Talk:Child migration

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pandalover03, W1527371, Candy Lee, Sianna Willis. Peer reviewers: Pandalover03, Candy Lee, Sianna Willis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think the Child migration article should be merged with the Home Children article as they both cover the same subject and they're both only stubs. Anyone then looking for Child migration would be redirected to the Home Children Page. Richerman (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you didn't have the merge proposals pointing to the same talk, fixed it to point here since there is a response here and it more closely follows the guidelines "All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge. The articles are clearly about the same thing. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. While the two articles currently discuss the same thing, there have been a number of instances of forced child migration in history that belong in a child migration page whereas home children specifically refers to the British program.67.79.10.114 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason the current content of Home Children couldn't just be section in Child migration? Essentially, a reverse of the merge are originally proposed? It seems like we don't currently have enough material to support two distinct articles. The Home Children article could be spun back out in the future if/when the Child Migration article gets too big. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a problem with that. I only proposed it the other way round as the Home Children article was the bigger one but, on reflection, it sounds more logical the other way round. Would user 67.79.10.114 (talk) be ok with that? Richerman (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While we await further input, I've reversed the merge tags so interested readers will know what is being suggested at this point in the conversation. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this article is that the lead defines Child migration as "forced migration" but if you look at this link there is also a lot of voluntary child migration for economic reasons. The way to deal with this would be to either change the title to something like Child migration (enforced) or change the lead and include voluntary migration as well - which would make for a much longer article. Any ideas? Richerman (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a somewhat separate issue from the proposed merge, and we should probably discuss it under a different section header. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I've been in 2 minds over this - up until recently i'd have supported a merger. However, this article (child migration) seems to have grown over the past day or two to sufficiently differenciate from the Home Children article, itself which I believe is substantial enough in content to warrant an indepentant article on the matter. Basically, I think they're both currently just about big enough to be left separate, and both are still evidently stubby, thus there is obviously still alot of relevant information which can be added to both. I think a merger now into this article would overshadow the subject with the British-Australian Home Children content, unless cut down which I suppose would be counter-productive. I'm fairly open on the subject though, so if there any further reasonable and logical reasons why a merger is still the best course of action, then i'd take that into consideration and maybe alter my stance (whether it affects the outcome of the vote or not). Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's partly down to me for adding the section on Malta. Typical - I propose a merger then help scupper it myself :) I suppose the child migration article is getting big enough now to stand alone. Oddly enough I was watching TV just now and they were talking about child migration in the context of British evacuees in the WWII so I suppose that should get a mention too. I see there's an article Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II. Richerman (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly at only about 5K text per article, I don't think a combined article would be over-large. The only issue would be having it overweighted to that particular section, which is better addressed by adding more info about other countries and incidents. But I think merging vs. keeping separated is a marginal issue, as long as both articles are improving. --RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge advocate of merging articles if the reason isn't particularly convincing (or where further growth potential is evident). Here, now, I see 2 articles, each with a separate purpose, with one being about a specific subject matter which itself only touches the surface of the issue. I quote, RL0919, "which is better addressed by adding more info about other countries and incidents" - in which case, this article would become sufficiently large to warrant a separate article on the subject with the most information, in which case this happens to be Home Children. My views are that, if an article can, without doubt from the majority, reach a state of warranting independance from the subject matter to which it is relevant to (in this case, Child migration), then it should be kept in that state and developed further. The subjects have only in the past few days been put under the media spotlight with the recent attention regarding apologies, so therefore I think a vote on a merger now probably wasn't the best idea. That said, i'd suggest, should article growth not progress much from this state, that a similar request to merger (or opinions on the matter) be proposed in several months time, and maybe then there will be something more to work with - lets give them a chance first. Hopefully I made sense there, but it is only my opinion, so anyone feel free to disagree or question my views - that is what this is about, afterall :) Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'd say Child migration should remain as a general article on the topic, with Home Children as an article specifically focusing on this British phenomenon. Robofish (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the consensus is not to merge the two article I've removed the merge tags. Richerman (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced vs. voluntary migration
Given the fact that we are dealing with children the question of their agency & consent is problematic. It is exacerbated by the fact that in many cases the children were lied to and misled so that even if they are otherwise capable of making an informed choice they did not have the opportunity. To some degree all child migration is forced.67.79.10.114 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

but the police and fbi can stop that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.65.225 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the definition
I would like to discuss the current definition of the term. It defines all of child migration as international and unaccompanied, and uses a source that is restricted to independent (unaccompanied) migration. A more inclusive description should add accompanied migration, and also migration within political borders - as trafficking, access to health and education services, and other risks can be present whether the child crosses a border or not. If there is a good argument to keep the definition restricted then I at least see a need to disambiguate somehow, either with a separate article or with additional sections within this article clarifying the differences. Hipersons (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Child migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726170335/http://www.firstnationsdrum.com:80/education/Default.htm to http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/education/Default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Child migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405065659/http://www.pm.gov.au:80/node/6321 to http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409231929/http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/publications/StolenGenerations.pdf to http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/publications/StolenGenerations.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)