which he/she falsely attributes to the Lambeth local authority. The fact remains that the local authority does not use the scheme claimed in that link, but instead a different one as can be seen on its relevant Table 4. Even if this had been accurately rendered, "available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The only difference is between 11 and 10 per cent for 2007 (a rounding mistake?), but I'm happy to go with the Lambeth source (although I remain concerned that someone might question why we've chosen Lambeth as opposed to any other LA, but let's see). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not the only difference between them. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Care to explain the others? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The columns, for one. Middayexpress (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Economist presents the information in text form: "In Lambeth, a borough of London, 61% of Somali pupils got five good GCSEs last year, up from 11% in 2007". The Lambeth report includes it in a table, with the columns representing the different years from 2006 to 2012. So? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not all the journalist writes. He embellishes the first column, much like the other one. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it's other aspects of the article you don't like. I was only suggesting using it for that quote. As I said though, I'm happy to use the Lambeth source, especially since the Economist seems to have got the 2007 figure wrong by 1 percentage point (assuming the Lambeth source is correct, which seems reasonable). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of liking, but of mislabeling and inaccuracy. Middayexpress (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, the paragraph above is unsatisfactory. First, that no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom should be sourced to an official governmental body; in this instance, to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit ("No reliable national Somali data is available or collected by DCSF" [22]). Second, Rutter's discussion of various ethnicity codes is not on why there are no reliable nationwide statistics available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils, but instead "about integration". As such, it is irrelevant here. Lastly, Demie does not use a racial approach in his paper, but rather a linguistic one. What he writes is that "Somali and Lingala speakers tend to have very low attainment compared to other groups", and provides a 47% GCSE for Somali students. In his more comprehensive 2008 paper exclusively on Somali students, he likewise distinguishes the Somali pupils from the "Black African" students. Demie explains that [23]:

"The issue of Somali underachievement is complicated by the problem with categorisation of ‘Somali’ which is broadly defined nationally as African. As a result of the lack of data there were various limitations in past research into Somali underachievement in British schools. The absence of national comparative data which identifies patterns of children of Somali origins, places serious constraints on effecting targeting policy and practice developments at national and local level. However, recently a number of London Local Authorities with high Somali school populations began monitoring and collecting data which has provided an interesting example in research evidence."

The Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit assertion above on Somali pupils should therefore instead be noted in place of the Rutter synthesis. Attempted racial categorization is also inappropriate for this population, as the IPPR explains: "Ethnic categories such as ‘black African’ fail to capture the differences between those born in countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kenya and Somalia[...] Comparing ethnic groups with country-of-birth groups is also problematic because some countries’ populations may contain multiple ethnic groups" [24]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it quite difficult to follow your argument there. You say that the point about no nationwide figures being available should be sourced to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit. If you read the references, you'll see that that's exactly what I've done (although it isn't a requirement of WP:RS that the source be government). The point about the "Black African" category failing to differentiate between Somalis, Nigerians, etc. is exactly why he focuses it down to Somali speakers. How many Nigerians speak Somali at home? Rutter's statement is not irrelevant; it's an explanation of why national statistics by ethnicity aren't available. There is no "attempted racial categorization"; Demie uses a linguistic categorization, as you yourself point out. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, In respone to your request @15:56 above my condensed version below. Agree a note of the context could be relegated to a footnote.

Although no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom ^[1][2] some schools and local authorities collect data using extended ethnicity codes. Additionally, since 2007 local authorities have been required by government to collect data on the main language spoken in the home of pupils, where that language is not English as part of the National Pupil Database. In the summer of 2012, of the 2,748 pupils categorised as Black African whose home language was recorded as Somali, 47 per cent achieved five or more GCSEs including in maths and English at grades A* to C. This compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils and an overall average for pupils in England of 59 per cent.^[5]

Btw I have failed to understand what is meant in all the chat coming back to you since then. is it just me or is me that finds it all totally opaque or worse?Tmol42 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy with that version. I think Midday needs to try to express his objections to using these figures more succinctly, because I don't understand the reply above either. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did in the link above (where you didn't seem to have any trouble understanding me). Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, that no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom should be sourced to an official governmental body, as it's the government that gathers this data. The Lambeth Research Statistics Unit explains that no such data is collected by the DCSF, so it should be sourced to it. Further, Rutter writes that local authorities in England analyse data using broad ethnic categories, but they can also use extended ethnicity codes. In reality, this data processing varies greatly between local authorities (e.g. Camden [25]). Her explanation as to why there is a dearth of nationwide stats on Somali students is also inconsistent with the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's official explanation (shown above). The official governmental explanation is therefore more reliable here. Additionally, there is indeed attempted racial categorization in that draft paragraph above. Demie however does not structure his paper in this way; he instead uses a linguistic scheme. That aside of his is also from his 2008 report exclusively on Somali students, where he distinguishes his Somali students from his "Black African" pupils. It's not from his 2014 paper as you appear to assume [26]. At any rate, this discussion could use some actual Somali participants; I'll see to that shortly. I'll also write Demie later on today and link him to the page. His insight would certainly be valuable, given his position as probably the authority on Somali student attainment. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be great to get Demie's input, but I wonder how Wikipedia would treat his response. If it's by e-mail, I presume that can't be used as a source as it won't be published. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I had no intention of actually citing his words; I'm sure Demie would be more than happy though to point me to publications for that. What his input will do is definitively clarify the actual state of Somali student attainment. I'm also curious as to what he makes of this discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, me too! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Argh! It is sourced to Lambeth. See reference 1! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the education section only on London. Somalis live in other place to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.249 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont really follow Middayexpress' recent objections, I think we have some consensus on sources for national data on the academic performance of Somalis. I also don't see the merit in the requirement that other Somalis should comment on this issue? Nograviti (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly not consensus for that paragraph, nor unfortunately am I the only objector [27]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps indicate (briefly) what parts of the paragraph you object to? I can't really understand your longer post above either (and as I pointed out twice, the first bit about using the Lambeth source doesn't make sense as I already do use it). Do you approve of the use of the 2014 journal article, for instance? Please feel free to suggest an alternative wording, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did in the link above (where you didn't seem to have any trouble understanding me). Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the user page link, there's lots of discussion there but it's not really clear to me whether you're arguing against my wording, or against use of the 2014 Demie source altogether. Some more clarity from you on this would be great. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the page I just linked to. I'll paste the text here if there's any further trouble understanding what is written there. Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Most Somalis live in London, so that's where the most representative data has been gathered. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Alernaive wording suggesion

A discussion (see above) has been aking place abou how o incorporae daa from [hp://www.andfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2014.946493#.VNx6mNVK1E his journal aricle] ino he educaion secion of his aricle. he source presens daa on he GSCE performance of pupils who speak Somali a home. he reason i uses his daa is because here is no naionwide daa on GCSE resuls by ehniciy a he level of deail ha allows individual ehnic groups o be idenified (so Somalis are ofen subsumed ino a bigger "African" caegory).

his is mol42's suggesed wording from above:

Alhough no reliable naionwide saisics are available on he educaional aainmen of ehnically Somali pupils in he Unied Kingdom ^[1][2] some schools and local auhoriies collec daa using exended ehniciy codes. Addiionally, since 2007 local auhoriies have been required by governmen o collec daa on he main language spoken in he home of pupils, where ha language is no English as par of he Naional Pupil Daabase. In he summer of 2012, of he 2,748 pupils caegorised as Black African whose home language was recorded as Somali, 47 per cen achieved five or more GCSEs including in mahs and English a grades A* o C. his compares o 58 per cen of all Black African pupils and an overall average for pupils in England of 59 per cen.^[5]

Middayexpress has suggesed elsewhere his alernaive wording (we would follow his wih he saisics from Demie, I presume):

According o he Lambeh Research and Saisics Uni, no reliable naionwide saisics are available on he size and educaional aainmen of Somali pupils in he Unied Kingdom. Daa on he sudens has ofen been aggregaed under a broad coninenal 'African' variable, which obscures he sudens' unique charaerisics and requiremens. his in urn inhibis argeed policy making and pracice developmens a he naional and local level. o redress his, various London Local Auhoriies, where mos Somali pupils aend school, have sared gahering and monioring daa on he Somali suden communiy.

Could we ge ediors' preferences, if hey have any, on which of hese o use, or commens for improving eiher of hem? Cordless Larry (alk) 08:05, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Sure bu I hough you offered o drop he "Black African" suff? Anyways, I recommend Middayexpress'. AcidSnow (alk) 14:23, 8 February 2015 (UC)

We could drop he second menion of "Black African" in mol42's wording, bu o drop he firs one would be o misrepresen Debie's daa. I'm happy o drop he second menion ("compares o 58 per cen of all Black African pupils"), bu I didn' include ha here because I didn' wan o mess wih mol's suggesion wihou his/her awareness. I's more he firs par of he paragraph ha I hink we need inpu on. Cordless Larry (alk) 14:29, 8 February 2015 (UC)

If I may bu in here re my redraf, I do hink he 'Black African' is relevan as i arrises as i is a subse of he Black/African/Carribean/Briish ehic group from he UK census. here are I recall also no insignifican numbers of Somalis who self-classified hemselves as Whie, or Mixed, or Asain in he resuls of he 2011 census. I am also aware ha he erm is someimes queried as o wheher i should apply o 'norh Africans'.mol42 (alk) 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Jus o explain my commen abou he danger of misrepresening Demie's daa for hose who don' have access o he aricle, he ile of he able ha he daa is from is: "able 2. GCSE performance of Black African pupils by language spoken a home". Cordless Larry (alk) 14:58, 8 February 2015 (UC)

He did, AcidSnow. Larry assered ha he wasn' ineresed in aemping o racially classifying his populaion afer we poined ou Somalis' general self-percepion, policies discouraging his (viz. WP:CAEGRS and Wikipedia:Naming convenions (ehniciies and ribes)), and acual ancesry [hp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3148.2006.00694_52.x/absrac]. He also wroe ha my suggesed alernaive wording above based on he Lambeh Research and Saisics Uni "looks good" [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]. Middayexpress (alk) 15:02, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, I don' hink here's anyhing wrong wih your wording, alhough i is a bi long. I's no for me o decide hough - we need o reach wider consensus. I hink I sill prefer mol42's wording as i is a bi shorer and leads ino he Demie saisics more naurally. Cordless Larry (alk) 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UC)

he racial phrasing in i is grauious and synhesis. Demie cerainly does no indicae his in his Lambeh Research and Saisics Uni repor, where he acually explains why here's a dearh of naionwide sas on he Somali suden populaion's aainmen and size. Even if he had, i would sill be a breach of said policies given his populaion's general self-percepion and acual ancesry. Here's wha Demie acually wries on his, which my alernaive wording above faihfully adheres o: "he issue of Somali underachievemen is complicaed by he problem wih caegorisaion of ‘Somali’ which is broadly defined naionally as African. As a resul of he lack of daa here were various limiaions in pas research ino Somali underachievemen in Briish schools. he absence of naional comparaive daa which idenifies paerns of children of Somali origins, places serious consrains on effecing argeing policy and pracice developmens a naional and local level. However, recenly a number of London Local Auhoriies wih high Somali school populaions began monioring and collecing daa which has provided an ineresing example in research evidence" [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]. Middayexpress (alk) 15:02, 8 February 2015 (UC)

So wha is he problem? Can we simply quoe him even hough i's oo long? I seems o make i neural for boh paries. AcidSnow (alk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Yeah, ha would mos neurally resolve he maer. he passage is a bi long for ha, hough; beer o paraphrase i, which I've jus done. Middayexpress (alk) 15:35, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Yep, all my conribuions are free of charge, hanks for acknowledging ha!mol42 (alk) 16:55, 8 February 2015 (UC)

Grauious as in unnecessary. Middayexpress (alk) 17:22, 8 February 2015 (UC)

If anyone wans o see he able in he Demie source (i migh help explain he "Black African" wording), here is a screensho. Cordless Larry (alk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UC)

humb

Larry, I asked you o link exernally o a screensho, no o upload a copyrighed file ono Wikipedia. his is quie irrelevan anyway since Demie's acual explanaion for why no reliable naionwide saisics are available on he size and educaional aainmen of Somali pupils in he Unied Kingdom is from his repor on Somali sudens [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf] (where he disinguishes his Somali sudens from he Black African pupils [hp://oi62.inypic.com/88dy1.jpg]), no he 2014 paper on language. I doesn' really maer hough since, as i urns ou, Demie does indeed provide a naionwide GCSE figure for 2007 for Somali sudens in England (no Somali language speaking pupils, which would include Banus and oher ehnically non-Somali individuals). I's in his Lambeh Research and Saisics Uni paper for Poruguese sudens; he figure for Somali pupils is 42% ("able 2 shows KS2 and GCSE resuls for each main ehnic group a naional level" [hp://www.andfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03055690903162408?journalCode=ceds20&#.VNjQv2NVK1F]). hus, his is he acual paper o cie for he laes available naional GCSE for his populaion. Middayexpress (alk) 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UC)

he screensho discussion above was abou an IPPR repor, no his paper. Use of his doesn' break copyrigh - I asked for advice a Wikipedia:Media_copyrigh_quesions#Screensho_of_a_able_from_a_journal_aricle. Cordless Larry (alk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Also, here's no able 2 in he aricle you've [hp://www.andfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03055690903162408?journalCode=ceds20&#.VNjQv2NVK1F linked o] here, and ha quoe doesn' appear in i eiher. Wrong link, perhaps? Cordless Larry (alk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Acually, [hp://oi62.inypic.com/88dy1.jpg his] screensho was from Demie's acual paper on Somali sudens [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]. And yes, he cerainly does include a naional GCSE for Somali pupils in his able 2; he figure is 42% ("able 2 shows KS2 and GCSE resuls for each main ehnic group a naional level" [hp://lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_he_Achievemen_of_Poruguese_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_Lambeh_Schools_2008.pdf]). hus, his is indeed he acual paper o cie for he laes available naional GCSE for his populaion. Middayexpress (alk) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UC)

OK, you linked o he wrong paper a he end of he quoe in your commen above hen. Yes, ha appears on firs sigh o be a naional figure. ha's confusing when you consider Demie's claims in oher papers ha no such naional figure exiss for Somalis. he answer appears o lie in [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf able 3 here]. Noe ha he daa is exacly he same as in he Poruguese pupils paper. here is a foonoe nex o he Somali figure, hough, which saes: "he Somali figure here is he average of over 28 London Local Auhoriies wih over 2500 Somali pupils in primary school, and 1200 pupils in secondary schools. No Somali naional daa is available". So wha hey're doing is comparing he Somali figure for London o he naional figure for oher, broader groups. However, given ha hey've made ha comparison and ha mos Somalis are based in London, perhaps we could indeed use he 42 per cen figure in he aricle? Cordless Larry (alk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, ha's quie possible. I hink we should noe boh Demie's 34% naional GCSE for 2006 and his 42% naional GCSE for 2007 o show how much he laes available naional GCSE figure for Somali sudens changed wihin a year and he direcion i was moving in. Middayexpress (alk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UC)

he 34 per cen from [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf Figure 1]? he only problem here is ha hey're no direcly comparable as ha figure is based on 10 local auhoriies in London, no he 28 used o calculae he 2007 figure. We could cavea he saisics wih his, hough. Cordless Larry (alk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UC)

[hp://www.ehnos.co.uk/case-sudies/pdf/DCSF_Drivers_and_challenges_repor_EHNOSpdf.pdf Secion 4.2.2 of his paper] surveys a variey of figures, include Demie's. Anoher alernaive is o quoe/cie ha. Cordless Larry (alk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UC)

I's unclear where ha paper is geing is 2005 naional GCSE figure from, as he 2007 DFES repor iself doesn' acually give any such figure for Somali sudens [hps://eal.briishcouncil.org/sies/defaul/files/documen-files/MEAP%20pdf.pdf]. I also ignores he many local auhoriies ha don' process heir daa in ha way, and uses a iny sample of 98 Somali sudens. Given his, I hink we should link direcly o Demie's acual papers, noing boh his 34% naional GCSE for 2006 [[hp://oi62.inypic.com/88dy1.jpg][hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf] and his 42% naional GCSE for 2007 [hp://lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_he_Achievemen_of_Poruguese_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_Lambeh_Schools_2008.pdf], wih a cavea as o he number of London local auhoriies ha were used o calculae hese naional GCSE figures. Middayexpress (alk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UC)

OK, agreed. Cordless Larry (alk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Alrigh, done. Middayexpress (alk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Good. I jus made some [hps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ile=Somalis_in_he_Unied_Kingdom&diff=646414441&oldid=646412705 small changes] of wording ("GSCE score" isn' quie righ - i's he proporion gaining five or more good grades a GCSE) and also removed one reference where he saisic appeared in anoher, already cied one ha is specifically abou Somalis. Cordless Larry (alk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UC)

Sorry o hrow ye anoher spanner in he works, Middayexpress, bu i seems he 2006 figure is for he proporion gaining five A*-C grades regardless of subjec, whereas he 2007 figure is he proporion gaining five A*-C grades including mahs and English, so hey're no quie measuring he same hing. he proporion of he laer is always lower han he former, so his probably underesimaes he improvemen (alhough he difference in he number of LAs complicaes he comparison). Cordless Larry (alk) 23:23, 9 February 2015 (UC)

hey are measuring he same hing; please see able 6 & Figure1 [hp://www.lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]. Middayexpress (alk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UC)

You're righ. I looked ino he sources of he broad ehniciy group daa and go he idea ha one included mahs and English, bu checking again I mus have been misaken. he proporions in ha able and char are all oo high o be he mahs and English figures. Phew! Cordless Larry (alk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UC)

No prob. Middayexpress (alk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UC)

A couple of minor suggesions for rewording here, o improve he clariy of he ex. I currenly reads: "Based on he GCSE averages from 10 London local auhoriies, he Lambeh Research and Saisics Uni esimaed ha 34 per cen of Somali sudens in England gained five or more GCSEs a grades A*–C in 2006. his proporion had increased o 42 per cen by 2007, based on a larger sample of he averages of 28 London local auhoriies". Firs, he "in England" is a bi confusing, since ha daa is clearly for he 10 London LAs menioned earlier in he senence, no for England as a whole (as he aricle explains, such naional daa is no available). Second, he "had increased" bi is misleading since i doesn' compare like wih like. I's a comparison of daa from 10 LAs wih daa from 28, and he source iself doesn' claim ha his is proof of an increase. Given he wide variaion in pupil performance across London, i migh jus be ha he addiional 18 LAs already had beer-performing Somali pupils. I sugges somehing along he lines of "his compares wih a figure of 42 per cen in 2007...". Cordless Larry (alk) 22:06, 17 February 2015 (UC)

he "in England" bi is necessary since his is wha able 6 acually indicaes, and wihou i he esimae does no appear o be naional, when i is in fac inended as such. he "had increased" bi is hus no misleading since boh ables are capioned GCSE Aainmen by Main Ehnic Groups in England 2007; i also indicaes he acual direcion of he change in GCSE average. Middayexpress (alk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UC)

he foonoes in he source make i clear ha he Somali figures are no for England as a whole, bu for some London LAs. In wha sense does ha make hem "for England"? Cordless Larry (alk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UC)

Also, he ex of he repor saes "able 3 shows KS1, KS2, KS3 and KS4 resuls for each main ehnic group a naional level including aggregaed daa for seleced LAs in London which are noed as having over wo housand Somali pupils in heir schools". ha makes i clear ha he Somali daa is for London LAs, and he broad ehnic groups daa for England as a whole. Our wording should reflec his. Cordless Larry (alk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UC)

As for "boh ables are capioned GCSE Aainmen by Main Ehnic Groups in England 2007", one of he figures is from a char for 2006, no a able for 2007. Cordless Larry (alk) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UC)

See Figure 1. Middayexpress (alk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (UC)

Yep, ha's wha I'm referring o. he Somali daa is for London alone, as made clear by he foonoe and he ex ha inroduces he char. Cordless Larry (alk) 23:02, 17 February 2015 (UC)

You're looking a he wrong Figure 1 (here are several herein). I's he one iled "Somali and Main Ehnic Groups GCSE Performance in England, 2006", on page 6. Middayexpress (alk)

ha's wha I'm looking a. he foonoe saes: "he Somali figure here is he average of 10 Local Auhoriies in London (Demie, 2006). No reliable naional Somali daa is available or colleced by DCSF". he daa is for 10 London LAs, no for England as a whole. he oher iems in he figure are for England as a whole. Cordless Larry (alk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UC)

Indeed. Is exrapolaed for England as a whole because here is no naionwide daa available; see able 6 iled "GCSE Naional Performance in England by Ehniciy and Gender – 2007" ("No naional Somali daa available. Daa here refers o London Local Auhoriies." [hp://lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]). Middayexpress (alk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, so why are we suggesing in our reporing of he daa ha i applies o England as a whole? Also, do you agree ha he source makes no claim abou an improvemen beween 2006 and 2007? I jus presens differen daa on he wo years. Cordless Larry (alk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UC)

he Lambeh local auhoriy iself already does his when i compares he Somali sudens GCSEs wih he naional (no London) GCSEs of oher pupils. ha's wha he "in England" in each able's ile means. Middayexpress (alk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, i compares London daa for Somalis wih England daa for oher groups. We should reflec his in our wording. ha's wha I'm suggesing we do. Cordless Larry (alk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Acually i compares Somali daa culled from London bu exrapolaed for England wih naionwide daa for oher populaions. ha is why he able as a whole is iled "in England". he wording capures his. Middayexpress (alk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UC)

I's compared, no exrapolaed. he source doesn' claim he figures are represenaive of England as a whole. Our wording is confusing as i says i's for London, and hen for England. If you insis on ha, I suppose i will have o remain confusing. How abou he "improvemen" wording? ha's no suppored by he source. Cordless Larry (alk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Yes i is indeed exrapolaed naionally (see page 17 [hp://lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_Achievemen_of_Somali_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_London_Schools_2008.pdf]). Also, he acual wording noes ha "his proporion had increased o 42 per cen", which is also exrapolaed naionally (see able 2 [hp://lambeh.gov.uk/rsu/sies/lambeh.gov.uk.rsu/files/Raising_he_Achievemen_of_Poruguese_Pupils_Good_Pracice_in_Lambeh_Schools_2008.pdf]). Middayexpress (alk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, as previously discussed, ha able in he repor on Poruguese pupils is he same as he one in he Somali pupils repor, wihou he foonoe. Neiher repor saes ha GCSE performance has increased, because he 2006 and 2007 figures are based on very differen sized samples. Cordless Larry (alk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Also Larry, kindly refrain from following me around on unrelaed pages (see WP:HOUNDING). Middayexpress (alk) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Sorry, where have I hounded you? I've been discussing a similar issue wih you a alk:Nigerian Briish, bu I have a longsanding ineres in ha page. Cordless Larry (alk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UC)

You followed me yeserday ono an ip's alk page and he Mogadishu page, discussions which have nohing o do wih you (oher han my presence here of course) [hps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_alk:31.200.8.25]. Kindly sop i. Middayexpress (alk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Discussions abou he Mogadishu aricle have nohing o do wih me? I'm as free o conribue as anyone. Also, I wasn' aware ha I could hound you by agreeing wih you, which is wha I did here! Cordless Larry (alk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Hounding: "Wikihounding is he singling ou of one or more ediors, and joining discussions on muliple pages or opics hey may edi or muliple debaes where hey conribue, in order o repeaedly confron or inhibi heir work. his is wih an apparen aim of creaing irriaion, annoyance or disress o he oher edior. Wikihounding usually involves following he arge from place o place on Wikipedia." Again, please sop i. Middayexpress (alk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UC)

[hps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ile=alk:Mogadishu&diff=647634647&oldid=646414899 Agreeing wih your argumen] does no consiue inhibiing your work or (I presume) annoying or disressing you. If you have been disressed by my agreeing wih you and [hps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ile=alk:Mogadishu&diff=prev&oldid=647677297 providing a source] ha suppors your argumen, please ake i up on my alk page raher han here, or repor me and have an admin look ino i. Cordless Larry (alk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UC)

I makes no difference wheher or no you agreed wih my argumen. Don' follow me around again. Middayexpress (alk) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UC)

Sorry, I won' be old wha aricles I can and can' edi by you. As I said, please repor me if you feel ha I have broken he rules. Cordless Larry (alk) 00:45, 19 February 2015 (UC)

You boh kind of missed he poin each of you made. Midday isn' forbiding you from ediing aricles Larry, he jus doesn' wan you o follow him around. Also ha in his insan you did follow him. As for you Midday, you should a leas be hankful he gave you suppor when you never asked him o. P.S he ex ges smaller and smaller and smaller as you read lol. AcidSnow (alk) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UC)

Yes, I did follow Midday here, bu my acions don' mee he definiion of hounding. I repea, hough, ha his is no he place o discuss his. Please repor me o an admin if you hink I have aced inappropriaely, Midday, raher han coninuing o accuse me here. Cordless Larry (alk) 08:07, 19 February 2015 (UC)

I scanned he above so sorry if I missed anyhing. Seems o me you jus need o describe he daa. Leave ou hings like 'improve' unless he source says his exac word. Readers can be lef o make heir own minds up abou ha easily enough. BrumEduResearch (alk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UC)

hanks. Alhough "improve" wasn' par of he wording, I agree ha i's bes o jus neurally relay he daa. Middayexpress (alk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Agreed, bu is i possible ha BrumEduResearch mean "increase" when hey said "improve"? Cordless Larry (alk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Sorry, ha is wha I mean o wrie. he source does no even include he 2006 and 2007 figures in he same able. hey're no comparable because hey are based on very differen samples. I would jus repor he 2007 figure for Somalis in he 28 London auhoriies and compare wih he England figure for all pupils from he same able. ha cus he massive secion down somewha oo. BrumEduResearch (alk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UC)

he 2006 and 2007 figures are from he same Lambeh local auhoriy, so hey are indeed comparable. I also couldn' help bu noice ha you jus regiserd his accoun. Remarkable iming here [hps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Conribuions/BrumEduResearch]. Middayexpress (alk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UC)

I replied your iming commen below. I'm no sure wha I have o do as a new/reurning edior. he figures come from he same source bu i doesn no compare hem as hey cover differen areas. BrumEduResearch (alk) 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UC)

he ables are boh exrapolaing he GCSE figures for Somali sudens in England in 2006 and 2007, respecively, based on he averages of various London local auhoriies. he only difference is ha he 2006 average is based on 10 LLAs while he oher one is based on 28 LLAs. Also, new and "reurning" ediors likewise aren' he same hing. Middayexpress (alk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UC)

hey jus compare London Somali wih England all pupils. I is easier o jus pu he sas like ha. Your exropolaion wording is confusing and no in he source. BrumEduResearch (alk) 18:37, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Unforunaely, he ile of he ables hemselves indicae oherwise (e.g. [hp://oi62.inypic.com/88dy1.jpg]). Middayexpress (alk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UC)

Are you acually dumb or jus acing i? Read he foonoe. BrumEduResearch (alk) 11:11, 20 February 2015 (UC)

ha personal aack is duly noed. And afer Gigs specifically asked o remain civil a ha. Middayexpress (alk) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UC)

• 3O/Commen I've removed your hird opinion reques because you have several involved ediors, and have already sared an RfC. I will add some houghs regardless. Please remain civil and refrain from fighing over pey issues. Keep in mind ha his enire lenghy discussion is cenered on a small deail of he aricle. We do no need o incorporae informaion from every possible source, especially if sources conradic each oher. I may be sufficien o merely commen ha he educaion level of Somali immigrans is difficul o judge, which can be backed up wih sources ha say ha. I seems ha here is definie consensus ha here is a lack of reliable daa on his issue, so consider jus going wih ha, raher han spending a lo of ime debaing on how o presen imperfec and poenially flawed daa. Gigs (alk) 17:09, 18 February 2015 (UC)

hanks Gigs; quie sensible advice. Middayexpress (alk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UC)

hanks from me oo, Gigs. Acually, I hadn' inended he reques o be abou his secion, bu he secion above iled Level of educaion of Somali populaion in he UK. here have indeed been several conribuors o his discussion abou Somali pupils' resuls, bu a he ime of he reques only wo ediors had been involved in he discussion in he oher secion, which is abou he level of qualificaions achieved by Somalis in he UK as a whole (i.e. including aduls). Sill, perhaps hese wo opics aren' discree enough for you o rea hem as separae. Cordless Larry (alk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UC)

Gigs' remark refers o he educaion level of Somali immigrans in general. And he is cerainly righ; here is definie consensus ha here is a lack of reliable daa on his issue, so i is indeed sufficien o noe ha i is difficul o judge. Middayexpress (alk) 00:47, 19 February 2015 (UC)

here are pleny of reliable sources [hps://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=somali+pupils+uk+underachievemen&bnG=&hl=en&as_sd=0%2C5] on Somali educaional underachievemen in Briain. BrumEduResearch (alk) 12:10, 19 February 2015 (UC)

If one deliberaely searches for underachievemen in any given populaion (as you did), one can find i, including underachievemen of Briish pupils (e.g. [hps://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=briish+pupils+uk+underachievemen&bnG=&hl=en&as_sd=0%2C5]). Likewise, one can also find maerial on high achievemen of pupils, including Somali sudens (e.g. [hp://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asse?asse_id=2746900]). he acual official GCSE resuls for Somali sudens, however, are increasingly owards he laer. Middayexpress (alk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UC)

In individual LAs, yes. Bu a he broader scale, here is consensus ha Somali pupils underachieve, for a variey of very undersandable reasons. he Lambeh repor which you like so much, Midday, saes "Ye he achievemen of Somali heriage pupils lags far behind he average achievemen of he majoriy of heir peers and he gap is growing a he end of primary and secondary educaion". Cordless Larry (alk) 07:41, 20 February 2015 (UC)

ha Demie repor is reliable. He's an auhoriy on he opic. BrumEduResearch (alk) 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UC)

Larry, as you are well aware, ha Lambeh local auhoriy also indicaes ha "research evidence also show Somali pupils are highly moivaed and once Somali children reach a compeen level of English hey do beer han English, Scoish and Welsh", and ha "he evidence is ha once Somali children reach a compeen level of English, hey forge ahead in heir learning and can reach he highes sandards". he acual laes official GCSEs of Somali sudens show his oo, wih he Somali pupils performing on par wih he naional average by 2011-2012 per boh he Camden and ower Hamles local auhoriies. Middayexpress (alk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UC)

Yes indeed, so why do we have o be selecive and only presen wha you see as he posiive aspecs of he Lambeh repor. We could easily include boh my quoe above and he ones you cie in he aricle. Cordless Larry (alk) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UC)

Selecive? Hardly (ha would be yping in "underachievemen" insead of simply "achievemen"). he page already noes ha "Key Sage 2 (KS2), Key Sage 3 (KS3) and GCSE rend daa from several LAs indicaed ha Somali sudens on average underachieved compared o he naional average of heir peers from oher ehnic groups." Only i does so in conex and explains he reasons for ha underperformance (mainly lack of English profiency), as well as wha acually happens when hese facors are adjused for (high scores). Middayexpress (alk) 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UC)

he GCSE discussion should be shorer. I is sufficien o say ha Somalis underperform and repor Demie's saisics for 2007. hen explain ha resuls vary across London. Say hey are good in Camden if you wan. hen explain he reasons for underperformance. Simples. BrumEduResearch (alk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UC)

No... i is no sufficien o say ha Somalis underperform wihou conexualizaion because ha is cerainly no all Demie says (as shown above). ha is one-sided pov and soapboxing, which is agains policy. Middayexpress (alk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UC)

ha's wha I'm suggesing we do: explain he underperformance. We could even do ha a he very sar of he secion if you like. BrumEduResearch (alk) 12:08, 23 February 2015 (UC)

he sudens' overall performance, as well as he various main facors deermining ha performance (viz. English proficiency, pupil mobiliy, eacher & parenal engagemen) are already noed per he Lambeh local auhoriy. So is wha acually happens when hose key facors are adjused for (high scores). Middayexpress (alk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UC)

I know. I am suggesing how o make he secion shorer because hree paragraphs on GCSEs alone is undue. BrumEduResearch (alk) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UC)

Acually, only he las paragraph is on he acual GCSE scores. he firs is on why no reliable naionwide saisics are available on he size and educaional aainmen of Somali pupils in he UK, and he second is on he pupils' overall performance, he various main facors deermining ha performance, and wha happens when hose key facors are adjused for. All of he daa is also official. Middayexpress (alk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UC)

Yes bu i's all abou school educaion up o GCSE. Nohing abou furher and higher ed or abou adul Somalis' quals. BrumEduResearch (alk) 15:35, 27 February 2015 (UC)

Now you're claiming ha i's schooling only up o GCSE, whereas above you claimed (wrongly) ha i was on GCSEs alone. A any rae, he professional qualificaions pas he GCSE level are uncerain, as Gigs made clear. Middayexpress (alk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UC)

Middayexpress, I hink you need consensus for your ex. I looks like here's more suppor for @User:mol42's wording. BrumEduResearch (alk) 12:43, 25 April 2015 (UC)

Acually, no. Myself and AcidSnow cerainly don' suppor i. I's no paricularly relevan anyway, since his page is on residens wih Somali ancesry, no on Somali language speakers (which include many non-Somali individuals). Gigs likewise noed here is definie consensus ha here is a lack of reliable daa on his issue, so i is indeed sufficien o noe ha i is difficul o judge. Middayexpress (alk) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UC)

It's cerainly no suppored by Midday or I. AcidSnow (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"According to the Warwickshire Police Force..."

The employment section of the article includes the rather odd sentence "According to the Warwickshire Police Force and a report by ELWa, asylum seekers are also not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed". Do we really need to mention Warwickshire Police (which is an odd source for this fact anyway!) and ELWa in the sentence, rather than just in the citations? It's a fact that asylum seekers aren't allowed to work, not some opinion of a particular police force. I just feel the current wording suggests that this is more contentious than is actually the case.

Can we reword this to simply: "Asylum seekers are also not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed"? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. The simplified phrasing above is fine. Middayexpress (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

New sources

I've found a few recent sources that we might want to make use of for this article:

• Saeed, Abdirahim (18 September 2014). "Young diaspora Somalis rediscovering entrepreneurial roots". BBC News.
• Osman, Jamal (6 June 2012). "British Somalis going back for a future". Channel 4 News.
• Hooper, Simon (22 March 2014). "Somalis fear 'death-sentence' deportations". Al Jazeera.
• Cantoobo, Mohamed Ahmed (6 June 2014). "A Record 9 British-Somali Councillors Elected in UK Local Elections". Warya Post.

Some of these can be used to update existing material, but others might be useful for article expansion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noted them, but fused the second one with the fourth as they overlap, and replaced the third one with official data. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also been some coverage of British Somalis and FGM this past week:

• Gill, Aisha (6 February 2015). "How do we bring FGM to an end in Britain?". New Statesman.

And some older coverage:

• Topping, Alexandra (6 February 2014). "Young British-Somali women fight FGM with rhyme and reason". The Guardian. London.
• Chakrabarti, Reeta (5 February 2014). "Female genital mutilation: A family speaks out against the abuse". BBC News.

Is this something we should cover in social issues section? There appears to be some academic literature about the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more academic coverage here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Another academic source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is already covered here. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but my point was that there might be a particular Somali-British angle to this that could be covered here, given that there seems to be some focus on the Somali community in relation to the issue. Perhaps not, but I just wanted to float the idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but this isn't solely a Somali issue, which is why it's dealt with there. Middayexpress (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be solely a Somali issue, just one that is relevant to the Somali community. Khat isn't solely a Somali issue either, but we cover that here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Khat is likewise better handled on the khat page, under the UK section. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam & nationality

The ~89% figure for Muslim adherents is inaccurate, as many Somalis were undercounted [28]. Also, Article 8 of the Constitution of Somalia stipulates that "a person who is a Somali citizen cannot be deprived of Somali citizenship, even if they become a citizen of another country" [29]. "Previous nationality" is thus inaccurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where "previous nationality" comes into it? The report states: "According to the 2001 census 89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population in England is Muslim". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. That comment referred to the naturalisations data, not the religion section. Yes, "previous nationality" is standard Home Office speak, but of course not everyone who takes up British citizenship will be giving up their original nationality. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the 89.3 per cent figure. Of course, no census is 100 per cent accurate, but that doesn't mean we can't report its findings. Figures from the census are used elsewhere in the article, and as long as we note the source I don't see why they shouldn't be reported. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The 89.3 figure from 2001 is inaccurate per the 2011 census [30]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The 2011 census will yield a figure for 2011. That doesn't change the fact that the 2001 census found 89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population in England to be Muslim in 2001. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The most recent reliable census should be used. Any problems with the census should be reported if they are sourced to reliable sources stating these concerns. If not then it shouldnt be mentioned since doing so would be OR.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A figure from the 2011 census isn't yet available (or I haven't found one), so 2001 remains the most recently available. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is pointed out in text that it is a 2001 census that shouldnt be a problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Thanks for your input. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 figures have already been released. Salaam provides links to them [31]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the equivalent figure there (religion by country of birth). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There are ten links there at the top, seven of them pertaining to religion. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but none of them lead to tables of religion by country of birth (or not at the level that allows Somali-born residents to be identified). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So, in line with Maunus's comments, and given that equivalent data is not available for 2011, I propose we add the 2001 figure back in, noting that it refers to 2001, not the present day. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to the table where the 89.3% Muslim adherent percentage was drawn from? Or was this inferred as well, like you apparently believe Salaam is? Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's from this reliable secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I asked or meant. Again, which census table did that paper get its 89.3% figure from? Or do you not know? Because if you don't, there's no reason to take umbrage at the Salaam reliable secondary source, which is a good decade more recent. Middayexpress (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the data was published in a table. It's in a government report, and of course they have access to the raw census data, so can present data that's not been published by the ONS. I don't have any particular problem with the Salaam source, but it doesn't say anything about the percentage of Somalis who specified they were Muslims in the 2001 census being wrong so I'm not sure how it contradicts the government source. It does claim that the census undercounted Somalis, but says nothing about the proportion of Somalis who are Muslim being wrong as a result. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Salaam indicates that as of 2011, "the Muslim population stands at 2.7 million - the statistic in 2001 was 1.55 million", and that "factors accounting for the increase include[...] improved response to the voluntary Religion question compared to 2001 e.g. less undercounting amongst Somali communities". It also notes that the number of Christians, the largest faith, decreased over the same period. That means the percentage of Somali Muslim adherents as of 2011 is indeed higher than 89.3% [32]. Middayexpress (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That the overall number of Muslims and Christians in the UK has changed doesn't mean that's true within each and every country-of-birth group. Even if it had changed between 2001 and 2011, that doesn't change what the 2001 census reported. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't change the 89.3% figure. However, it does mean that the overall number of Somali Muslims increased in 2011. This is why Salaam indicates that less undercounting amongst Somali communities was one of the main factors accounting for the increase in the overall Muslim population. Had they been Christian or adhered to another religion, the increase would instead have gone toward that other religious population. Middayexpress (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it claims that the census 2001 census undercounted Somalis, and since the vast majority are Muslim, that contributed to an undercount of the total number of Muslims in the UK. As you concede, it doesn't change the proportion of Somalis who stated they were Muslim in 2001. I'll add that stat back in. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion. It's possible that the undercounting of Somalis during 2001 census skewed the data on their religions, as Middayexpress suggests. But it's also possible that all Somali religious groups were undercounted equally, and the 2001 percentage was relatively accurate. Salaam doesn't actually give any opinion on the subject, so without some other source, an assertion either way is original research that can't be included in Wikipedia. Yes, the 2001 data is dated, but it seems to remains the best available. We should include it while making clear its limitations. We already do a pretty good job, but I also suggest changing "89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population of England" to "89.3 per cent of the Somali-born respondents". —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a helpful suggestion. I've made that edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil P. Quinn. Do you agree that if 2011 census data on the number of Muslim adherents is available, it would be more accurate to note that instead of the figures from ten years prior? Maunus writes above that outdated means that the data has been superceded by more recent information. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Middayexpress: Yes, I agree with that, although it's often useful to give both to show the change over time (which we can't do with studies that use different methods to collect their data). In this case (correct me if I'm wrong), equivalent 2011 data isn't available.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe it already is, or at least will be soon. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's already available, we should try to find it. I've tried, but have only found religion by broad country-of-birth grouping (e.g. Africa), not for individual countries of birth. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several other such tables. Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015(UTC)

If you've found one that tabulates religion against country of birth, including Somalia, please do share it. I'd very much like to add it to the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on we all know that Somali are muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.249 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Salaam indicates that that lower 89.3% figure from 14 years ago was due to the fact that many Somalis were previously undercounted [33]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As explained above, an undercount of the total number of Somalis doesn't mean that the proportion of Somalis who are Muslim was underestimated - Muslim and non-Muslim Somalis could have been undercounted in equal proportions. We just don't know the impact of the undercount on the proportions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-Muslim adherents among Somalis represent less than 1% of the population per the Pew Research Center [34]. So yes, an undercounted Somali population necessarily implies an increase in both absolute and proportionate terms of the number of Muslim adherents. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily mean that - the ones who weren't counted could all have been non-Muslim, for all we know. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they couldn't because less than 1% of 10 million (Somalia's population) could not account for such an increase even if one assumes all of the non-Muslim adherents moved to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but someone's religion isn't fixed forever. Somali Muslims might move to the UK and then become atheists, for example. You also assume that the Pew report is accurate, which it might not be given the difficulty of collecting reliable statistics in Somalia. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's doubtful. The Pew Research Center is also actually regarded as perhaps the best global authority on religious composition. If anything, it actually underestimates the number of Muslims in Somalia [35]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pew in turn use the World Religion Database. It may well be accurate, but the point about people leaving Islam remains a possible explanation. Here's an anecdotal example. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the odd individual leaving Islam is obviously not a possible explanation. The Muslim total actually increased almost two fold between 2001 and 2011. Salaam specifically attributes this to the proper counting of the Somali population, which makes sense since virtually all Somalis are Muslim to begin with [36]. This isn't a community that embraced Islam only recently; the faith is an integral part of Somali society. In fact, per the Constitution of Somalia, Islam is the state religion, no prosleytism of other faiths is permitted, and no law that contravenes Muslim principles may be enacted [37]. The Masjid al-Qiblatayn in northern Somalia was likewise built in the 7th century i.e. almost within Muhammad's lifetime. As such, it is among the oldest mosques in the world. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's a possible explanation then. Given the restriction of other faiths in Somalia, it's not surprising that in a country where there is freedom of religion, then proportion of Somalis who say they are Muslims is lower. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not possible either since of course the constitution was adopted in 2012. It's thus indeed because the Somali population was properly counted. Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So there was freedom of religion before 2012? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Somalis are virtually all Muslim, wherever in the world they happen to reside [38]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite as reliable a source as the UK census. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that total Muslim figure was apparently marred by undercounting. The actual total Islamic adherent percentage is much nearer to 98% or 99%, as in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OSF report

Note: The following comment was moved here from Middayexpress's user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you realized, but with this edit you introduced broken citation templates (using cite web where there is no URL). It's surely better to cite the OSF report, since that is published, rather than the Freedom of Information request responses that it uses for its data, which aren't online? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading to suggest that the data is from the OSF. It isn't; the OSF itself indicates that it culled the figures from the Camden Council and Tower Hamlet local authorities, and names which exact studies too. The data should therefore be attributed to those governmental studies; they don't have to be online per WP:OFFLINE. Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not said that the data is from the OSF. That's just a reliable, accessible, secondary source. See WP:WPNOTRS, which states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY likewise indicates that "unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia", that "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". As no interpretation has been made, the data should be attributed directly to the actual governmental studies they were drawn from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so they "may" be used, but "should" they, I guess is the next question. Do you have access to the primary sources, to verify what they say? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask? Do you doubt that the local authorities found that their Somali pupils were performing in line with the overall student population in those boroughs between 2011 and 2012? If not, WP:OFFLINE indicates that "even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources[...] In fact, many great sources are only available offline." Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that the source doesn't need to be online, but I would like at least one of us to have verified it. My concern isn't that the local authorities have got it wrong, but that we're dependent on the OSF study to faithfully report the data from the local authorities, so we should cite that as a secondary source, unless we can access the primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources, which we haven't seen to verify the data, had crept back into the article, so I replaced them with the secondary source again. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine WP:PRIMARY and offline ones are ok per WP:OFFLINE. Verification is not an issue unless you doubt the Camden and Tower Hamlet local authority figures; and if you doubt their figures, then you by default also doubt the OSF's relaying of them. Middayexpress (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I doubt anything, it's the OSF's relaying of them. Since we're reliant on this relaying though, we need to cite the OSF source, as explained above. If we can verify the primary source, fine, but neither of us have. We can verify what the secondary source says, so let's stick with that. WP:PRIMARY doesn't say that primary sources take precedence over secondary ones in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't verify the authenticity of the OSF's figures since they aren't from it to begin with. They're from the Camden and Tower Hamlet local authorities. So if you doubt the figures themselves (which I don't see why you should), then you indeed by default also doubt the OSF's relaying of them. Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We can verify what the OSF report says at least. We can't verify the original source. We should therefore cite the OSF. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What the OSF says is what the Camden and Tower Hamlets local authorities actually report, so it makes no difference unless you doubt the figures to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it's what the local authorities report, unless you've seen the primary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OFFLINE, materials don't have to be online. The exception is when there is doubt as to whether claims are accurate; that's where WP:BURDEN applies. Since there doesn't appear to be any doubt here about the Camden and Tower Hamlets local authority figures that the OSF is relaying, these should be linked directly to the actual studies themselves. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Them being offline isn't the problem. The fact that we haven't seen them to verify what they say is. I'm happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you insist on citing the primary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you still insist on direct links to the studies. Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not links, no. I just want someone to have verified what they say (also, they're not studies, they're replies to the OSF's freedom of information requests). Cordless Larry (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. Middayexpress (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And, to be honest, even if we get to see the primary source, WP:WPNOTRS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, here's why and when secondary sources are used: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors[...] Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." As no specialized knowledge is required here, the Camden and Tower Hamlet papers (not just raw stats) are fine. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not papers as such, they're responses to the OSF's FoI requests. We don't know what form they take. They might just contain raw statistics for all we know. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that remains to be seen. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Khat

Comments are requested on whether this article should include a section on khat use amongst Somalis in the UK (it was in the article for years, but then recently tagged as undue and then removed), and if so, how extensive it should be. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The khat material notes twice that the plant was made illegal in the UK in June 2014; in the first sentence and again later on. The first phrase is redundant and awkwardly placed, as khat isn't illegal in its traditional place of cultivation. It was also made illegal in the UK only a few months ago, which is already noted further down. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's mentioned at the start is that otherwise, the reader gets lots of information about khat use that predates the ban, without knowing that it is now illegal, only to find that out at the very end of the paragraph. I agree that it's not an ideal structure though. The problem stems from the fact that the paragraph was written before khat was banned, and that fact has been fitting in recently. Perhaps some sort of rewrite is in order? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence was awkard because it indicated that khat is a plant that is mainly grown in East Africa and the Middle East, and then right after that noted that it was made illegal in the UK in June 2014. This gave the impression that it perhaps has a similar legal status in its traditional area of cultivation, when it is actually legal there. The phrasing is also awkard since khat was legal in the UK too up until only a few months ago. The end placement therefore makes sense. However, the prose should be in the past tense, except for the first few sentences where khat's traditional function is noted. Middayexpress (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought the "illegal in the UK" part was clear enough, but never mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Midday, could you explain your rationale for adding an "undue" template to the khat section? Is it because you think one perspective on the khat issue is given prominence over other perspectives, or is it that you think the issue of khat as a whole is given too much prominence in the context of the article as a whole (or both/neither of those things)? Knowing that would help other editors comment. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See below. Middayexpress (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Slightly cryptic. Do you mean that the inclusion of any material on khat here is biased? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See below. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the section partly due to it's WP:UNDUE but also because it has no reason to remain a section in the article but should fall under Khat just as Alcoholism in Britain is redirected to the Alcoholism#Epidemiology section. The sources you say are reliable twice mention insufficient medical evidence on effects on its users so it seems to me it's rather UNDUE. However, it does state that Somali community organizations have lobbied for it to be outlawed regardless of that and they aren't the only users of the drug. According to the 2014 NHS's Health and Social Care Information Centre, "64 per cent of men and 52 per cent of women in Great Britain." drank alcohol once a week 1 which seems to me higher than the proportion of Somalis in Britain who have tried Khat once in their lives according to the section. But that doesn't appear on the page but rather another page. That said, it should appear in its appropriate page, Khat. 26oo (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's best to throw it out. AcidSnow (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're applying some variation of the WP:OSE argument, 26oo. The fact that many British people drink alcohol doesn't mean we can't mention khat use on this page. While it is not only Somalis who use khat, it is an issue of significant debate in the Somali community, which is the subject of considerable coverage in reliable sources. Please also see the discussions here and here. There was consensus to add this material to the article and it has been there for a long time. Removing it requires careful consideration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång has recently edited this section, so it would be good to get their input, as well as other disinterested parties. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you yourself said were reliable said there was insufficient evidence of negative effect on the community. So why should it exist on the page? Just because it is consumed by people in the community doesn't mean it should be included. It's also noted that it is not exclusively used by the Somali community. I'm simply drawing parallels of evident bias and accommodating NPOV. If it has no significant bearing, there's no reason to include it. 26oo (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be included because the topic (khat use amongst Somalis) is the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Yes, there's debate about whether khat has negative effects, and views that it doesn't should be included for balance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is too long. Khat is an issue for Somalis but we don't need so much detail here. Now it is banned it is uncertain how much of the section still applies. It might be of historical interest however. BrumEduResearch (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As 26oo and AcidSnow note, there is indeed undue weight here on khat. Pretty much all major health authorities indicate that it is less harmful than tobacco, alcohol and all other similar substances [39]. The reason why the plant was proscribed a few months ago in the UK was because the Somali community itself sought its prohibition, not because the government concluded that it ought to be prohibited on medical or social grounds. On the contrary, both the Home Office and Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs found that there was insufficient evidence that the plant caused serious health or societal problems. Now that the plant has been prohibited, few if any in the UK even chew it anymore. This material thus clearly instead belongs on the khat main page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Now that the plant has been prohibited, few if any in the UK even chew it anymore" is a fact that we should include in the article. Can you provide a source for it? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The khat houses have been closed, and the shops that used to sell it have stopped doing so. While a few chewers anecdotally assert that some sellers still offer it underground, there has been only one major seizure since the prohibition and that was in a Bristol county back in September; some bags were also seized in January, but no arrests were made in connection. The Avon and Somerset Police reports that it instead only had to give three people warnings for possession and one person a caution. Additionally, the Somali Resource Centre indicates that the prohibition seems to have been effective, and that it all but destroyed the import market since the plant (unlike alcohol) has to be fresh in order to be consumed [40]. This only further underscores the undue nature of the material. Middayexpress (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As Middayexpress has also pointed out, it was the effort by the community to have it banned that made it proscribed even contrary to the advisory board. Much of the text on the page is dismissable as it alludes to a problem when there is none. Two studies were sanctioned and both came to a similar conclusion. It clearly states there's no evidence it has an effect on public health. There is no historical context of khat having a negative effect in the United Kingdom either. Since it has been banned, the debate now only exists on Wikipedia. 26oo (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

People still use banned substances. Problem with the article now is it says there is no negative effect but it was banned because of Somali lobbying, without saying why they lobbied. Fair enough to say the health effects are not proved but you also need to explain why Somali groups wanted it banned. BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as khat wasn't prohibited a few months ago when it was in wider use, nor was it a major problem per the UK authorities themselves. Now that the plant is a controlled substance, its use has all but disappeared, making the material all the more undue. Middayexpress (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So why was it banned and why did Somalis lobby for that? The reader is left confused about that. BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The reader obviously isn't left confused since a link-through is provided to the khat main page, where the larger prohibition drive is explained. Khat was also made a controlled substance specifically because Somali community groups lobbied for it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove That Khat is used by some Somalis is no more newsworthy for an encyclopedic entry on Somalis on the UK than the fact that Heroin use has gone up in the United States for an article on the American people. Khat is grown in Israel too, but there is no significant usage nor news. Drugs are a societal issues, but do not represent the people in the general sense. It does not belong. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that argument Juda, but khat use in Britain is or was quite specific to Somalis and its use amongst them was widespread. One study found a third used it [41]. This generated a lot of media and research attention and the community itself was instrumental in getting it banned. I do think we need to tell that story. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Home Office concluded therein that most of the participants who were using khat were using it moderately in terms of both the quantity used and the frequency and duration of chewing sessions, that khat use was typically a social activity, and that only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. This is noted on the khat main page, where the material belongs. Pretty much all major health authorities likewise indicate that khat is less harmful than tobacco, steroids, cannabis, alcohol, and all other similar substances [42]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we mention this? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. Middayexpress (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

Inayity, I've been having a look around at the various immigrant pages and the main British people page, and it appears that there may be some systemic bias as far as what is being reported on those immigrant pages versus on the British people page. The immigrant pages seem to have an inordinate amount of negative material on various "issues" that are supposedly affecting these communities. Yet, curiously there's no similar discussion on the British people page. For instance, on this page, there's an unwarrantedly large section on khat, although the plant is in fact legal in its traditional area of cultivation and many other parts of the world (including Britain itself until a few months ago), and is, according to pretty much all major health authorities, less harmful than tobacco, alcohol and all other similar substances [43]. Yet, there's no analogous mention on the British people page of the local pub culture, use of hard drugs by youth and other vice (including hate crimes), as well as cultural peculiarities that may appear odd or inappropriate to outsiders, though those are often noted in the same publications. Similarly, the educational levels and socioeconomic status of the local population relative to immigrants and other nations in Europe do not appear to be touched on. This is odd given the fuss elsewhere about the GCSE levels of immigrants. These double standards should thus perhaps be balanced out by either trimming the "issues" purportedly affecting immigrant groups to a fair size in accordance with the British people page itself and WP:ATTACK, or similar material should be added to the British people page for consistency. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They banned it? I didnt know. Cant Tax it, then they ban it. (unlike Al-co-hol). To be brief but relevant, I have similar issues is the broad context of all things Wikipedia when it comes to marginalized "minority" groups. I have always had this problem and I previously identified one such problem of so-called RS. Where even minorities in SA can publish pretty books and dominant what is Real and what is true. The unfortunately disenfranchised (Majority) people have no such access and write blogs and small websites which Wikipedia washes-out as not R.S. So all that is left standing is the deep bias which is very Eurocentric. Let me run to the supermarket and deal with this when I get back. But It must be addressed at a policy level.--Inayity (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree in part. It is better discussed at a broader scale than this talk page. But we should not brush issues under the carpet. Somails in Britain are very deprived (for good reason) and it doesn't help them to not talk about that or the social issues it causes. Not everyone highlighting these problems does so to attack Somalis. I know of many researchers who highlight them to help improve policy and help Somalis resolve the issues. Many concerns come from the community too, such as khat or FGM. Censoring them doesn't help them. BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Brum that you literally just registered your account and almost immediately headed here [44]. Given this, forgive me if I take your remarks with a grain of salt. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. I conduct research on Somali pupils in England so this seemed a natural place I could help. BrumEduResearch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure you do; what an uncanny coincidence. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What a lovely welcome back. I'm reminded of why I left now. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. So you already have an account here. Can't say I'm surprised. What was its handle, if I may ask? Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the systemic issue which is a broad topic and needs broad policy changes so all affected articles (most of Wikipedia) can be more WP:BALANCE you know where I am, my time is tight, and I am not sure how you write new wikipedia policy like WP:INCLUSION, or WP:SYSTEMIC but It has to be done.--Inayity (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Inayity. Midday, it was years ago and I cannot remember my old username. I did explain this on my new account. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How convenient. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Inayity, it clearly has to be done. I think we should start small with specific areas in need of fixing. For example, identifying similar double standards and eliminating them. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish you luck, although from what I've seen, writing new policies and having them accepted is very time consuming. Herding cats comes to mind. As a slight aside, I'm not sure that Somalis in the UK and British people are quite equivalent articles. A better comparison with the latter would surely be Somali people? Incidentally, I did once start adding a social issues section to the British migration to Spain article. I might resume that task. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The GCSE scores, etc. would specifically apply to Britain, so that's indeed the equivalent (not Spain). Either way, the double standards are evident and unsustainable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but British people isn't just about British people in the UK, it's about British people all over the world, so I'm not sure it's the place for such issues. I'm not sure if there's a "British people in the UK" type article though. There is White British, which could be the place to discuss GCSE results. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the equivalent page alright. British diaspora is for the rest of the world. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but British people includes both British people in the UK and the diaspora, just as Somali people includes Somalis in Somalia and elsewhere. Note that the latter article doesn't include a "social issues" section either. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not comparable, as the Somali people page pertains to the ethnic group, not to Somalia nationals. British people, on the other hand, pertains to the local population of the United Kingdom. It is thus indeed the analogue to this and other similar pages. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"British people, on the other hand, pertains to the local population of the United Kingdom". Perhaps you've not seen the geographic distribution section! To be honest, it's a bit of a mish-mash of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the section on the British diaspora, which it links to. The page as a whole indeed pertains to the native population of the United Kingdom ("British people, or Britons, archaically known as Britishers, are nationals or natives of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies; and their descendants"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen this comment from Drmies in response to a post I made on the ANI about reverts to the article, which addresses this section: "Midday, I read over the "Systemic Bias" section and that's really way too close to FORUM for comfort; I suggest you take that up on a project page. You may well have a point, but that particular talk page is not the place for it". Can I suggest you take that suggestion up, Midday? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's sensible advice as far as the hypothetical policy change is concerned. I am, though, sorry if Inayity and I pointing out the obvious double standards bothers you, Larry. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I completely support attempts to take a more balanced approach and would support inclusion of material on social problems relating to all communities. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept of balance there. Middayexpress (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to be either that or we censor Wikipedia to not mention any social problems, unless you have a third alternative? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a social problem is often subjective. Khat, which is objectively less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol, is an excellent example of this. That said, I already suggested a fairer alternative in the OP; 26oo did as well. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"What is a social problem is often subjective". Absolutely, but that's why we don't make the judgement. We report what reliable sources say, and there are plenty of reliable sources that suggest that khat is considered a significant social issue amongst Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Worse could be (and has been) said about the local pub culture, so it's obviously not that simple. The fact is, there are plenty of sources that indicate the opposite on khat i.e. that there is insufficient evidence that the plant caused serious health or societal problems. That includes both the governmental Home Office and Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

One particular issue with the "social issues" coverage, as I see it, is that it covers issues such as the supposed problem of Somali gangs (portraying them as perpetrators), but says little or nothing about the extent to which Somalis in the UK are the victims of crime. Could we say anything about racism and discrimination faced by Somalis, or whether they have been the victims of hate crimes, for instance? I've found some anecdoate evidence that we could point to, but I'm sure this must be covered by some aspects of the research undertaken on the Somali community. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Somalis don't face any greater targeting from local, offline hate groups than other populations, as far as I'm aware. Then again, hate groups aren't my area of expertise. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just about hate groups. For example, the employment section does mention discrimination as a barrier to employment. I'm not sure that Somalis have to face greater levels of discrimination than any other group for us to mention it, if that's what you mean by "any greater targeting". As far as I'm concerned, if they face discrimination or outright hostility and it's been properly documented, we should mention it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Racism is defined as hate, which hate groups and their minions of course specialize in. There's no evidence that Somalis are subject to a greater amount of such targeting by these groups and others of that ilk, which would make it undue. Then again, that is offline; there could be some online hate campaigning or WP:ADVOCACY. Middayexpress (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not every racist is a member of a hate group. Some are just individually hateful! There's also the question of institutional racism, which might be a factor in employment prospects. Anyway, I need to look to see what's actually been documented before suggesting any additions to the article. There's certainly been some anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages, but I'm not sure we could find secondary sources that document that. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It also depends who you're comparing to. Somalis might not be subject to more racism than other minority groups, but I'd be willing to bet that they are subject to more than white people in the UK are. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's rather interesting, as I didn't mention there any anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages. If such hatemongering exists (which, judging by the remark above, you appear to be aware of), it can and certainly will be found out. It's only a matter of time, as this goes against not only website policy, but the very essence of Wikipedia as per its founder Jimbo Wales. That said, I'm not convinced that there's much offline, institutional racism in the UK against Somalis in particular. The British authorities generally don't accept immigrants into the country only to systematically discriminate against them once they have arrived. On the contrary, there are specific laws against hate campaigning, including in the constitution itself. Besides the law, there are of course also massive personal, vocational and social consequences for actual racists once the commonfolk realize just who they are and want nothing further to do with them. The reality is that the UK government, including the UK Ambassador to Somalia, is quite tolerant and even appreciative of its Somali community [45]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I took your link to WP:ADVOCACY to mean that you were talking about Wikipedia, but maybe I misunderstood. That did chime with my memory of some previous discussions on this talk page though. For example, you called out quite an anti-Somali POV in this discussion. On institutional racism, I'm not saying that the state is necessarily the offending party - it could be private employers, for example. Anyway, I don't have a particularly strong view either way on this; I just thought that mentioning that Somalis face some racism and discrimination (if it could be sourced) would be one way to reduce the bias of the article, which seems to portray Somalis in a rather negative light. I won't comment further, but perhaps Inayity and 26oo have a view on whether we should discuss this? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My assertion on WP:ADVOCACY said nothing about Wikipedia talk pages. I was referring there to hate campaigning in actual articlespace. Nonetheless, your remark on anti-Somali hate on talk pages (plural) is duly noted. There likely is some discrimination in the private sector (which is already touched on, btw), but nothing inordinate. This could also be said of most immigrant communities and even certain tiers of the local population. The main challenge here instead appears to be a dearth of recognition of professional qualifications that Somali professionals have gained in their home country. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, what hate campaigning in article space are you referring to? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was writing hypothetically. Out of interest, what other anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages (plural) were you referring to? Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy wording on my part. I'm only aware of (or I only remember) such incidents on this page and its archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The anti-Somali hate is here. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hate is a strong word, but there has certainly been some anti-Somali bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's the one you used. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably got carried away following your mention of hate groups. Certainly bias can be a result of hate, but it can also be caused by other factors. I wouldn't like to second guess motives here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Superdiversity

Why were these additions removed? I cited good academic sources. [46]BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Those edits were reverted per WP:BRD, as they have no consensus. "Superdiversity" is also a WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly with regard to Somalis. The remittance system is likewise redundant and already noted. Additionally, the driveby COI tag was unexplained and unjustified. Middayexpress (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think I needed consensus to add something unless it was contested? There are plenty of academic sources applying the superdiversity concept to Somalis in Britain. See Google Scholar and the references in my additions that you removed. BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was contested per WP:BRD. The fact that the "superdiversity" stub was already once deleted for being "obviously invented" likewise more than qualifies it as a WP:NEOLOGISM in general, nevermind relative to the Somali community in particular. Even if that had been a common concept, that doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate or relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That argument would hold more weight if the superdiversity article hadn't subsequently been recreated, seemingly successfully. If you think it's a neologism with insufficient coverage in secondary sources, Midday, you should nominate it for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted page doesn't necessarily mean it is valid. Indeed, there's a formal undeletion process that usually must first be followed, and which wasn't here. Thanks for the tip, though. Middayexpress (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but I think that if the issue you have is with the concept of superdiversity itself being a neologism that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then it's worth dealing with that page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look at BrumEduResearch's edits in more detail, I don't really see the problem with them. The superdiversity material actually provides some good introductory material, explaining how the Somali community is made up of people who have arrived in the UK via different migration paths. The Aspinall paper outlines some of the problems of data availability that we've struggled with here, and the research on Somali businesses adds to our understanding of Somali entrepreneurship (albeit it's limited to Leicester). The sources are all articles in well-regarded, peer-reviewed academic journals, so there's not a WP:RS issue. In sum, I'd support the reintroduction of the additions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already taken a look at them. They're WP:REDFLAG, particularly vis-a-vis the Somali community. The concept itself is also a WP:NEOLOGISM. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain why you see them as exceptional claims, as defined by WP:REDFLAG? That might help me understand your objections. I also note that the "superdiversity" concept is in wide use in the academic literature in relation to Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

~480 random hits that or may not be relevant and over half of which date from 2011 onwards is hardly wide use. On the contrary, it underscores the fact that that is indeed a neologism, particularly vis-a-vis Somalis. For the rest, I've already explained it above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of those results are articles in high-quality academic journals, which are considered reliable sources. You haven't explained what exactly it is about BrumEduResearch's additions that you consider to be a breach of WP:REDFLAG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure I did. The neologism policy applies to "what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That's a difference a random search engine test cannot guarantee, even if the hits had been greater and the concept had not been a neologism. Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The neologism point aside (we could always report what Vertovec argues without using the term superdivsersity, if you wish), do you consider all three sources that BrumEduResearch added to be WP:REDFLAG? I'm really struggling to understand what's controversial about their claims. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional statements require exceptional sources. It's also not what I consider; it's what is. "Superdiversity" in general is a neologism, especially vis-a-vis Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. None of the claims are exceptional. I'll open an RfC to get wider input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse. "Superdiversity" in general is a neologism, nevermind vis-a-vis the Somali community. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments are requested on material added to the article by BrumEduResearch, which was subsequently reverted by Middayexpress, citing WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. My perspective is that the material is based on high-quality academic sources, and that the "superdiversity" term appears well established in the literature (the Vertovec paper that BrumEduResearch cited has more than 1,000 citations). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To assist editors in commenting on the issue, these were the additions:

Sociologist Steven Vertovec uses Somalis as an example in his writing on superdiversity. He argues 'among Somalis in the UK - and in any single locality - we will find British citizens, refugees, asylum-seekers, persons granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and people granted refugee status in another European country but who subsequently moved to Britain.'

Sociologist Peter J Aspinall argues: 'The census is primarily designed to serve the needs of government and cannot meet the requirements of local authorities where particular groups outwith the category system may cluster. Examples include the Somalis and Yemenis in Sheffield, the City Council arguing that a new approach to capturing a wider range of ethnic groups is needed where their numbers are not significant nationally.'

Research on Leicester's small Somali community finds that Somali business owners are 'a highly motivated group with rich social capital – extended social ties facilitating the movement of Somalis to Leicester, the exchange of information about commercial opportunities, the recruitment of labour and the pooling of finance' but that this 'is conditioned or even subverted by market barriers, under-capitalization and the associated sectoral and spatial entrapment.' As a result, Somali businesses are 'as yet a faithful replication of the classic EMB [ethnic minority business] marginality – an overwhelming concentration in low value-added hyper-competitive sectors, where existence is precarious and underrewarded.' Now added to article (in modified form)

The Somali diaspora in Britain and elsewhere is 'inter-connected through elaborate informal systems of remittances and information exchange'. Now added to article (in modified form)

Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• Comment: "Superdiversity" is a WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly vis-a-vis the Somali community. 1,000 citations for one paper, most of which have nothing to do with Somalis, doesn't alter that. The superdiversity wikistub itself was also already deleted for being "obviously invented", only to be restubbed without going through the formal undeletion process. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that only one of the additions concerns superdiversity directly - the others are about data availability and Somali entrepreneurship. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That is no longer relevant since I've noted the business material. "Superdiversity" is still a neologism, though. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only since I raised the issue here. Thanks for adding it back in though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • No, only since I saw that it had nothing to do with the neologism "superdiversity". Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Midday, I did suggest above that you nominate superdiversity for deletion if you believe it to be in breach of WP:NEOLOGISM. Have you considered that? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That too is putting the cart before the proverbial horse. It shouldn't have been restubbed to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • In that case, contest the recreation! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • That is unfortunately not how it works. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help Larry. As a compromise may I suggest dropping the word superdiversity and just reporting the facts from the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrumEduResearch (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I made that suggestion above. Here's another, secondary, source that could be cited in support of Vertovec's claims. This article makes the same point too. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the following alternative wording for the first of BrumEduResearch's additions:

The Somali community in the UK includes British citizens, refugees, asylum-seekers, persons granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and Somalis who have moved to Britain after being granted refugee status in other European states.

How does that sound? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

References

It sounds redundant. This is already noted in the arrival section. Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the article covers this pretty well already, but spread through several paragraphs. As I noted above, I think this addition early on in the article would provide a nice summary in a single sentence of the different categories of Somali migrants in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not particularly necessary or accurate. Many Somali secondary migrants from other European states are citizens and economic migrants. The lede also already accurately summarizes these migration tiers. Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't necessarily cover every single Somali in the UK - that's why I used the word "includes", which doesn't preclude that there are other categories - but it's not inaccurate and it's sourced to highly reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It places the various tiers on parallel footing, when they're not. Most Somali immigrants are certainly not undocumented immigrants; they are legal residents, even if it pains certain types of people to admit it. Relevant sources are also already in the article. The lede likewise already summarizes the tiers. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about the wording suggests that most Somalis in the UK are undocumented migrants. I have no idea where you got that impression from. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support restoration. WP:REDFLAG is not relevant here, as these opinions are shared by academics, and they are attributed with along their names. VandVictory (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the material is actually already on the page. The tiers of immigrants emigrating to Britain, though, should be attributed to official data from the UK government itself. Middayexpress (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though peer-reviewed academic sources are usually considered the most reliable sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Immigration figures are officially gathered by the government, so that is the entity they should be attributed to. That is the actual most reliable source on these figures. Middayexpress (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There aren't specific government statistics that could be used for all of this, though. For example, there are no official figures on secondary migration of Somalis from other EU states to the UK, hence why we rely on academic research for that material in the article. Similarly, pretty much by definition the government doesn't record undocumented migrants. As for the Aspinall article, he's specifically outlining some of the problems of official data availability, so how can we use official statistics instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Home Office does provide data on such irregular migrants. It also notes that "undocumented" migrants can be construed as pejorative, so "irregular" migrants is more appropriate (e.g. [47]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there are government estimates, but not by nationality as far as I'm aware. There's lots of debate about the appropriate term for irregular migrants (I actually prefer that term too), so we could discuss the appropriate term to use here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Home Office provides stats per country in that link. It also indicates outright that "undocumented" migrants can be construed as pejorative, explains why, and concludes that "irregular" migrants is more appropriate ("the term 'irregular' is now used to describe this group of people. Only some of them are covered by more traditional labels such as 'illegal' or 'undocumented' migrant, which are also seen to be inappropriately pejorative, particularly as they can wrongly associate migrants with criminality" [48]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It gives partial estimates for some countries, but no overall estimates of the overall number of irregular migrants for any country, as far as I can see (give me the page number if you've seen something I've missed). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the terminology, I would much prefer that Wikipedia use "irregular immigration" rather than illegal immigration, but I don't think my chances of getting that page move agreed are very high! I'm happy to use "irregular" here though, if no one objects. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's good because WP:LABEL instructs against value-laden labels; that includes "illegal" or "undocumented" per the Home Office. At any rate, the Home Office provides official figures on irregular migration, dividing it into four tiers. Among these tiers is rejected asylum applications, which it quantifies here [49]. Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:COMMON must have been judged to overrule WP:LABEL at illegal immigration, but thanks for pointing that policy out. If ever I feel up to nominating the latter for a move, I'll cite that policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Refugee resettlement

Thanks for the copy-edit of my addition on Somalis resettled under the Gateway Protection Programme, Middayexpress. You made the text simpler and more succinct, which seems appropriate given that the numbers are small. My only comment would be that the paragraph now discusses asylum, then the Gateway Programme, and then asylum again in the next sentence. That might cause a bit of confusion, as the Gateway Protection Programme is entirely distinct from the normal asylum system (it essentially bypasses it for a select group of people chosen from those identified as being refugees in third countries). Any thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gateway phrase is on settlement of asylum seekers like the sentence before it. The phrase after it is on repatriation of asylum seekers. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Refugees resettled in the UK under the scheme are not asylum seekers though. They don't have to claim asylum as they are granted immediate refugee status. See the Gateway Protection Programme article for an explanation of this, and also this government guidance ("The programme offers a legal route for up to 750 refugees to settle in the UK each year, and is completely separate from the standard procedure for claiming asylum in the UK"). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but 418 individuals were resettled in the UK itself between 2004 and 2012. The phrase after it is on repatriation to the country of origin. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we don't disagree on that. It's just that the order of the sentences goes asylum, resettlement, repatriation of asylum seekers. I thought that could be confusing to readers and lead them to think that all of the people being discussed in the paragraph were asylum seekers. It's not a big issue, I just think a minor reordering so that we discuss asylum all together and then resettlement as a distinct category could make it clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. However, it actually wouldn't make it clearer for the reasons above and also because the Gateway resettlement was from 2004 to 2012, while the repatriation is ongoing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly not. The Gateway scheme is ongoing as well though - it's just that I've only found data up to 2012. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, you reworded the text to say that the figures were for 2004 to 2012. The scheme started in 2004, but the first Somalis weren't resettled until 2010 (see the source). Could we revise the wording to reflect this? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This might also be of interest: "Excitingly, 2010–2011 saw the first Bhutanese and Somalis ever resettled in the UK, from refugee camps in Nepal and Kenya respectively. Other groups we resettled during the year were Ethiopians and Somalis from Dadaad refugee camp in Kenya, Iraqis from Jordan and Congolese from Tanzania". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gateway doesn't indicate therein that it's resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. Its Table 1 likewise pertains to 2004 to 2012, not 2010 to 2012. Suggesting that 418 Somalis were resettled between 2010 and 2012 rather than 2004 and 2012 is not the same thing, as the former is a shorter timespan relative to when the program actually began (in 2004). It also isn't what Gateway actually indicates. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This might also be of interest: "Excitingly, 2010–2011 saw the first Bhutanese and Somalis ever resettled in the UK, from refugee camps in Nepal and Kenya respectively. Other groups we resettled during the year were Ethiopians and Somalis from Dadaad refugee camp in Kenya, Iraqis from Jordan and Congolese from Tanzania". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the people in the refugee camps in Kenya aren't ethnically Somali, so that's not really relevant. That said, Gateway doesn't indicate that its resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. Its Table 1 likewise pertains to 2004 to 2012, not 2010 to 2012. Suggesting that 418 Somalis were resettled between 2010 and 2012 rather than 2004 and 2012 is not the same thing, as the former is a shorter timespan relative to when the program actually began (in 2004). It also isn't what Gateway actually indicates [50]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that we don't know if the resettlement of Somalis is ongoing, but I will investigate that. Table 1 presents data since 2004, but all of the Somalis have been resettled since 2010 (172 in 2010, 93 in 2011 and 153 in 2012), so it's a bit misleading to suggest that the total of 418 were resettled between 2004 and 2012, when none were resettled in 2004-09. Can't we say that while the scheme started in 2004, the first Somalis resettled under it were in 2010? On the Kenyan camps and Somali ethnicity point, the data is recorded by nationality and those resettled were Somali nationals. Is it possible that they were Somali nationals but not ethnically Somali? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This source indicates that Somali nationals continue to arrive in the UK from Kenya under the scheme into 2014-15. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible and even certain that many Somali nationals in those Kenyan camps aren't ethnically Somali; many are instead Bantu. I also didn't write that it's uncertain whether Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program. I wrote that it doesn't indicate that its resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. The fact is, Gateway's Table's 1 and 2 begin at 2004 (not at 2010), as do their totals; so 2004-2012 is the date range that should be indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't need to rely solely on the totals as there is also data by year. I don't really know why we wouldn't be specific about when Somalis started to be resettled in the UK? If we say that 418 Somalis have been resettled under the programme since it started in 2004, all of them since 2010, then there's no ambiguity. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On that ethnicity point, that's interesting but it does raise a further question, which is whether this article is about ethnic Somalis in the UK, or people with origins in Somalis, regardless of ethnic origin, in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is on individuals with Somali ancestry. Gateway did apparently resettle the first few Somalis through its program in 2010, but that program started several years earlier. 2004-2012 makes it clear that 418 is the total number of Somalis that it resettled in those eight years rather than in just the three years between 2010 and 2012. This is obviously what Gateway itself intended since it doesn't put a dash through the earlier years; it instead leaves them blank, like the other places of origin. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The blanks in the table indicate zero values though. The total is accounted for by those three years as 172+93+153=418. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that. The point is, Gateway started with 2004 (not 2010) for a reason i.e. to make it clear that 418 is the total for those eight years rather than in just the three years between 2010-2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to indicate both the total over the course of the programme and to indicate when Somalis started to be resettled though? I don't see it as either/or. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gateway doesn't indicate what was its resettlement schedule. For some populations, it has a blank entry in some years, then a given number of resettled individuals the next year. It's therefore most accurate to simply note what it does i.e. that 418 Somalis were resettled through the program between 2004 and 2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's because it has resettled refugees from those countries in some years and not others. We have reliable sources saying that it started resettling Somalis in 2010, so I don't see why that can't be mentioned alongside the total. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That implies that Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program, although it doesn't indicate this in its Table 1. What Gateway notes is that it resettled 418 Somalis between 2004 and 2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how it is worded. We could say something like, "as of 2012, 418 Somalis had been resettled in the UK under the Gateway Protection Programme, which was launched in 2004. The first Somalis were resettled in the UK in 2010". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"As of" leaves open the possibility that Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program, although it doesn't indicate this in its Table 1. "Between 2004 and 2012, 418 Somali refugees were resettled in the UK through the Gateway Protection Programme, with the first of the migrants arriving in 2010" is more accurate. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's great - certainly better than my wording. Do you want to add that to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, and noted that Gateway is British government-run. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Good job. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Detailed census ethnicity data

I've found the detailed ethnicity data (based on write-in responses) for the 2011 census for England and Wales, here, in case it is of use. You'll see that "Somali" was written in under a number of the broad ethnicity categories. What we don't know is how many of the people who ticked the "Arab" or "African" box would consider themselves Somali (and vice versa), so perhaps that limits the usefulness of the data. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Association of British Arabs has a breakdown of Somalis vis-a-vis the Arab categories taken from the ethnic write-in responses [51]. At any rate, this is one reason why the 85% Muslim figure is inaccurate. Noting that nearly all Somalis in the UK are Muslim is sufficient and certainly more accurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is they don't break down people who ticked "Arab" further, as it wasn't possible to tick "Arab" and write in something such as "Somali". It was an either/or choice, so we'll never know how many of the people who ticked Arab are Somali. That's a shame, because it means we don't have a comprehensive Somali ethnicity figure from the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

NABA indicates 45,475 Somali write-in reponses under the Arab categories, based on Table CT0010EW. But yeah, it means that there isn't a comprehensive population figure for ethnic Somalis. The 85% Muslim figure is also definitely inaccurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

45,475 is the total number of people writing in "Somali" under any heading (like I say, you couldn't write in anything under "Arab" - see the census form). The 45,475 is made up of the following:

White: Somali 743

Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Somali 621

Asian/Asian British: Somali 257

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Somali 37,708

Other ethnic group: Somali 6,146 Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Association of British Arabs aggregates all 45,475 Somali write-ins under the "Arab" categories, based on Census 2011 Table CT0010EW:

Arab 240,545

African Arab 3,393

White and Arab 10,058

Moroccan 6,651

North African 22,052

Other Middle East 30,052

Somali 45,475

Somalilander 6,249

White and North African 2,294

Total 366,769

And that's not even counting the ones obscured under the "Arab" main category. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the NABA has classified them as Arab, but if you look at the ONS figures themselves, 37,708 of the people who wrote in "Somali" did so under the "Black" heading on the census from (you could tick "Arab", but not write in anything under it). Anyway, it's all academic as those who ticked "Arab" are lost in that broad category, as you say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, those Somalis wrote-in "Somali" under "African" (where Greater Somalia is geographically located), the latter of which was administratively juxtaposed with the "Black" category. Had "African" been juxtaposed with "Asian", the situation would be no different. The fact remains that the National Association of British Arabs aggregates all 45,475 Somali write-ins under the "Arab" categories. And that's indeed not even counting the ones who ticked the "Arab" main category. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agreed, they wrote it in under the "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" heading, so could well have meant to categorise themselves as African but not necessarily black. We could mention that they were subsequently categorised as Arab by the NABA in the article, but presumably there are a large number who just ticked "Arab", so I think perhaps we just need to leave this ethnicity data out on the grounds that it gives an incomplete picture when it comes to Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You are presuming that all of those individuals are ethnically Somali, whereas there is no indication that they are let alone that they meant "Black" rather than "African". On the contrary, it is established that most Somalis either opt for the "Other ethnic group", "Arab" or "African" entries. What's certain is that the ones who wrote in "Somali" under "Other ethnic group" are definitely ethnic Somalis. Many of the Somalis who ticked "Arab" probably are too since all major ethnic Somali clans have Arab patriarchs. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there's no indication that they meant black. When you say "You are presuming that all of those individuals are ethnically Somali", though, what do you mean? If someone writes their ethnicity in as Somali on the census, we have to presume that they're Somali, don't we? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Somali" is also a nationality for Somalia citizens, and Somalia is geographically located in Africa [52]; so no, it obviously isn't that simple for the respondents who selected "African" (not "Black"). It only is straightforward for the respondents who wrote in "Somali" under "Other ethnic group", as well as for many of the respondents who ticked "Arab". Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the question asks about ethnicity, not nationality. I suppose it's possible that some people misunderstood the question and answered it with their nationality, but that's always going to be a problem with surveys that people complete themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The confusion stems from "African", which (like Asia) isn't an ethnicity but rather a continent. So no, this isn't merely a general survey problem. Middayexpress (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, true. It's quite well documented that the census categories mix racial, ethnic and geographical categories. I've been trying to note some of the academic criticism of the categories in the Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom article. Anyway, I think we're in agreement not to use these figures in this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they list "Somalilander"? All Somalis come from the same ethnicity. AcidSnow (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because that's what some people chose to write in to the box, I suppose. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

NABA indicates 6,249 such odd write-ins. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. I think you mean 51,000 since "Somalilanders" are ethnic Somalis. Also, what on earth is a "Somali Jamaican"? AcidSnow (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure if you wait long enough, someone will create a Somali Jamaican Wikipedia article, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps someday someone will create a Racism on Wikipedia page, though. Middayexpress (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? How many Somalis are in Jamaica and leaving to the UK for this to happen? AcidSnow (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Was this a bad thing to ask?!? AcidSnow (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused too. Midday seems to have created a redirect from Somali Jamaican to this page. Are there even Somali Jamaicans, and why would that be a redirect to an article about Somalis in the UK? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There are few if any. Racism on Wikipedia does unfortunately exist, though, much like Sexism on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for changing the redirect to Somali people. That makes more sense (I doubt very much that anyone will search for the term but there's no harm in the redirect existing, I suppose). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I now know what you're both talking about: "Somali Jamaican" is mentioned in the NABA report. I was looking at the ONS table and couldn't find it. It could well be someone with one Somali parent and one Jamaican parent, but we can't know what was intended when someone wrote it in. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What perhaps makes sense is a page on Racism on Wikipedia, much like the already extant Gender bias on Wikipedia. Time will tell, I suppose. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd support such an article if we could find reliable sources for it (I'm sure there must be some newspaper coverage, if nothing else), but I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion about ethnicity data from the 2011 UK census? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure :) Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[53]. AcidSnow (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted the wrong link. Here's what I wanted to show: [54]. AcidSnow (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Debates on this page do sometimes leave me feeling like I've been through a hedge backwards! :-) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I feel like I should back out and just disappear from this section. AcidSnow (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are always welcome, although I don't think there's much left to discuss in this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It just that this section has taken a sharp turn. AcidSnow (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In what sense, AcidSnow? The discussion of racism? I did ask Midday what that had to do with this discussion, but didn't get an answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how you yourself admitted that this page had a problem with anti-Somali hate, I don't believe I needed to. This was already understood. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is some anti-Somali POV in the page archives (although I didn't "admit" that, which sounds like I was responsible for it - I pointed it out). I don't see what that has to do with this specific discussion on ethnicity data though. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I belive you are refering to Ackees. AcidSnow (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that discussion, AcidSnow. What I had in mind was much longer ago, and was highlighted by Midday here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what you wrote was that there's certainly been some anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages. You then softened that to only this page and its archive. Interesting, all the same and duly noted. At any rate, the apparent non-sequiturs did not begin with Racism on Wikipedia or even Homer Simpson, but rather with one Somali Cat Club. Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think mine and AcidSnow's images of a cat and Homer Simpson were plays on words/jokes, whereas I presume you are serious about the racism point? If you are, I think it would be simpler if you could (a) explain how this relates to the current discussion, and (b) report anyone you suspect of racism at WP:ANI. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The hypothesized Racism on Wikipedia page was about as much in jest as your Somali Cat Club weblink. However, your remarks on the anti-Somali hate were unfortunately not a joke, and they've certainly been and shall remain duly noted. Middayexpress (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But they seem to love the cat: "to work for a much wider appreciation of Somalis"? AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's no wonder: "With a Somali you will feel loved". :-) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AcidSnow for pointing out what the actual write-in responses were per NABA. I see now why you alluded to "Somali Jamaican", as it is the only entry of its kind in Appendix 3. The rest are either "Somali", "Arab", "British", and/or various combinations thereof [55]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, it seems that we may actually have a rough idea just how many Somalis ticked the "Arab" write-in response. The National Association of British Arabs provides the percentages for the countries of birth of UK Arabs in its Appendix 6. For Somalia-born individuals, that figure is 99,484, which is over twice the 45,475 total of the Somali write-in responses for "African", "Other ethnic group", "White", "Mixed/multiple ethnic group" and "Asian/Asian British". The Somalia-born total is also the largest among the UK Arab countries. Since most emigrants from Somalia are ethnic Somalis, this suggests that the majority of the remaining 54,009 respondents selected the "Arab" entry. This would in turn mean that Somalis represent the largest fraction of the 240,545 total respondents who ticked "Arab"; and that's not even counting those from other parts of Greater Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although we've already reported the figure for England and Wales (101,370 - 99,484 is for England) in the article. Also, don't forget that not everyone who considers themselves ethnically Somali will have been born in Somalia, so it's difficult to compare the figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Somali is an ethnicity, it's something you're born into. Though, half or any other type may have this question. And yes there are Somalis that have come from Greater Somalia as well. AcidSnow (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one could be born into Somali ethnicity in Somalia, or in the UK, or somewhere else. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. There are many that move from Sweden, the Netherlands, etc to the UK and bring their Dutch/Swede/etc. born children with them. AcidSnow (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The good (related) news is that the Annual Population Survey is being reweighted this year in light of the census results, so that will at least give us an up-to-date estimate of the total Somali-born population of the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is on UK residents with Somali ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It already includes country-of-birth statistics from the census and the Annual Population Survey. These reweighted figures would just be an update to those. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes AcidSnow, that is what I meant. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)