Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 18 February 2015

Template:BLP noticeboard

Somalis in the United Kingdom received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Somalia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Welfare figures

I added the following text, which was cut out by Middayexpress as "undue":

"By 2013, 39 per cent of Somali households were claiming income support, and 40 per cent were claiming child benefit - both percentages higher than for any other ethnic minority within the UK.

The comment against the edit which removed this text also said "welfare already discussed in proper context". Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I can't find such a section - or does Middayexpress mean "Employment"? In which case I can't see the figures I provided, or any equivalent to those figures. Please clarify a) should I be looking at another section of the article for this? b) if not, is there a good reason why I shouldn't include those figures with the citation?

(btw quite understand about the removal of the detail provided by a single anecdote.) Alfietucker (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The high intake of welfare is a function of the fact that most Somali immigrants in the UK are asylum seekers. It's not for the alarmist reasons that book insinuates. According to the Warwickshire Police Force and a report by ELWa, asylum seekers are not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency/UKBA) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed. This is explained further down the page, in its proper context. Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've again removed that Goodhart book. It is not on the Somali community specifically. Its statistics are also unsupported. Worse, going by its cited figures for the number of economically active Somalis, they appear to be outright false. Per the Office of National Statistics which actually collects this data, in the three months to June 2008, 31.4 percent of Somali men and 84.2 percent of Somali women were economically inactive. That's almost 70% of Somali men that are economically active, not the 30% figure which that book misleadingly claims. Huge difference, and says a lot about the reliability of the work as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, but at least accept that the paraphrase I had to remove from "Employment" (and have removed again) of the BBC article was misleading. I can understand someone misread what the BBC wrote - "including a high proportion of skilled professionals who have not been able to find work in their field in the UK" and so paraphrased it as "This includes skilled professionals who, while constituting a high proportion of Somali immigrants, have not all been able to find work in their field". But that paraphrase is flatly contradicted by the 3 per cent figure given by the Institute for Public Policy Research, cited in the "Education" section above. Alfietucker (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a contradiction because many of the qualifications that Somali professionals have obtained while in Somalia are not recognized in the UK. This leaves the not unusual situation of a doctor turned taxi driver, simply because his or her qualifications and experience are no longer recognized. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not clear in the article as it stands, and if it's going to be said there it needs to be supported by a reliable citation to that effect. But I'm sure you know that already. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not meaning to be difficult, but the citation given did not substantiate the claim. I've removed the relevant sentence, but left the citation as it serves well for the previous sentence. Alfietucker (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a tab toward the bottom labeled "Full text". Once that it is clicked, it is explained that "the refugees who arrived in London during 1980s and 90s were often wealthy and educated, but found it difficult to find work here comparable to the work they had left behind" . Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that and read that passage. But it doesn't say that they couldn't get work because their qualifications were not recognized (it could have been language problem, scarcity of suitable posts, lack of suitable experience compared to other candidates, etc.). What's needed is a citation that specifically says their qualifications were not recognized. Using the citation we had to claim this is WP:OR at best. Sorry. Alfietucker (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in part due to language. But also to the authorities for whatever reason choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many highly qualified asylum seekers . Middayexpress (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right to infer this from the Guardian article, but even using this as a citation would be WP:OR since it nowhere mentions Somalis. As it is, AFAIK, the only reliable published citation in this article (relevant to this issue) that passes Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability is the 3 per cent figure given by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Alfietucker (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an old figure and obviously doesn't take into consideration the qualifications of many Somali professionals: "An estimated 1,500 refugee teachers live in England, but many are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work. Sir Robert Dowling, headteacher of George Dixon International School in Birmingham, said his newest recruit, a science teacher, was a Somali refugee he had met at the school gates. His most recent job had been as a fork lift truck driver" . Middayexpress (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then this is anecdotal. If we allow this, presumably an earlier edit you removed based on "a personal anecdote from one man" can equally be allowed since it is published in a reputable source. So either we allow both, or we need a more substantive citation based on some research to do with highly qualified Somalis in the UK. Alfietucker (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just found this, for instance, which suggests the problem for many Somalis is language (rather than HE qualifications). I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything about failure to recognize qualifications, or anything else of interest. Alfietucker (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've found a citation which seems to support that sentence (it may merit a more careful reading but a quick look over seems to suggest it does). I've reinstated that sentence and given it that citation. That's it, I'm calling it a day now. Alfietucker (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The main statement that many teachers "are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work" isn't an anecdote. At any rate, the assertion that only 3% of Somalis in 2005 had higher education qualifications is at odds with an earlier 2003 study by the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council in which 12% of the total sampled refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees, while around 20% of the sampled Somali refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees. Despite this, "among the Somalis interviewed, only a quarter of those with a professional background had found similar jobs in London They were four times more likely to be working in semi-skilled or manual labour jobs than would be expected given their education and employment experience There were similar proportions of people working in semi-skilled jobs across all the communities interviewed." This is pretty old, but it supports CARE's aforementioned assertion that the authorities for whatever reason are choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many refugee and asylum seeker professionals . Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful of assuming that because someone has a qualification and they fail to get a job suitable for that qualification that means it has "not been recognized". One only has to see the fate of many graduates in this country, who don't immediately find suitable work, to realize that often the issue is relevant job experience, and that is often measured by references. I may be wrong here, but I imagine (for instance) that it's rare that immigrant Somalis would be able to provide referees from their former employers back in Somalia. In other words, there are probably other issues which prevent apparently well-qualified Somalis from getting work, which are not to do with their original qualification. I'm only spelling this out to present the grounds on which a less sympathetic editor may claim it's WP:OR to draw the inference you did from the BBC article you last instated as a citation. That's why I've shunted this a bit, and given the relevant sentence the Harris document as a citation (the link of which, btw, was "dead" but I've now fixed). All best, Alfietucker (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's indicated as well in the link above: ""There is a barrier for many refugees in terms of their qualifications," Ms Jones told the London Assembly. "They may have qualifications which are not recognised in this country and then find themselves having to effectively start again. "On the one hand we have got skills shortages in London and on the other hand we have a group of people with skills. With a little support they could be in work"" . According to the AETLLSC, "not being able to get overseas qualifications recognised" is also one of the main barriers to employment . Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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 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" ). 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 . 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. ), 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 ), and there are other factual inaccuracies as well . 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" ). 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 Misplaced Pages'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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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" . 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 . 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 . 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" . 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 . 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 . 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)

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

1. Rutter, Jill; Cooley, Laurence; Jones, Naomi; Pillai, Rachel. Moving Up Together: Promoting equality and integration among the UK's diverse communities. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. ISBN 186030320X.

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" . 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 ]. 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 . 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 . Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 18 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

1. Rutter, Jill; Cooley, Laurence; Jones, Naomi; Pillai, Rachel. Moving Up Together: Promoting equality and integration among the UK's diverse communities. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. ISBN 186030320X.

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 :

"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" . 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 . 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

1. Demie, Feyisa; Lewis, Kirstin; McLean, Christabel (March 2008). "Raising Achievement of Somali Pupils: Good Practice in London Schools" (PDF). Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit. Retrieved 1 February 2015.
2. "Somalis in London" (PDF). Somalis in European Cities. Open Society Foundations. 2014. pp. 52–53. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
3. Rutter, Jill (March 2013). "Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom" (PDF). Institute for Public Policy Research. p. 42. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
4. Rutter, Jill (2012). "Equity in education for migrant and refugee children: Issues from the United Kingdom". In McCarthy, Florence E.; Vickers, Margaret H. (eds.). Refugee and Immigrant Students: Achieving Equity in Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. pp. 167–188. ISBN 9781617358418.
5. Demie, Feyisa (2014). "Language diversity and attainment in schools: Implication for policy and practice". Race Ethnicity and Education. doi:10.1080/13613324.2014.946493.

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 . 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" ). 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 :

"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" . 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 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.

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 ). 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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)

Alternative wording suggestion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A discussion (see above) has been taking place about how to incorporate data from this journal article into the education section of this article. The source presents data on the GSCE performance of pupils who speak Somali at home. The reason it uses this data is because there is no nationwide data on GCSE results by ethnicity at the level of detail that allows individual ethnic groups to be identified (so Somalis are often subsumed into a bigger "African" category).

This is Tmol42's suggested wording from above:

Although no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom 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.

Middayexpress has suggested elsewhere this alternative wording (we would follow this with the statistics from Demie, I presume):

According to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit, no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the size and educational attainment of Somali pupils in the United Kingdom. Data on the students has often been aggregated under a broad continental 'African' variable, which obscures the students' unique charateristics and requirements. This in turn inhibits targeted policy making and practice developments at the national and local level. To redress this, various London Local Authorities, where most Somali pupils attend school, have started gathering and monitoring data on the Somali student community.

Could we get editors' preferences, if they have any, on which of these to use, or comments for improving either of them? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure but I thought you offered to drop the "Black African" stuff? Anyways, I recommend Middayexpress'. AcidSnow (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We could drop the second mention of "Black African" in Tmol42's wording, but to drop the first one would be to misrepresent Debie's data. I'm happy to drop the second mention ("compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils"), but I didn't include that here because I didn't want to mess with Tmol's suggestion without his/her awareness. It's more the first part of the paragraph that I think we need input on. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may butt in here re my redraft, I do think the 'Black African' is relevant as it arrises as it is a subset of the Black/African/Carribean/British ethic group from the UK census. There are I recall also not insignificant numbers of Somalis who self-classified themselves as White, or Mixed, or Asain in the results of the 2011 census. I am also aware that the term is sometimes queried as to whether it should apply to 'north Africans'.Tmol42 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain my comment about the danger of misrepresenting Demie's data for those who don't have access to the article, the title of the table that the data is from is: "Table 2. GCSE performance of Black African pupils by language spoken at home". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He did, AcidSnow. Larry asserted that he wasn't interested in attempting to racially classifying this population after we pointed out Somalis' general self-perception, policies discouraging this (viz. WP:CATEGRS and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)), and actual ancestry . He also wrote that my suggested alternative wording above based on the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit "looks good" . Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's anything wrong with your wording, although it is a bit long. It's not for me to decide though - we need to reach wider consensus. I think I still prefer Tmol42's wording as it is a bit shorter and leads into the Demie statistics more naturally. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The racial phrasing in it is gratuitous and synthesis. Demie certainly does not indicate this in his Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit report, where he actually explains why there's a dearth of nationwide stats on the Somali student population's attainment and size. Even if he had, it would still be a breach of said policies given this population's general self-perception and actual ancestry. Here's what Demie actually writes on this, which my alternative wording above faithfully adheres to: "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" . Middayexpress (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what is the problem? Can we simply quote him even though it's too long? It seems to make it neutral for both parties. AcidSnow (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would most neutrally resolve the matter. The passage is a bit long for that, though; better to paraphrase it, which I've just done. Middayexpress (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, all my contributions are free of charge, thanks for acknowledging that!Tmol42 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Gratuitous as in unnecessary. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see the table in the Demie source (it might help explain the "Black African" wording), here is a screenshot. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, I asked you to link externally to a screenshot, not to upload a copyrighted file onto Misplaced Pages. This is quite irrelevant anyway since Demie's actual explanation for why no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the size and educational attainment of Somali pupils in the United Kingdom is from his report on Somali students (where he distinguishes his Somali students from the Black African pupils ), not the 2014 paper on language. It doesn't really matter though since, as it turns out, Demie does indeed provide a nationwide GCSE figure for 2007 for Somali students in England (not Somali language speaking pupils, which would include Bantus and other ethnically non-Somali individuals). It's in his Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit paper for Portuguese students; the figure for Somali pupils is 42% ("Table 2 shows KS2 and GCSE results for each main ethnic group at national level" ). Thus, this is the actual paper to cite for the latest available national GCSE for this population. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The screenshot discussion above was about an IPPR report, not this paper. Use of this doesn't break copyright - I asked for advice at Misplaced Pages:Media_copyright_questions#Screenshot_of_a_table_from_a_journal_article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, there's no table 2 in the article you've linked to there, and that quote doesn't appear in it either. Wrong link, perhaps? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this screenshot was from Demie's actual paper on Somali students . And yes, he certainly does include a national GCSE for Somali pupils in his Table 2; the figure is 42% ("Table 2 shows KS2 and GCSE results for each main ethnic group at national level" ). Thus, this is indeed the actual paper to cite for the latest available national GCSE for this population. Middayexpress (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, you linked to the wrong paper at the end of the quote in your comment above then. Yes, that appears on first sight to be a national figure. That's confusing when you consider Demie's claims in other papers that no such national figure exists for Somalis. The answer appears to lie in Table 3 here. Note that the data is exactly the same as in the Portuguese pupils paper. There is a footnote next to the Somali figure, though, which states: "The Somali figure here is the average of over 28 London Local Authorities with over 2500 Somali pupils in primary school, and 1200 pupils in secondary schools. No Somali national data is available". So what they're doing is comparing the Somali figure for London to the national figure for other, broader groups. However, given that they've made that comparison and that most Somalis are based in London, perhaps we could indeed use the 42 per cent figure in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite possible. I think we should note both Demie's 34% national GCSE for 2006 and his 42% national GCSE for 2007 to show how much the latest available national GCSE figure for Somali students changed within a year and the direction it was moving in. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The 34 per cent from Figure 1? The only problem there is that they're not directly comparable as that figure is based on 10 local authorities in London, not the 28 used to calculate the 2007 figure. We could caveat the statistics with this, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Section 4.2.2 of this paper surveys a variety of figures, include Demie's. Another alternative is to quote/cite that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear where that paper is getting its 2005 national GCSE figure from, as the 2007 DFES report itself doesn't actually give any such figure for Somali students . It also ignores the many local authorities that don't process their data in that way, and uses a tiny sample of 98 Somali students. Given this, I think we should link directly to Demie's actual papers, noting both his 34% national GCSE for 2006 and his 42% national GCSE for 2007 , with a caveat as to the number of London local authorities that were used to calculate these national GCSE figures. Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, done. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. I just made some small changes of wording ("GSCE score" isn't quite right - it's the proportion gaining five or more good grades at GCSE) and also removed one reference where the statistic appeared in another, already cited one that is specifically about Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to throw yet another spanner in the works, Middayexpress, but it seems the 2006 figure is for the proportion gaining five A*-C grades regardless of subject, whereas the 2007 figure is the proportion gaining five A*-C grades including maths and English, so they're not quite measuring the same thing. The proportion of the latter is always lower than the former, so this probably underestimates the improvement (although the difference in the number of LAs complicates the comparison). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They are measuring the same thing; please see Table 6 & Figure1 . Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I looked into the sources of the broad ethnicity group data and got the idea that one included maths and English, but checking again I must have been mistaken. The proportions in that table and chart are all too high to be the maths and English figures. Phew! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of minor suggestions for rewording here, to improve the clarity of the text. It currently reads: "Based on the GCSE averages from 10 London local authorities, the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit estimated that 34 per cent of Somali students in England gained five or more GCSEs at grades A*–C in 2006. This proportion had increased to 42 per cent by 2007, based on a larger sample of the averages of 28 London local authorities". First, the "in England" is a bit confusing, since that data is clearly for the 10 London LAs mentioned earlier in the sentence, not for England as a whole (as the article explains, such national data is not available). Second, the "had increased" bit is misleading since it doesn't compare like with like. It's a comparison of data from 10 LAs with data from 28, and the source itself doesn't claim that this is proof of an increase. Given the wide variation in pupil performance across London, it might just be that the additional 18 LAs already had better-performing Somali pupils. I suggest something along the lines of "This compares with a figure of 42 per cent in 2007...". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The "in England" bit is necessary since this is what Table 6 actually indicates, and without it the estimate does not appear to be national, when it is in fact intended as such. The "had increased" bit is thus not misleading since both tables are captioned GCSE Attainment by Main Ethnic Groups in England 2007; it also indicates the actual direction of the change in GCSE average. Middayexpress (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The footnotes in the source make it clear that the Somali figures are not for England as a whole, but for some London LAs. In what sense does that make them "for England"? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the text of the report states "Table 3 shows KS1, KS2, KS3 and KS4 results for each main ethnic group at national level including aggregated data for selected LAs in London which are noted as having over two thousand Somali pupils in their schools". That makes it clear that the Somali data is for London LAs, and the broad ethnic groups data for England as a whole. Our wording should reflect this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As for "both tables are captioned GCSE Attainment by Main Ethnic Groups in England 2007", one of the figures is from a chart for 2006, not a table for 2007. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See Figure 1. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I'm referring to. The Somali data is for London alone, as made clear by the footnote and the text that introduces the chart. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong Figure 1 (there are several therein). It's the one titled "Somali and Main Ethnic Groups GCSE Performance in England, 2006", on page 6. Middayexpress (talk)

That's what I'm looking at. The footnote states: "The Somali figure here is the average of 10 Local Authorities in London (Demie, 2006). No reliable national Somali data is available or collected by DCSF". The data is for 10 London LAs, not for England as a whole. The other items in the figure are for England as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Its extrapolated for England as a whole because there is no nationwide data available; see Table 6 titled "GCSE National Performance in England by Ethnicity and Gender – 2007" ("No national Somali data available. Data here refers to London Local Authorities." ). Middayexpress (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so why are we suggesting in our reporting of the data that it applies to England as a whole? Also, do you agree that the source makes no claim about an improvement between 2006 and 2007? It just presents different data on the two years. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Lambeth local authority itself already does this when it compares the Somali students GCSEs with the national (not London) GCSEs of other pupils. That's what the "in England" in each table's title means. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it compares London data for Somalis with England data for other groups. We should reflect this in our wording. That's what I'm suggesting we do. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it compares Somali data culled from London but extrapolated for England with nationwide data for other populations. That is why the table as a whole is titled "in England". The wording captures this. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's compared, not extrapolated. The source doesn't claim the figures are representative of England as a whole. Our wording is confusing as it says it's for London, and then for England. If you insist on that, I suppose it will have to remain confusing. How about the "improvement" wording? That's not supported by the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is indeed extrapolated nationally (see page 17 ). Also, the actual wording notes that "this proportion had increased to 42 per cent", which is also extrapolated nationally (see Table 2 ). Middayexpress (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as previously discussed, that table in the report on Portuguese pupils is the same as the one in the Somali pupils report, without the footnote. Neither report states that GCSE performance has increased, because the 2006 and 2007 figures are based on very different sized samples. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Sorry, where have I hounded you? I've been discussing a similar issue with you at Talk:Nigerian British, but I have a longstanding interest in that page. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You followed me yesterday onto an ip's talk page and the Mogadishu page, discussions which have nothing to do with you (other than my presence there of course) . Kindly stop it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about the Mogadishu article have nothing to do with me? I'm as free to contribute as anyone. Also, I wasn't aware that I could hound you by agreeing with you, which is what I did there! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hounding: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." Again, please stop it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with your argument does not constitute inhibiting your work or (I presume) annoying or distressing you. If you have been distressed by my agreeing with you and providing a source that supports your argument, please take it up on my talk page rather than here, or report me and have an admin look into it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I scanned the above so sorry if I missed anything. Seems to me you just need to describe the data. Leave out things like 'improve' unless the source says this exact word. Readers can be left to make their own minds up about that easily enough. BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Although "improve" wasn't part of the wording, I agree that it's best to just neutrally relay the data. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but is it possible that BrumEduResearch meant "increase" when they said "improve"? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I meant to write. The source does not even include the 2006 and 2007 figures in the same table. They're not comparable because they are based on very different samples. I would just report the 2007 figure for Somalis in the 28 London authorities and compare with the England figure for all pupils from the same table. That cuts the massive section down somewhat too. BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2006 and 2007 figures are from the same Lambeth local authority, so they are indeed comparable. I also couldn't help but notice that you just registerd this account. Remarkable timing there . Middayexpress (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I replied your timing comment below. I'm not sure what I have to do as a new/returning editor. The figures come from the same source but it doesn not compare them as they cover different areas. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The tables are both extrapolating the GCSE figures for Somali students in England in 2006 and 2007, respectively, based on the averages of various London local authorities. The only difference is that the 2006 average is based on 10 LLAs while the other one is based on 28 LLAs. Also, new and "returning" editors likewise aren't the same thing. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They just compare London Somali with England all pupils. It is easier to just put the stats like that. Your extropolation wording is confusing and not in the source. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the title of the tables themselves indicate otherwise (e.g. ). Middayexpress (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• 3O/Comment I've removed your third opinion request because you have several involved editors, and have already started an RfC. I will add some thoughts regardless. Please remain civil and refrain from fighting over petty issues. Keep in mind that this entire lengthy discussion is centered on a small detail of the article. We do not need to incorporate information from every possible source, especially if sources contradict each other. It may be sufficient to merely comment that the education level of Somali immigrants is difficult to judge, which can be backed up with sources that say that. It seems that there is definite consensus that there is a lack of reliable data on this issue, so consider just going with that, rather than spending a lot of time debating on how to present imperfect and potentially flawed data. Gigs (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gigs; quite sensible advice. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 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 . 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" . "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 . 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 . 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% . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 figure was apparently marred by undercounting. The real Muslim adherent percentage is nearer to 98% or 99% like 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages", that "a primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles
• High-importance WikiProject Somalia articles
• WikiProject Somalia articles
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• High-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Start-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment