Talk:Somalis in Sweden

Figures
Per WP:AGE MATTERS, I've prefaced the education figures with the latest official Statistics Sweden figures since the other percentages were quite outdated (2010 government figures). Further, the wikitext appears to have erroneously presented what the 2012 government paper actually indicates. Figur 4 of the paper indicates that the ~25% level pertains to okänd (page 30 ). This apparently translates as "unknown" ; it does not translate as "lack primary education" like the wikitext claimed. Also, the employment figure was taken from a piece from 2012 by the SVT television station, which does not cite its original source. I've therefore replaced it with a more reliable and up-to-date figure from a paper by a relevant authority, the Institute of Labor Economics (Appendix 4 - ). Soupforone (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Förgymnasial means ICSED levels 0,1,2. Effectively that means primary education or incomplete primary education. In the context of Sweden, the subject of this article, that is a low education. See pages 187-189 from Statistics Sweden. It is completely clear that the Swedish Television journalists cited in the text (a WP:RS) interpret the okänd as having less than complete primary education. Primary education Grundskolan in Sweden is year 1-9 and and indivudual doesn't have primary education if you haven't completed year 1-9. Also, omplete primary education allows admission to secondary education Gymnasieskola. Therefore this graph shows the percentages of groups in Sweden having completed primary education, the green line means "groups born outside EU, EFTA and Nordic Countries", it is sourced from SCB. Andel av befolkning behöriga till gymnasium efter födelseregion 1997-2015.png AadaamS
 * (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We should also provide context, not just numbers. The conclusions and reasoning from the Framitidskommissionen report should be used in the article, along with the info from Swedish Television and other sources. It is good to use SCB data when nothing else is available, but we have better sources in this case. AadaamS (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A figure is never "outdated" if it is attached with a year, only if it is being described as current in the text. There is absolutely nothing in ENWP guidelines which say we cannot present figures from the past to provide the history or chronicle of a subject. Immigration from Somalia to Sweden has happened since the 90s, of course the article can describe figures from the past provided they are clearly labelled as such. We add new figures as they become available, but there is no reason to delete old figures. In fact, deleting accurately sourced and relevant information is not allowed according to ENWP guidelines. Sticking to only current figures violates WP:RECENTISM. It is inappropriate to rely on WP:AGE MATTERS on this issue because the information for 2010 is still valid for the year 2010. We are dealing with statistics, it's not a scientific hypothesis that has been disproven since. AadaamS (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Statistics Sweden latest official figures are contrasted with the governmental Framitidskommissionen's older figures; I didn't remove them. What I did do per WP:AGE MATTERS was make it clear that the Framitidskommissionen's data is from 2010 and not the current governmental figures. The recentism policy instead applies to things like news spikes; it does not apply to current versus older government figures. Further, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the policy on outdated data applies to all scholarly material-- ''Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, 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''. Per WP:NEWSORG, news articles are also less reliable ("scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics"), and uncited editorial analysis in particular is "rarely reliable for statements of fact". As regards the schooling level translations, according to Statistics Sweden, Förgymnasial utbildning=Primary and lower secondary education, Gymnasial utbildning=Upper secondary education, Eftergymnasial utbildning=Post secondary education, and Uppgift saknas=Unknown education level (p. 448); okänd nivå also translates as ''unknown level'' (p. 449). Soupforone (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

More sources
HELMI - Health & Migration report from Malmö University. There is no need to rely on SCB statistics only. AadaamS (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The government manages the official data, so it is the most reliable and up-to-date Swedish authority per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. However, outside of the government, English language sources are generally preferred per WP:NONENG (Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.). Soupforone (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * raw data is only useful when nothing else is available, but it provides no context. We should of course look beyond the raw data when it comes to characterisation and contextualisation of data. Like: is education high or low by Swedish standards? Is unemployment ratio high or low by Swedish standards? AadaamS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Context can also mean what actual professions and fields of education the individuals' pursue. Anyway, the government is a reliable authority on governmental data (see WP:DEADREF). Soupforone (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A large list of professions in a group where a 30% minority are employed can violate WP:UNDUE. Simply listing a lot of statistics as prose doesn't make for a readable section. The statistics you provide are better displayed as a table rather than prose? AadaamS (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, per Statistics Sweden, as of 2008 the estimated unemployment rate for Somalia-born immigrants aged 25 to 54 was roughly 28% for males and 21% for females. That is not a majority but rather the contrary. Anyway, per WP:PROSE, prose is generally preferred, though some raw data does lend itself to a table format. Soupforone (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Raw data lends itself to a table format, I think your long recaputilation of tabular data is best presented as a table, but even a table does not capture trends or context. Which page are you looking at in your link? I am looking at page 51. One of the other sources I've read during our "conversation" indicate employment varied between 20-30% in 2000-2010, that's why I ask. Let's see if I can find that statistic again. AadaamS (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The employment rate and unemployment rate are two different things, and are calculated differently. The unemployment rates are on pages 58-61. Soupforone (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've changed my statement above. AadaamS (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the employment and unemployment rates need contextualization - particularly given the indicated caveat that "unemployment figures are based on Labour Force Surveys in which the informant can be both enrolled in education and unemployed, and due to this have higher unemployment rates." This cannot be adequately rendered into a table format. Soupforone (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There word combination had attained appears 9 times in the Education paragraph, repetition is not good for readability. AadaamS (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The word "attained" is necessary to avoid sentence fragmentation (ex. 22% had attained an upper secondary education level // 22% an upper secondary education level). Without the term, it also looks like the individuals have left school when many are actually still in schooling. A table format could perhaps work, though, for the actual educational fields that they matriculated in. Soupforone (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is necessary only because prose, in this case, is a format ill suited to the task. The sources from SCB are in this case using the table format and they are experts in these matters. If the source uses a table, it is not unreasonable that ENWP does. AadaamS (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The government educational level figures on pages 30-31 are actually presented in pie and bar charts. This can be rendered in either chart, prose or table formats - WP:PROSE recommends prose format. The government's educational fields are, though, in table format. Soupforone (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a pie or bar chart could be used, or a table. There's a reason experts use those forms of presentation. AadaamS (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If the Nordic Somali Youth Summit files from Stockholm are somehow not relevant, then tabular employment and self-employment rates from North America are even less so. Anyway, WP:PROSE is quite clear-- "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A table is more clear in this case, that is why the academics used a table. There is no need to re-state WP:PROSE over and over when misapplied. Refer to WP:WHENTABLE: Tables might be useful for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results. Comparative figures is exactly the content of this occasion with and prose destroys the ability of the layman reader (our intended audience) easy comparison. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are academics at Lund University and Malmö University who say employment rates in North America are relevant to the general characteristics of Somali immigrants, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The singersongwriter is mentioned in See also section, adding a picture is WP:UNDUE. The text in the section did not explain how the image of a singer-songwriter represented the whole demographic. An image of a flyer from the conference may be more appropriate. Some contextual information about the conference may be added in a new History section. AadaamS (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

North America employment and self-employment figures from almost a decade ago are undue weight for a table format on Sweden employment and self-employment. Also, the policy issue is whether Wikipedia policy recommends presentation in the prose format or the table format. WP:PROSE unambiguously recommends prose. WP:WHENTABLE, however, does not recommend a table format over the prose format - all it does is suggest that "tables might be useful for presenting mathematical data." MOS:TABLES (the guideline under which the WP:WHENTABLE clause falls) also points out in its lede that "tables[...] should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list." As to the summit files, they were obviously never meant to represent singer-songwriting any more than the Zlatan Ibrahimovic file on the Swedish immigration page was meant to represent his footballing career. Anyway, I've replaced them with one of summer farm hosts. Soupforone (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not undue weight because ...
 * English Wikipeida is supposed to write from a global perspective, therefore the table provides the layman reader with an easy comparison to Somali migration elsewhere. Therefore only citing Swedish statistics is inappropriate when sources exist.
 * There has to my knowledge been a more recent or larger report on employment. If there has, it is a useful source.
 * the table is in the summary of the report, it is not in the appendix or some obscure subsection. The authors of the report has lent the table this weight. If it's good enough for academics writing the summary of a major report for the government, it is good enough for enwp too.
 * It's comparison figures, there is clear ENWP policy and in this case it allows the same format preferred by experts on the topic. Referring to "mathematical figures" is misrepresenting the argument. It is not better presented as prose in this case because it's a table of comparison. There is no question that prose lends itself better to comparison, the numbers belong together as a whole. Splitting into sentences causes fragmentation and makes easy comparison harder to the layman reader (our intended audience). A table of comparison may not be better presented as prose to anyone.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF This is not the Immigration to Sweden article. Bringing up other article does not support anything in this talk page. If there are issues in that article, bring it up on the talk page of that article.
 * The farmhosts image is more appropriate. AadaamS (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out, the original Swedish language description of the file doesn't indicate that the farm host youth are of Somali origin (oops, that darn WP:NONENG!). Anyway, the table is indeed undue weight. Template:Globalize pertains to global-themed pages that have a narrow focus on a specific country or area (ergo, why there are various sub-templates like Template:Globalize/Japan). This is actually the opposite of this embedded table, which instead pertains to a country-specific page. Also, I don't see how alluding to mathematical data is misrepresenting the argument since that is exactly what WP:WHENTABLE indicates comparative figures are. The only really valid argument that can perhaps be made is that the government bureau uses a table to present the figures, so this formatting should therefore be emulated. However, there are two problems with this-- (1) it places undue weight on very outdated Sweden figures as well as on non-Sweden figures, and (2) it ignores that most of the actual government discussion on the figures is presented in prose. Now, if you had suggested that the latest Sweden figures should be presented in table format, that would be more reasonable. Anyway, the employment and self-employment figures would have to be in prose since the factors governing them would make little sense without first explaining what those percentages actually are. That is what the prose policy means when it stipulates that prose allows for the presentation of detail and clarification of context. Soupforone (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See point 3 under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK it is explicitly clear that the preferred format for statistics is tables. Comparison charts are an exception to the WP:PROSE as per WP:WHENTABLE and so are statistics, apparently. In this case we are dealing with comparison of statistics in a WP:RS.
 * WP:WHENTABLE says Tables might be useful for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results. we are dealing with comparative figures here. Mathematical data are multiplication tables, there's no reason to cut the citation short. The two guidelines WP:NOT and WP:PROSE agree that tables are appropriate for statistics and comparison figures.
 * Of course employment and self-employment figures should be mentioned in prose, the table should not be standalone as per point 3 of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. The prose can simply refer to the table and there is no need for tedious repetition.
 * Those are academics placing weight on US & Canadian figures by placing them in the summary and writing an entire report about the comparison. That's why including them is due weight.
 * They are not "outdated", they are accurate for their clearly labeled time period. ENWP policy explicitly states that recent figures should not be given higer weight as per WP:RECENTISM. On the contrary, having analysis on employment & education from the 90s is in every way relevant and according to policy.
 * There seems to be an underlying assumption that merely putting numbers in a table lends these numbers undue weight. What is that assumption based on?
 * Standalone and uncontextualised statistics in general, even when disguised as prose, are discouraged per point 3 of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.
 * AadaamS (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM actually does not indicate anywhere that current government figures are less appropriate than older government figures, but instead applies to things like news spikes. On the other hand, WP:SCHOLARSHIP does stipulate that "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". The   template also exists for that very purpose. Likewise, WP:PROSE does not indicate that comparison tables are an exception; it instead stipulates that "prose is preferred in articles" and explains why. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK also clearly indicates in bold that it applies to "excessive listings of unexplained statistics". It thus advises to actually render some of that unexplained tabular data into prose format, not the contrary-- "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." WP:WHENTABLE explains the suitability of tables as compared to lists, noting that tables themselves are "a complex form of list". It doesn't, however, indicate anything about prose. Per MOS:EMBED, standalone tables are tables on "articles that consist primarily of lists" (ex. List of largest cities in the Arab world). They are distinct from embedded tables, which are instead tables within articles that consist primarily of prose (Embedded lists may be in table format. Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs). MOS:EMBED table stipulates that one should "use the   tag for an embedded list that would be better written as prose paragraphs." It doesn't, though, recommend to use a prose-to-embedded table tag because no such wiki-template exists, unlike. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC) It is clear that paragraphs having several sentences only quoting comparative statistics of as prose hurts readability & comprehension, that's why "comparison" articles have tables. The comparison table case does not concern "unexplained tabular data" since the context of the data is in the paragraph. The comparison table data is explained because there are several sentences about the data. Which controversy or alternative academic theory about Somali immigration in the 1998-2008 period is referred when outdated is referred to as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Normally sources are to be represented faithfully at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The point is that a table of comparison gives a quick overview in a way that prose does not and text will support the content of the table, even academics agree on this. AadaamS (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY actually doesn't indicate anything about prose/tabular representation. By outdated, I'm referring to those decade old employment and self-employment figures. It is inappropriate to highlight them in tabular form when newer figures exist, which obviously better reflect the current situation per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and. If any figures would perhaps be suitable for table format, it would therefore be either the up-to-date figures or the up-to-date figures juxtaposed by the out-of-date figures, but not the out-of-date figures alone. Also, that comparison data link is a standalone table page rather than a prose page with an embedded table, so it is not particularly relevant per MOS:EMBED. Soupforone (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC) WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant as this talk page is now rivalling the size of the article itself, that's not what enwp guidelines are for. As per MOS:EMBED  sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs since this is comparison data, this is not one of these sometimes. There is no way that data meant to be compared and which is compared by academics is better presented as prose. The figures are not out of date, they are simply old. AadaamS (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The figures are indeed outdated (not merely old) because newer figures have been published. WP:BUREAUCRACY doesn't indicate anything about talk pages either. As for MOS:EMBED, it indicates that "sometimes the information in a list [not in a table per se] is better presented as prose paragraphs". Here again is what it actually indicates about prose in its WP:PROSE clause-- "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Soupforone (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC) They are only outdated if figures have been superseded, they have not. Standalone tables of the kind the sections are now cluttered with are nothing but statistic tables disguised as prose and in this case very poor prose. It doesn't flow, a reader has to read back to the first sentence over and over the paragraph to make any sense of it - it is a very reader-unfriendly format where a table is much better from very presentation perspective. AadaamS (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, according to the Institute of Labor Economics, the employment figure as of 2014 has indeed changed. You also appear to be confusing WP:EMBED with WP:STAND. Soupforone (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A table format is more readable for this sort of comparisons in every way, that's why the academics chose the table for the summary. They did not prefer only prose even if you keep insisting on it even when readability clearly suffers. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meanings of outdated and old and superseded. AadaamS (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROSE doesn't indicate that an embedded table format is more readable. It indicates that prose is usually preferable. Soupforone (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC) This case is not one of the usually. There is a difference between usually and mandatory. It could well be the case that WP:PROSE is the only place in the world which considers prose more redable for a direct comparison of statistic figures produced by reknowned academics, in this it would be unique. Tables are recommended for clarity in these cases at least according to a few other documentation standards in the world. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

World documentation standards (not sure what that means) have no bearing here; only actual wikipedia policy matters. That is, WP:PROSE and WP:EMBED. Soupforone (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) They do indeed have meaning in the context of the word usually. For instance Oxford University Press on tables: "Tables are used to display information that is too complex to go into the main text or a list." Prose is inappropriate where a table is better for comparison. It is well within the guideline. Newspaper Arbetet uses a table too for this comparison. This is not one of the usually, then. AadaamS (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've noted the current employment, employment population ratio and unemployment rates in the table. Per Template:Update, the older employment & self-employment figures alone (which include non-Sweden figures) are unsatisfactory. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

4269 figure
Statistics Sweden does not indicate on page 198 a 4,269 figure for native Somali-speaking students. The speaker figures are instead on pages 452, 455, 505 & 510, and they also don't indicate a 4,269 figure. Soupforone (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The wrong link was supplied, this is the correct one: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0524_2009A01_BR_UF0109TAB.pdf. AadaamS (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also a helpful tag for marking reasonable information attached with a source but which the source does not support: AadaamS (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it was the wrong url. Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first deletion was unexplained. AadaamS (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN-- "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Soupforone (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a ghost. AadaamS (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. Soupforone (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy
The wikitext claim that "in 2007, it was estimated that 30% of Somali males in Sweden were using khat, a plant classed as a narcotic by Swedish authorities in 1989" is undue weight, outdated and inaccurate. It is linked to an Oxford paper, which on page 26 attributes this percentage to a 2007 paper by Anderson et al. ("Estimates suggest that khat is still chewed by 30% of Somali men in Sweden (Anderson et al., 2007)"). However, Anderson et al. do not indicate this anywhere in their actual paper. The Oxford publication also notes in its preamble that "the views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy)." Further, WP:INACCURACY stipulates that "editors sometimes think that verifiable material should be accurate, but verifiable material may or may not be accurate", and that "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". I have therefore removed this inaccurate claim. Soupforone (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, but the figure was not unreasonable when other sources are taken into account. There are plenty of other references to widespread khat abuse in the Somali community. For instance page 9 katmissbruk är  ett  stort  problem  inom  främst den somaliska gruppen i Göteborg by Gothenburg municipality. The relevant section starts on page 8. http://www.vartgoteborg.se/prod/sk/vargotnu.nsf/files/FranOrdTillHandling/$FILE/FranOrdTillHandling.pdf.
 * Then there's Göteborgsposten in 2007: En kartläggning gjord i våras av två studenter på det folkhälsovetenskapliga programmet vid Sahlgrenska akademin visade att av 122 intervjuade göteborgare som var mellan 17 och 55 år och hade somalisk bakgrund, så hade en tredjedel testat kat och var tionde tuggade kat vid undersökningstillfället.
 * Apparently Stockholm municipality has neglected to collect statistics: Det finns ingen statistik på hur många som tuggar kat i Stockholmsområdet. Men enligt mottagningen är drogen vardag för många, speciellt somalier i Rinkeby. Then again there's widespread smuggling at Arlanda airport near Stockholm. AadaamS (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a study from Gothenburg University, though I haven't taken the time to read it yet. There's also police study named Unga kriminella personer med somalisk bakgrund, but it was labelled secret and is not publicly available. Not good for the transparency ratings. AadaamS (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And Tullverket has statistics on the amount of khat confiscated per year, on page 44. The drop in 2012 occurred because khat was criminalised in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where most of the narcotic was transported from, there are sources for this. AadaamS (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The first url, which dates from almost 12 years ago, indicates that Somalis, Ethiopians, Yemenis and other Red Sea nationalities were the main chewers of khat in the city. The only place where it broaches actual usage rates is via anecdotal claims made by a portion of 31 interviewed persons. The second and fourth urls are on a 2007 interview-based survey conducted by two Gothenburg University students (not the municipal government much less the national authorities), which found that 40 of the individuals had chewed khat at some point and 11 of the people indicated that they were using khat at the time. That hardly equals widespread khat abuse. The last url notes that the main khat chewers were from nations in and around the Horn region, that khat smugglers only smuggle khat, that khat is generally unavailable to the Swedish public, as well as the market price for the plant as of 2015. It doesn't, however, indicate actual usage rates. The Bra bureau has a brief on khat but focuses instead on human smuggling, noting that primarily individuals from the Middle East are smuggled into Sweden according to criminal intelligence ("enligt kriminalunderrättelsetjänsten är det främst människor från Mellanöstern som smugglas in i Sverige i dag" ). Soupforone (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC) The "Swedish public" is not the subject of this article. Since the irrelevant "12 years ago" arguments show up over and over again, why don't you try to have the 2005 in the United Kingdom article deleted? A deletion nomination should settle that argument for you nicely. Let's see what third party editors think about deleting reliable information simply because they are 12 years old. AadaamS (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not particularly relevant since it's year specific. Please see TEMPLATE:Update. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Chap
An anecdotal claim on the municipal funding of community organizations was attributed to an unidentified community leader. This is a personal opinion and as such is inappropriate per WP:QS-- "questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves[...] They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Soupforone (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Knife crime by youngsters
The lead section of the article says: ''Local police stated that unlike other criminals where the violence levels escalate along with the career in crime, Somalis use knife violence already as youngsters. '' This statement comes a 2007 newspaper report of an observation of a police investigator who said that she saw that knife violence in Somali youngsters happen in a young age. I think that a 12-year old article quoting an anecdotal report, without any statistical backing should NOT be present in the article, not the most in the lead section. -- Netha  (talk)  12:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately it seems several of the Wikipedia articles about this minority has been hijacked the rightwing editors with a certain POV. A deletion is well warranted. --BrownianMotionS (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and the link is dead. Not to mention this content reeks of racism. I'm deleting it.VR talk 13:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Explaining the revert
Per this edit by and comment will remove unsourced statement while retaining other changes: precisely the opposite happened: the statement which wasn't supported by the source was retained, while the information supported by the source (Brinkemo) were deleted. Therefore the edit was reverted. Do not revert without discussing first. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhat confused. The paragraph reads: "When Somalis go to Sweden, they enter a country which has not experienced a major war in over two hundred years, a state apparatus stretching over a five-century time span, strong institutions, high-tech industry, an advanced knowledge-based economy with a generally high level of education. Sweden is also one of the most secularized societies with liberal values in areas that are central to traditional Somali culture: family, sexuality and gender. These circumstances combine to make a society which is radically different from that of Somalia." So you're saying that the last sentence ("radically different") is unsupported but the preceding two sentences are supported? Is there an ebook available of the source to verify? DoSazunielle (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I must have misread the diffs from your last two edits. The statement which was unsupported by the source was indeed deleted, so I apologise for that. But the information which explained how the countries were different was deleted and replaced with Swedish society is radically different from that of Somalia. which does not explain how or why they are different. Therefore your edit was reverted per WP:PRESERVE. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't have any doubt in the general statement that Somali and Swedish society are different, but in the specific differences listed. Hence my request if there's a digital copy of the source for verification, as the link appears to go to a Worldcat entry for a physical copy which for me is more difficult to obtain. (Of course, if you're unfamiliar with that source I can pursue other channels, but just thought I'd ask.) DoSazunielle (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement of the differences in the source (and the article) correspond to the major historic events of the two countries in modern times. No idea where you can obtain a copy of the source, sorry. A Thousand Words (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing images of Somali Swedes
removed an image of a Swedish Somali runner from the article saying "A single runner is a poor representative of Somalis in Sweden and also misrepresents Somalis as most aren't athletes. In a section about employment, a graph showing employment trends and figures would be more appropriate."

A graph about employment would be fine, but article about Somalis in Sweden should have pictures of famous Somalis. They also removed a picture of a Swedish Somali journalist. Articles about ethnic groups typically have images of its famous members, so I don't see the issue here.VR talk 17:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A better place for one of the images might be the Somalis in Sweden section. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm open to different placement. But the problem is that 1Kwords has removed these images altogether. Also consider that sometimes such images are placed in the "Demograhics" section (e.g. British Cypriots, a good article) or "History" section (e.g. Indian Americans). This really shouldn't be controversial. 1Kwords removing positive examples of Somalis in Sweden, coupled with adding "unlike other criminals where the violence levels escalate along with the career in crime, Somalis use knife violence already as youngsters" to this article is rather troubling.VR talk 02:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is good that VR writes clearly that the images were intended as anecdotal "positive examples", whereas a section in an encyclopedia should primarily focus on providing an accurate overview. The images VR inserted weren't of community leaders of Somalis and thus do not "represent" Somalis in any meaningful sense. Which WP:RS source says the individuals depicted are "positive examples"? I agree that the images could be appropriate in the Notable individuals section. Would the NI section be considered POV if it only has "positive" examples?
 * The section that VR is referring to about knife crime was sourced to a WP:RS (police in Sweden) and thus was accurate and neutral editing means we write what's accurate, regardless of whether it's positive or negative. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the images, one is in the Notable individuals section and the other is in the Demographics section (which has WP:Precedent in a WP:GA).VR talk 15:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Vice regent. BTW I just now noticed another weird claim by the editor: the police in Sweden is a reliable source. It may be, for certain things in certain contexts--but it's still primary, and not necessarily neutral. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:1Kwords, your edits appear tendentious. This stuff about "accurate overview" is nonsense: we routinely choose photos of notable people, buildings, etc. to illustrate article content, and "notable" is the keyword here. Pictures cannot do "accuracy". WP:IMGCONTENT tells us that "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Whether a picture of a person can do that in the first place remains to be seen, but that is what we do--in List of Nobel laureates by country and here. Whether a certain picture should be included or not is a matter of editorial judgment and, of course, consensus, but removing an image because "most Somalis aren't runners" is just not to the point. On top of that, Mohamed is not "Somali" but "Somali-Swedish". And the problem of course with your edit is that throughout your career on Wikipedia you have been busy with edits that one way or another relate immigrants to crime, and thus one suspects that you made this edits to take out a positive note about the Swedish community of Somali descent. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved the image from the demography to the community section, partly to space the images in the article out more evenly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The journalist's name is a redlink and no given WP:RS source verifies that the journalist is, in fact, notable. Whether someone being employed as a journalist being positive or negative is up to a personal point of view. A Thousand Words (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A Thousand Words, you must not have looked very hard; Bilan Osman is now up in article space. And let me just remind the reader of this talk page that you are deflecting: the discussion began with an edit you made pertaining to Mustafa Mohamed. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My previous post said no _given_ source and the WP:BURDEN of proof is on the editor who wishes to add material. Have a good day. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your previous post was about a journalist whom you incorrectly claimed wasn't notable. The conversation was actually about a runner who already was notable. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Contributions from rightwing extremists such as 1Kwords
Dear Wikipedia readers and contributors

It has come to my knowledge that articles about ethnic minorities in the west are plagued by a small discrete minority of rightwing etremists who work in a very discrete manner to highlight negative aspects, such as adding crime-rate, tabloid POV articles as references, but also removing any positive aspects, while at the same time generalizing certain communities with negative information. These Wikipedia contributors represent a danger to the validity and objective standard that Wikipedia strives for. Notice how a particular user named 1KWords has specialized to bring exclusively negative information about Somali communities in Scandinavia. How can we prevent such users with their very particular POV?

I know I could be breaching certain Wiki rules by being so specific about another user, but this has gotten problematic. I would advise all readers and administrators to check out the contributions of 1KWords / also known as A Thousand Words, they are sinister and specialised.

BrownianMotionS (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

1Kwords negative content removal
As per other articles, I suggest the whole employment section gets removed. The user who made the section recently got blocked from editing as he was known for portraying immigrants in a negative way.MacrobianPrince (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing it for now and re-writing it in a more neutral way.VR talk 13:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)