Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom

Somali Youth Development Resource Centre
Middayexpress, can I ask why you keep removing the sourced claim that the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre is credited with helping significantly improve Somalis' GCSE performance in Camden? That seems an important thing to note in the context of a discussion of GSCE results to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I contextualized how the Centre actually helped improve the GCSE by noting per its founder that in conjunction with the Camden Labour group, the centre helped ensure that Somali pupils had the opportunity to take up Somali language GCSEs at local schools and that it annually awards over 90 Somali students who have excelled in their GCSE and SAT exams. At any rate, I've now credited the centre with the GSCE success . Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a letter from the founder of the centre to a local newspaper constitutes a reliable source. It's certainly not third party. The Economist source is better here, as it's independent of the centre. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The Economist also provides an explanation for why the centre was established, which Middayexpress has also removed.BrumEduResearch (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Cordless, it's his foundation, so he's certainly very reliable on its functions. The crediting part is perhaps a bit weird, though, so I've attributed instead to the GCSE recognition ceremony. Middayexpress (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where in that source it directly says that the centre has helped improve GCSE results. The Economist source is more than adequate and is very clear: "In 2000 just one Somali teenager in the London borough of Camden passed five GCSEs with good grades. To improve matters, the council and others set up the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre, which mentors students and lends them books. Last year the figure rose to 59%". What is your objection to using it? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The ceremony notes that "Besides the encouraging words and celebrations of achievements the event uncovered the bond and connections SYDRC has built over the years with the local council, service providers, the police, MPs and other relevant agencies in what the chair Suber Abdikarim termed as the “special relation”. Mayor of Camden Cllr Abdul Quadir said, “Camden Council is very proud of your achievements” while Cllr Keith Moffitt indicated, “this is my favorite event”. Camden Council Chief Executive Mike Cooke’s message was “to carry on” and build on the good work that SYDRC is doing". The link is also wrong about the GCSE figure for Camden in 2012. It wasn't 59% for the year, but rather 53% per Camden official Andy Coulson ("53 percent of 16 year olds achieved their required GCSES levels" ). Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source isn't being used to support a specific figure, just the statement that the centre has been credited with helping improve results. And building a bond and connections isn't the same as improving results, so I still don't see how that source is as good as the Economist one. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the 53/59 discrepancy is because your source is from March 2012 and the Economist is from August 2013. Since GCSEs are taken in the summer, 53 per cent must refer to the 2010-11 year, and 59 to 2011-12. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While GCSEs are taken during the summer, the earliest the results are announced is in late August. The link also doesn't claim outright that the centre was responsible for the GCSE success. It just insinuates that it was by noting the centre's objective, and then juxtaposing that by a 59% figure. The ceremony link does the same, but its 53% figure is per the Camden official (e.g. "Andy Coulson noted, “53 percent of 16 year olds achieved their required GCSES levels” and told young attendees “you have decided to achieve and SYDRC is committed to make that visible”"). The link should thus be replaced with the ceremony link . Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The results are announced in August, so the Economist is referring to results from August 2012, whereas a source from March 2012 can only be referring to results from August 2011 at the latest. There's no need to replace the Economist source, especially with one that isn't independent of the institution that the claim is being made about. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's uncertain, as the link is dated early August, whereas the GCSE results are usually announced in late August . At any rate, you haven't explained why you believe the wiki assertion that "this centre[...] is credited with helping significantly improve Somalis" GCSE performance" is supported by the link. Here is what it actually indicates with regard to the centre: "In 2000 just one Somali teenager in the London borough of Camden passed five GCSEs with good grades. To improve matters, the council and others set up the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre, which mentors students and lends them books. Last year the figure rose to 59%". Where in that passage does it indicate that the figure rose specifically because of the centre? Like with the ceremony link, this association appears to be only insinuated, not asserted outright. Middayexpress (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Economist article is from mid August 2013, so when it says "last year", that means August 2012. Your source is from March 2012, so the results it discusses can't be from August 2012. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Getting this to Good Article status
I've had a longstanding wish to get this article to Good Article status. As far as I know, there are currently only two articles on ethnic groups in the UK that have this status: British Cypriots and British Bangladeshi. I think this article has clear potential to be the third. There has clearly been a lot of discussion and disagreement on this talk page in the past. Middayexpress has added much that is of value to the article, but it's no secret that I think they have also demonstrated an unwillingness to observe WP:NPOV. It now seems that Midday has quit Wikipedia. I don't want to use this as an excuse to bulldoze through my own preferred version of the article (particularly since Midday and me are overwhelmingly the most active editors of the article), but I do see it as an opportunity to consider the article's content afresh and to push on towards GA status. I will be bold and make some fairly major additions, but anyone should feel to revert me, and/or raise issues here (and also make your own edits, of course). One thing that we clearly need to tackle before nominating for GA status is the WP:UNDUE template in the education section, so I will draft some replacement text for this section for discussion. In the meantime, I am going to add coverage of the gender distribution of the community to the demographics section of the article, which should hopefully be uncontroversial. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go ahead, Cordless; you have a pretty good record of negotiating any contentious issues on the talk page if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, here's my suggested text to replace the current GCSE material. I think the education section should be divided into two sub-sections, one covering Somali pupils' school performance, and the other covering adults' qualifications. I will work on text for the latter soon.


 * Comments/suggestions welcome! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still long for just GCSEs but is much better than what we have left over from Middayexpress. Glad to see him banned for biased editing.BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brum. I realise that it's quite long still, but it's hard to capture what is quite a complex issue concisely. Hopefully the length will look more balanced when it's alongside my proposed sub-section on adults. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Understood.BrumEduResearch (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As promised, here is my proposed text on adult Somalis' education:


 * I will add this and the text above on Somali pupils if there are no objections. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Great work Larry. It balances now too. I think I will move on to other communities now. It only took 4 months. :-~ BrumEduResearch (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added both to the article. I now wonder whether the section on adults' qualifications actually belongs in the social issues section or elsewhere in the article (and the same for employment)? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved these two sub-sections to the demography section. I think they work better there. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Classifications
Soupforone, regarding these additions, I think some detail on how Somalis have been classified in censuses is welcome, but I wonder if this is too much detail for this article. That section is becoming very long, and not all of the material you added concerns Somalis in the United Kingdom. For example, is this article the best place to discuss the classification of Somalis in the 1962 British Kenya census, or would that material be better covered in the main Somalis article or at Somalis in Kenya? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but please note that the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities' assertion that Somali students are administered under various ethnic categories isn't general criticism. The group links to one such actual classification by the UK government . As regards the British East Africa census stratification, yeah I guess it would be more relevant on the attendant page. I figured it was alright here because of the transnational stuff and since those territories were at the time British colonial possessions. Soupforone (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but why are we citing the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities on this? There are plenty of Somali organisations and academics who have criticised the classifications, whereas the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities document only mentions Somalis once in a footnote, and I doubt they can be considered experts on the Somali community. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the current wording includes the wording "these populations were also sometimes collectively identified in a non-racial, political sense with the epithet "black" or its neutral equivalent "coloured" in order to underscore their common experience of colonial subordination". I can't access the source text on Google Books, so I'm unsure exactly what it says, but many would contest the idea that the term "coloured" is a "neutral equivalent". The term is now widely considered to be racist. I guess the point is that, in the period being discussed, it was seen as neutral. Perhaps a different wording could be found to avoid suggesting that it is still seen as such? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The designations that the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities alludes to are actually from the UK government. Anyway, I've linked them to the government . As regards "coloured", it is described as a "polite" alternative. I've appended "then" to make it clearer that that was the colonial period. Soupforone (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and apologies that I was getting your second addition of this material confused with the first, where recommendations were attributed to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, which I couldn't see the relevance of. All good now, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, sorry to be a pain, but where in the Camden source does it make the point that Somalis are often subsumed in a broader Black African group? I can't find it, whereas the Rutter source that the article originally cited here is quite clear on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the link after which alludes to the census; I've adjusted the formatting to disambiguate this. The government link indicates that Somalis have their own separate designation or are subsumed under a Black and Minority Ethnic designation along with other non-European populations, as does the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities . Soupforone (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood - I just don't see where in the Camden Education Commission report it says that Somalis are sometimes subsumed under a Black and Minority Ethnic category. The report discusses Somalis as a BME group, but that's not quite the same as saying that they are sometimes classified as such. Could you give a page number, in case I'm missing something? I'm concerned to get this right, and I've never seen education statistics that are broken down into two categories (white and BME). BME pupils are always disaggregated into small sub-groups (such as Black African) in the stats I've seen (see, for example, chart 6 here), so I think we need a really good source if we're going to say that Somalis are lumped into one big BME category in education statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The "sometimes" denoted that BME is a different designation - it is an umbrella term for non-European populations. The government and Scottish Council of Jewish Communities note this. Anyway, the more recent separate ethnic designation for Somalis is explained on page 9. Soupforone (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what BME means, but the source didn't support the point about Somalis being subsumed in a broad BME category in education statistics. I think we can find a better source that the one you link to above, which is a student paper (and therefore likely not a reliable source). The previously cited Rutter source is much better, as she is a noted expert on the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, contrary to this edit, Somalis aren't aggregated into an "African" category, because such a category doesn't exist (I refer you to chart 6 here again). The category that they are often lumped into is called "Black African". Can you please discuss further proposed changes to the text here, rather than continuing to make bold edits, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but just because an "African" aggregation isn't used in that particular DFEE link certainly doesn't mean other government authorities don't utilize one. Indeed, the designations and aggregation that Rasmussen alludes to are actually those of the educational authorities. The government itself indicates:
 * ''"The issue of Somali underachievement is complicated by the lack of identification of Somali pupils within the data. Broadly, Somali pupils are found within the wider definition of ‘African’. As a result of this lack of data there are limitations in past research into Somali underachievement in British schools. The absence of national comparative data which identifies patterns of children of Somali origin, places serious constraints on affecting targeting policy and practice developments at national and local level. It is also important to note that some LAs’ Somali population are very small and so any percentages are prone to large fluctuations."
 * While using a separate Somali category, the government also indicates that "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. 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." . The government explains this in the other paper too: "to date it has been difficult to draw generalised conclusions from research on Somali educational achievement because data at a national level categorized Somali pupils as African, making it difficult to accurately establish the relative achievement of Somali pupils compared to English/Scottish/Welsh and other ethnic groups."
 * Therefore, the separate "Somali" category and "African" aggregation should be attributed to the first of those government links, and the text should indicate: "Consequently, Somali student performance data has often been aggregated under broader "African" or "Black African" categories. However, in order to more effectively monitor pupil attainment, London local authorities have in recent years started processing achievement data for Somali students under a separate "Somali" ethnic category." Soupforone (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that while those Lambeth documents use "African" in the text, all of the tables and charts use "Black African". I can only assume that the former is being used as a shorthand for the latter. This is because there is no "African" category in pupil performance data. This is clearer from the more recent peer-reviewed work of one of the authors of the Lambeth reports, Feyisa Demie. It's also not just London LAs that have started to use a "Somali" category - the current wording already addresses this with the mention of extended ethnicity codes being used by some English LAs. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The government links mean "African" specifically, and they indicate as much too. This designation is based on the UK census, where there is no "Black African" tick-box. There is instead an "African" designation under "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British", which some individuals as disparate as Sri Lankans and Italians also selected since they too may have emigrated directly from the continent. The government makes this "African" designation clearer here, on page 24->. As regards the separate "Somali" category, it is not the same thing as the extended codes. The government link indicates that the London borough authorities aggregated the data via the LERN -- "Thanks are also due to The London Educational Research Network (LERN) which represents the 32 London boroughs. LERN played a key role in bringing together Somali pupil data which was collected separately by the different local authorities in Greater London." Therefore, the text should actually indicate: "Consequently, Somali student performance data has often been aggregated under a broader "African" category. However, in order to more effectively monitor pupil attainment, London local authorities through the aegis of the London Educational Research Network have in recent years started processing achievement data for Somali students under a separate "Somali" ethnic category." Soupforone (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On p. 24 of that document you link to, you'll see that "African" is a sub-heading under the "Black or Black British" category, hence why it has the code BAFR (this is slightly different to the census, where the category is "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British"). More details on this are available in the tab called "CodeSets" in this spreadsheet, which clearly states that Somali pupils are categorised as Black African, and that there is no "African" category. I take the point about the London boroughs, but I don't see that quote as establishing that the London data was collected via some other method. Even if it was, the point is that this type of more detailed categorisation is employed beyond London. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I also made some changes to the paragraph on write-in responses to the census ethnicity question. The 103,000 figure is a 2013 estimate, not from the 2011 census, and refers to the total number of UK residents born in Somalia, not the total number of people with Somali ethnicity. We don't know the latter because we don't know how many Somalis ticked the Arab, Black African, or other options, rather than writing in Somali. I also removed the line "The remaining Somali respondents selected the "Arab" tick-box under "Other ethnic group"", as we don't know what box they would have ticked. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What you appear to be referring to are the extended codes. These are optional, utilized by only some institutions in England, and not the same thing as the primary classification. As the government link explains, the primary classification is based on the actual UK census, which only has an "African" designation. There is no "Black African" heading or subheading. Also, the 2011 UK Census recorded 99,484 Somalia-born residents in England, 1,886 in Wales, 1,591 in Scotland, and 88 in Northern Ireland. That is 103,049 residents i.e., it's where the 103,000 rounded government figure actually originates. The total Somalia-born resident population gives an idea of the proportional representation of the various census entries. As regards the "Arab" tick-box, while we can't be sure of the individual identities of the tickers, it is clear from the comparative figures that a majority of Somalia-born individuals indeed selected it. Only 42,934 individuals wrote in "Somali" and "Somalilander" under the African heading, which is over 60,000 persons less than the 103,000 total Somalia-born residents. The write-in responses of the Somali and other potential Arab respondents total 126,224 according to the National Association of British Arabs. When this figure is subtracted from the 404,207 total of Arab state-born individuals, it gives 277,983, which is quite close to the 240,545 figure for persons that actually ticked the "Arab" box. Therefore, most of the Somali and other potential Arab respondents who did not use the write-in responses indeed appear to have selected the "Arab" box per the NABA. Soupforone (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the number of people born in Somalia and the number of ethnic Somalis is the same thing. It isn't, for two reasons. First, some Somali-born people might not consider themselves Somali by ethnicity. Second, there are many British-born children of Somali ethnicity. The impact that this makes is obvious if you consider a group for which we have ethnicity figures, such as British Indians, where the number born in India is roughly half the population who ticked the British Indian ethnicity box. I also don't see where in the NABA document that they say that the majority of Somalis who did not write in "Somali" instead ticked "Arab" - that seems to be your interpretation of the figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm aware of the difference between nationality and ethnicity. The calculations are actually the NABA's (404,207 - 126,224 = 277983; 277983 - 240,545 = 37,438). It explains why it used the countries of origin:
 * "As can be seen, many people responded to the question in terms of a refined categorisation, and specifically those Arabs from North Africa and Somalia. We cannot be sure how many of the individual identities have also responded in the general ‘Arab’ box so there may well be some overlap in these figures. Neither do we know how many first generation Arabs are within these figures. The figure of 366,769, and more specifically the figure of 240,545, was lower than we had anticipated as an overall figure of Arabs in the UK. We therefore looked at the latest tranche of results from the Census (published 26 March 2013) which dealt with countries of origin. As can be seen, the numbers who have identified themselves as being born in Arab countries comes to a total of 404,207 individuals. This figure alone is in excess of the numbers of those identifying themselves as Arab/North African and the difference (37,439) could well be those who do not identify themselves as Arabs but were born within Arab countries." 

If only 51,724 individuals indicated "Somali" and "Somalilander" in the various write-in entries, that still leaves at least several tens of thousands of residents that did not use the write-in entries but instead ticked a box(es). Given the NABA's calculations, the most likely box is indeed clearly the "Arab" tick box. The number of "Arab" tickers could not reach anywhere near the indicated 240,545 total without a substantial number of Somali tickers since they constitute the largest Arab-born population per the NABA. That is why, after taking into consideration the write-in entries, it puts a ceiling of ~37,439 for those who do not identify themselves as Arabs but were born within Arab countries. Soupforone (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not bring nationality into it too! The figures refer to country of birth and ethnicity, not to nationality (which itself is further complicated by the fact that many Somali-born UK residents are now naturalised British citizens). As for the NABA, the problem is that neither we nor they know how many British-born Somalis there are. Nor do we know how many people born in Somalia are not ethnic Somalis. That's the same for all of the groups they consider in their analysis, so for me it's very hard to draw conclusions from. They also have an interest in maximising the number of people considered Arab, given that they were actively involved in campaigning for the inclusion of an Arab tick box in the census. In any case, they do not specifically claim that the majority of Somalis who did not write in "Somali" ticked the Arab box, as you wanted to claim in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The NABA may not explicitly indicate that most did, but it certainly implies this with the ~37,439 ceiling calculation. Anyway, putting aside the "African" or "Black African" designations used by the student institutions, the government link doesn't assert anything about extended codes. It instead only indicates that the pupil data was aggregated via the LERN, as pointed out. With that established, the phrase on the separate category should indicate that -- "However, in order to more effectively monitor pupil attainment, London local authorities through the aegis of the London Educational Research Network have in recent years started processing achievement data for Somali students under a separate "Somali" ethnic category." Soupforone (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what an extended ethnicity code is - the ability to code pupils into categories beyond the standard "White British", "Indian", "Black African", etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I realize that's the purpose of the optional extended codes. However, the government link doesn't indicate that the separate categorization it is referring to is an extended code. It instead alludes to aggregation by the London borough authorities and via the LERN specifically. Anyway, with regard to the main designation, alternate phrasing is necessary to make it clear that while the "African" or "Black African" category is apparently the same, certain government authorities refer to it in accordance with the "African" census box whereas some other institutions utilize the latter designation. So something like -- "Consequently, Somali students are often aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black African" category in pupil performance data." Soupforone (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should focus on describing the fact that some local authorities collect specific data on Somalis, rather than the precise mechanics of how they do it? Surely that's what is most important here? By "Certain local authorities", are you referring to Lambeth Borough Council? If so, the report states "The London Boroughs of Lambeth, Barnet, Camden, Haringey, Newham, Wandsworth, the Clapham Park Project, London Councils and the Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) financially supported this research project. It is hoped the findings will be of value to policy makers, schools and practitioners. However the views expressed in the report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the London Local Authorities". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's an official government document ("First Published March 2008 by Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit"). That aside, asserting that the institutional designation is "Black African" is already focusing on the precise mechanics, and mistakenly at that. The designation is actually "African" or "Black African". This does seem relevant since the government link explains that this lack of appropriate classification for this population at the national level is part of the problem -- "To date it has been difficult to draw generalised conclusions from research on Somali educational achievement as the lack of appropriate categorisation at a national level has made it difficult to accurately establish the relative achievement of Somali pupils compared to English/Scottish/Welsh and other ethnic groups." With that noted, more accurate wording would be -- "This is because there is a lack of appropriate categorisation of Somalis at a national level, and "Somali" is not a tick-box option in official ethnicity classifications. Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black African" category in pupil performance data." Soupforone (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's not true that the official designation is "African" or "Black African". It is "Black African" per the official DfE documentation, and the fact that you've found a few sources that use "African" doesn't change that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the latest government documentation on this classification. See pp. 37-38 here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also increasingly concerned about the reliability of the NABA report. Discussing people that have written in ethnic identities, it states "We cannot be sure how many of the individual identities have also responded in the general 'Arab' box so there may well be some overlap in these figures". The problem with this statement is that that census question only allowed people to make one response, so NABA's analysis is based on an false premise - that people could reply in more than one way. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I work with school ethnicity stats every day and Larry is right, the category is black African.--BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the designations in that link are just ethnicity monitoring advice (also note that it is "Black – African" not "Black African" since their is no such option on the national census). What designations the institutions and boroughs themselves ultimately use are at their discretion and are recorded in their respective management information systems. The link itself indicates this:
 * "It is envisaged that this document will be used as a handbook for data collected and stored in schools’ management information systems (MIS) throughout the year, rather than just as a guide on census days...


 * Ethnicity is a personal awareness of a common cultural identity. Ethnicity relates to how a person feels and not necessarily how they are perceived by others. It is a subjective decision as to which category a person places themselves in and therefore does not infer any other characteristics such as religion, country of origin etc. Ethnicity monitoring advice is available from the department’s website. Where the information has not yet been collected then this need to be recorded as not yet obtained. If a pupil or parent has refused to give the information then refused should be recorded and returned.


 * The codeset reflects categories used in the 2001 national population census, with additional categories for Travellers of Irish heritage, pupils of Gypsy/Roma heritage and Sri Lankan other. If the national population census categories do not meet the needs of local monitoring, LAs may use the DfE approved list of extended categories. Your LA will have decided which of the ethnic codes to use and these codes should be reflected in your MIS."

With that said, the Bradford schools use the "African" designation per their official management information system. There are many other institutions that similarly use their own variations on the census categories, such as the Catholic Education Service which represents 2300 Catholic schools and universities in England and Wales and uses a "Black – African or African" designation per its official management information system (p.24 - ). A more accurate wording would therefore be: "Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black – African" category in pupil performance data."

As regards the NABA, when it indicates that "as can be seen, many people responded to the question in terms of a refined categorisation, and specifically those Arabs from North Africa and Somalia... we cannot be sure how many of the individual identities have also responded in the general ‘Arab’ box so there may well be some overlap in these figures", it is referring to national identities. This is established in the first phrase, from the fact that only one box can be ticked per individual, and through its calculations involving the total number of British Arabs per country of origin (404,207). What the NABA is saying is that while some wrote in ethnicities whereas others ticked the Arab box, there is overlap in that it classifies all Arab state-born individuals as Arabs. Anyway, this is perhaps a subtle point so your phrasing seems adequate. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bradford appear to describe the Black African code (BAFR) as "African" on their website, yes. However, that's a primary source, doesn't tell us how many other LAs do so, and says nothing about Somalis, so I think it would be original research to use it as a source. As for the NABA source, my understanding is that that sentence refers to the table above, which is about ethnic identity, not national identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have reverted your reinsertion of the NABA paragraph. Please listen to the two other editors who are trying to explain - from personal experience, in the case of User:BrumEduResearch. Your edits do not have consensus, and repeating this behaviour again and again will bring your edits closer to being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All state schools and LAs have to take part in the school census and use the ethnic group categories. They can choose to use the extended codes but can't use their own groupings.BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but do you have a link indicating that the institutions must use the specific ethnic group categories within that census handbook? Because to my understanding it is just a guide. I'm sure you do have some expertise in this area as an educator, but the Catholic Education Service indicates on p.24 of the link above that its designation is a "DCSF Sub-Category / WA Main Category". That is apparently the Department of Education in England and also the one in Wales. Soupforone (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BrumEduResearch might have something else in mind, but this page makes it clear that the school census is statutory. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I do concur that the Bradford link shouldn't be used as a source for the "African" designation. I linked to it here to show that some other institutions utilize that designation. I think the other government link that is already cited in the same sentence should be used there instead. Also, are you okay with the National Association's official population estimate for Somalia-born Arabs? Because you only mentioned the 'overlap' phrase above, and I agreed with your rewording to correct for ambiguity. The population figure is from the census. I'm also confused as to why the other NABA phrase was removed since it basically indicates what you did above that we don't know how many Somalis ticked the Arab box. Do you know of a specific number of tickers, or do you still agree that we don't know? The phrasing goes "the National Association of British Arabs (NABA) indicates that "many people responded to the question in terms of a refined categorisation, and specifically those Arabs from North Africa and Somalia", but notes that "we cannot be sure how many of the individual identities have also responded in the general 'Arab' box"." I agree that the "also" makes the phrase somewhat equivocal, but this ambiguity can be corrected with an ellipsis or paraphrase -- "the National Association of British Arabs (NABA) indicates that "many people responded to the question in terms of a refined categorisation, and specifically those Arabs from North Africa and Somalia", but notes that it is uncertain how many of these individuals responded in the general 'Arab' box". Soupforone (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That wording is better. My concern was that the "also" wording of the source was a sign that NABA had failed to understand that people can't tick two boxes, and therefore should not be considered a reliable source. I'm still partially of that opinion, but I think perhaps we can use it to source the sentence you suggest, which reflects the fact that quite a lot of Somalis wrote in a response, and that we can't know how many ticked "Arab". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's sound. Soupforone (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, you're right that the census is apparently statutory. The government does though appear to provide some leeway in that regard to the boroughs and institutions. It uses "African" in some of its guidance handbooks, like on the p.31. In that guide the government enumerates various African countries, such as Somalia, Sudan and Algeria. It therefore seems that you were correct about the government's loose use of the "African" designation. How's about this wording then? -- "Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a more general "African" or "Black – African" category in pupil performance data." Soupforone (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the authorities are categorising Somalis as Black African (or Black - African), as this recent, very comprehensive source makes clear on p. 122. The issue is more that some authorities are choosing to refer to that category simply as "African" in other literature. Do we agree on that? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The government doesn't appear to classify populations in any specific way. Individuals can therefore select any ethnicity on the national census. The government explains this by pointing out that "ethnicity is subjective: a person should self-assign his or her own ethnic group... while other people may view an individual as having a distinct ethnic identity, the individual's view of their own identity takes priority." As such, how the population self-identifies is prioritized. The government also takes into consideration key criteria as to what actually constitutes an ethnic group. These "features that help to define ethnic group are as follows : a shared history; a common cultural tradition; a common geographical origin; descent from common ancestors; a common language; a common religion; and forming a distinct group within a larger community". 

With that established, some boroughs do seem to use the "African" designation for the category whereas others use the "Black – African" designation. However, this is apparently per the government's own guidance handbooks, which suggest either designation. The governmental guide above uses "African" for most African populations, including some Arab world groups from Somalia, Algeria and Sudan - p.32. Here is another governmental guide that also suggests the "African" designation for the category - p.18. With that said, how's about -- "Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black – African" category in pupil performance data"? This wording seems to indicate well the designations. Soupforone (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you might be confusing the national census and the school census. Yes, the national census relies on self classification. I'm not sure who completes data on the school census. Presumably it's not the pupils themselves. Ideally, I don't think we should be citing these primary sources, but if we are going to, surely it should be the most recent one, which is the guide linked to in my previous comment? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The school census is apparently based on the national one, so it too appears to be centered on self-identification -- "Much depends on local practice, just as much depends on which ethnic grouping the child and/or its parents perceive themselves to be." With that noted, the census link seems alright for the latter category designation, whereas the other governmental guidance handbook can be used for the former category designation. The wording would then be: "Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black – African" category in pupil performance data". Soupforone (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're back to the problem of original research, because there is nothing in that first reference that states that Somalis have been categorised as "African". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Larry's link is the official school census guide. It's the best primary source.BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is apparently the census guide for the department in England. However, that department also suggests the "African" category designation in some of its other guidance handbooks, such as in the first link above. The department in Wales does as well in its own census guide, where it indicates that "these notes are for use by all maintained schools (nursery, primary, middle, secondary, and special) and Local Authorities (LAs) in completing the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) in January 2016" - p.104 . Soupforone (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, please toggle to the pages 31-32. It indicates there that the coding designation is "African", and the bit on self-classification by children and their parents is specified there as well. On the adjacent page, it has Somalia, Sudan, Algeria and various other African populations under that. Soupforone (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also please see the guidance handbook by the department over in Wales. It too suggests the "African" category designation . On that note, perhaps this phrasing would work better? -- "Consequently, Somali students have often been aggregated into a broader "African" or "Black – African" category in pupil performance data in England and Wales." Soupforone (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the Caribbean, African, any other black background wording in the Welsh doc tell you? What does the B in the codes stand for?BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but it seems more intricate. As regards that codeset, one of the England government department's guides suggests the "African" category designation for most African populations, including some Arab world groups from Somalia, Sudan and Algeria -- pages 31-32. The Wales department as well apparently. This is why I suggest the wording above to reflect this actuality. Soupforone (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Somalis in the United Kingdom. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.invictacapital.co.uk/html/about_us

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Somalis in the United Kingdom. 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/20150622204210/https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/leisure-culture/libraries-copyright/archives/research-guides/somali-community/Somali-Community-Study-Guide-v1-1--PDF--175-KB-.pdf to https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/documents/leisure-culture/libraries-copyright/archives/research-guides/somali-community/Somali-Community-Study-Guide-v1-1--PDF--175-KB-.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095516/http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls to http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050511105416/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218004011/http://www.chr.up.ac.za/hr_docs/countries/docs/charterfeb04.pdf to http://www.chr.up.ac.za/hr_docs/countries/docs/charterfeb04.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/interviews/mo-ali-11823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127082624/http://www.booktrust.org.uk/Prizes-and-awards/John-Llewellyn-Rhys-Prize to http://www.booktrust.org.uk/Prizes-and-awards/John-Llewellyn-Rhys-Prize
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030114149/http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_SOM.pdf to http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_SOM.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705045707/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr4705.pdf to http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr4705.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001232701/http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=26 to http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=26
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106131406/http://www.forbescustom.com/EmergingMarketsPgs/AbdirashidDualeInterviewP1.html to http://www.forbescustom.com/EmergingMarketsPgs/AbdirashidDualeInterviewP1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1210847.pdf

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) 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)