Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

POV-pushing & out-of-context material
One User:Christopher Connor has been making what he believes are "valuable" contributions to this article on Somalis in the UK. In reality, he has been making highly POV, one-sided distortions of various sources; edits that have the net effect, intended or otherwise, of making this particular immigrant community look as bad (and thus as undesirable) as possible. For instance, he insists on cherry-picking a quote from the Times that reads that they "are probably the poorest and most disadvantaged ethnic community in the country, a people whose disaffected young are all too easily recruited by gangs or, worse, Islamic extremists" -- completely ignoring the fact that this other article he himself cites elsewhere and that was published the same day on the same website as that other Times article clearly indicates that "although the jihadi link is real, the numbers travelling to train, fight and die in Somalia are believed to be small compared with the thousands in Afghanistan and Pakistan." If one peruses the Pakistani British article, for example, one does not see any undue weight on any purported terrorist connections, although, per the aforementioned source, it's even more of an issue in that community than in the young Somali one that this particular editor has elected to target. This editor has also added statistics on the unemployment rate in the Somali community (which tends to be rather high) but quite conveniently never bothered explaining why the figures are as high as they are, although the same source he uses for his figures provides numerous clear, logical explanations to that end (e.g. asylum seekers have greater difficulty accessing jobs; entrepreneurship, though higher amongst immigrants, is difficult to quantify, etc.). He has also added yet another unqualified, unexplained phrase to the effect that Somalis "suffer from employment, education, substance abuse, and crime issues", which he predictably sourced to an opinion piece. Per WP:RS, "there is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." The most ironic part, though, is that that entire opinion piece attributes whatever early struggles the Somali community might be going through -- and appear to be slowly but surely overcoming -- to failure on the part of the British government in assisting the immigrants into integrating more successfully ("the process of integration and finding a voice for their community is slow and is happening in spite of government efforts and not because of them"). It doesn't put the blame on the community itself, as Connor's out-of-context edits make it out to seem. The author even provides one case study demonstrating remarkable and rapid turnarounds in educational achievements when the government actually does get involved in the community, which is yet another thing that this seldom-used Wikipedia account has neglected to mention. Another line of Connor's edits reads that Somali immigrants "have a highly fractured community, paralleling that of their homeland, and many Somalis have failed to integrate successfully into British society". This is an almost farcically gross generalization of the situation almost half a decade ago (when that article was initially published and the community was brand new), not now. It's also, predictably by now, a complete distortion of the article, which explains, among other things, that although the unemployment rate may be high, the Somali immigrants that found themselves without a job included "a high proportion of skilled professionals who have not been able to find work in their field in the UK" and that a big part of the educational struggles came down to language barriers ("In Liverpool, Mr Ali has found Somali children unofficially excluded from lessons, sitting alone in the corridor, because teachers had effectively given up trying to communicate"). Like the aforecited opinion piece, this article also attributes the growing pains of the Somali immigrant community in the UK largely to inattention on the part of local authorities. Lastly, the editor has indicated that "Somali gangs are involved in the illegal-drugs trade, and often use extreme violence", a statement which he sourced to this article. As with his previous claims, he never bothers providing clarification on the issue, although the article itself again clearly does. In fact, when I attempted to cite the solutions the source itself provides -- i.e. that the violence has now increasingly given way to community youth forums, women's groups and neighborhood watch efforts that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime -- he reverted my improvements with the rather absurd explanation that I "edit Somali-related articles more-or-less exclusively". Last I checked, Wikipedia actually encourages editors to edit material they are knowledgeable about, not discourages it. In my case, that would be Somali issues. In the username above's case, it is unclear since he logs into his account only a few times a year. All in all, the editor above has attempted to offer sensationalistic, cherry-picked "facts" about the Somali immigrant community in the UK without bothering to explain why the figures are the way they are or what has or is being done to improve the situation -- even going as far as ignoring explanations provided in the exact same source that he got his figures from to begin with. It's a bit like reading that a woman shot a man in the leg (which, by itself, sounds harsh), but without learning that she shot him in the first place because he was attempting to rape her. WP:NOR is very clear about the importance of context: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context... Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". And actual context is what I have attempted to provide in place of the editor above's fairly obvious POV. Middayexpress (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I agree with the broad thrust of Middayexpress's comments. Some of the material that Christopher Connor has been reinstating was actually initially written by me as an attempt to moderate the tone of his original contribution, but I'm happy to see it removed nonetheless. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my intention to slander the Somali community. I made those edits to document well-documented features of the community that were missing in the article. It is common knowledge that the Somali community in the UK suffers from multiple serious issues (crime, unemployment, undereducation, etc.) which the article says little about. Right now it reads like an embarassed Somali apologist wrote it. My edits may seem inflammatory but this is simply a reflection of what the Somali community is like, nothing to do with POV-pushing (I could say that White British had the lowest unemployment rates but this wouldn't be considered controversial).


 * You say that the community is 'new' and this contributes to the low unemployment rate. But the BBC article says that 'Somalis are thought to be the oldest African community in London', which seems to directly contradict what you are saying. From what you're saying, the well-establised Somalis in London should be in a good position to cope in society but this clearly isn't the case. In the article, you say the Somali community is new, so that haven't had time to integrate; then in your above post you say that they are no longer brand new, so that they're not bringing the war mentality with them. Which is it? You also mention language issues. Well, the London Somalis have now had enough time to learn the language, but issues still remain. How do you explain all this? Also, to say that their employment rate is 'rather low' is a joke, when roughly three-quarters are unemployed, higher than any other ethnic group by quite a margin. The British Pakistani article has two articles dedicated to extremism but I only had one sentence for this.


 * You talk about youth and women's group and how they're taking over the gangs. The fact is, these groups play a small part in the community compared to gangs so it's funny to give them more coverage than the gangs. Same goes for the bit about Somali enterprises (employment and self-employment being low); immigrants may show greater entrepreneurship but this is not quite true for Somalis. To say that gangs are 'increasingly' giving way to these groups is a gross overexagerration. Somalia is a well-documented war zone, and it is well-documented that Somalis coming over here bring part of that with them. This is one of the reasons for the integration problem and isn't mentioned at all. Also, many of the problems Somalis suffer from are suffered by immigrants of all groups but they seem more capable of overcoming them. No explanation is given about why Somalis are different.


 * You say I'm taking things out of context. This is funny when my edits directly tried to capture the essence of whatever the article was about - generally issues of disadvantage, crime, unemployment etc, rather than me taking specific chunks out in isolation. My edits were just a starting point to write about these issues, so that I didn't necessarily describe in depth why everything was so. They were simply general (but reliable) statements.


 * Your editing of Somali-related articles isn't a sign of great expertise but emotion attachment - not suitable really for involvement in 'controversial' articles. Anyway, I can't be bothered reverting you so I think I'll let other editors get involved. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can try and spin your POV edits however you like, but the facts and difs I've posted above speak for themselves. The Somalis that first began arriving at the turn of the 20th century were sailors, and few in number. The descendants of those early families -- many of whom married into British society -- have long integrated. They make up a tiny fraction of Somali immigrants to the UK; most Somalis in Britain have come specifically as a consequence of the war. I also don't need to "explain" or "justify" anything to you, whether it be why Somalis haven't picked up on a completely foreign language more to your liking or anything else equally as pedantic and irrelevant. The British Pakistani article has a few lines dedicated to terrorism, not "two articles"; and even then, that's to be expected since it's more of an issue in that community, as your own source makes clear. I'm afraid it is also not an 'overexaggeration' to point out that gangs and violence have given way to consolidated efforts between local law enforcement youth forums, women's groups and neighborhood watch efforts; like it or not, your own source states that too. Your comment above likening the employment situation amongst recent Somali immigrants with what you term 'White British' is likewise a strawman since no one once suggested employment wasn't a challenge; unlike you, we (that is, myself and the authors of that source you yourself supplied) are not opposed to explaining why that is. That same source also does indeed make it clear that immigrants make up a higher percentage of self-employed persons in the UK; it doesn't provide a rate of entrepreneurship in the Somali community because of insufficient data, as it itself states. Lastly, besides being absolutely none of your business, my editing mostly Somali-related articles, just like Cordless Larry above's editing mostly British-related articles, is because that is an area I have actual knowledge in. Who knows where your knowledge lies? In case you hadn't noticed, another editor also did get involved and expressed agreement with what I've written, not with your very obvious POV, out-of-context interpretations. This is also the second time you have attempted to camouflage your complete lack of arguments with ad hominem, so I think it's high time I directed you to WP:CIV and WP:NPA for how to behave vis-a-vis other editors. I also suggest you take a good, long, hard look at WP:BLP and especially Attack page, policies specifically dedicated to attack articles and those who wish to create (or transform existing articles into) them; they too seem especially relevant here. Middayexpress (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, just to point out that it's not true that "roughly three-quarters are unemployed, higher than any other ethnic group by quite a margin". Firstly, the IPPR source shows 10 per cent unemployed. The majority of the rest are inactive, meaning that they are students, retired, or unable to work for some reason (quite possibly because they are in the process of claiming asylum and therefore cannot work). There is also no source for your comparison with other ethnic groups (if indeed Somalis constitute an ethnic group rather than a nationality). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean two paragraphs in British Pakistanis. The women's groups and such are described as 'fragile shoots', meaning they are easy to break and are just beginning to grow. Compare with gangs, which are very numerous and well-established. From this, I infer that the gangs 'increasingly' giving way to groups is an exagerration, and that 'initial' gang-activity is a lie, when Somali gangs are numerous and active right now. I compared employment rates with White British to show that employment rates are only controversial if they're low (not that anybody is claiming that other people are denying that Somali employment rates are low). As far as I know, self-employment is also classed as employment, but Somali employment rates are still low.
 * I hope you realize that repeating oneself like a broken record is a form of

Anyway, you haven't addressed most of the points I raised such as the lack of coverage of their 'issues' and that other immigrant groups facing the same problems but faring better. If you look through all the sources they all say: CRIME, UNEMPLOYMENT, TERRORISM, POVERTY, LOW EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT, ISLAMIC TERRORISM. You're claiming I'm attacking you, when all I said was that I didn't think you had great expertise or that this great expertise was being clouded by emotional attachment. Hardly something to get upset about.

Inactivity is also more or less the same as unemployment. 75% are economically inactive. Is this satisfactory? The Daily Mail article gave the comparison between groups. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your off-topic rambling, strawman arguments and transparent attempts at getting a rise out of other editors are getting very boring. You have twice now alluded to "emotion" when in reality, anyone can see at a glance that it's you whose using caps-lock, shouting, and otherwise carrying-on in a distracting, unproductive fashion (see WP:TALK for more on that) -- a clear case of projection. When not busy commenting on other users, you are relentlessly sharing your opinion on the subject of the article (the Somali community in the UK), as if anyone cares or that's what Wikipedia is here for. Let me remind you that talk pages are reserved for discussion of the actual article, not your views on other editors or the subject of the article (or, in this case, what you would like the subject of the article to be about). From WP:TALK:


 * "'Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.'"


 * Moving on, your claim that other immigrant groups are "facing the same problems but faring better" is utterly absurd since last I checked, none of those groups were fleeing ongoing wars. Many of those groups also come from anglophone countries, and thus are already somewhat conversant with British culture. The terrorism and gang issues were already debunked by the source you yourself cited as I've pointed out and another user agreed with, so I won't repeat myself again here. And no, inactivity is not "more or less the same as unemployment" nor does the source in question claim it is. In fact, it expressly distinguishes between the economically inactive and actually unemployed (as does the governmental Department for Business Innocation & Skills), and the unemployment rate amongst Somalis it cites is indeed only 10%. That source also makes it clear that self-employment and entrepreneurship is "difficult to measure". Deal with it. Middayexpress (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you wasting your time patronising me with references to policies? Especially when you're claims about them are largely spurious. Saying I am going off-topic shows you either can't or won't engage with what I saying. I am discussing the content of the article only insofar as it is relevant to the article. I'm saying what's in the article does not reflect real life or the sources (e.g. gangs and women's groups). I was using caps lock to emphasis whatever the sources seem to be saying (things that are missing in the article). Everything I have said about the community can be cited to many sources. Would you like to to provide multiple reliable sources concerning issues of housing, disadvantage, crime, poverty etc. instead of being blind? Are you now claiming that the community doesn't have a problem with gangs or terrorism? Because I can find many sources that say the exact opposite. Employment rates, crime issues, poverty, discrination etc. seen to appear in other ethnic group articles - and these have less of a problem with them. Thanks to my involvement, the article is now quite big, though it is lacking vital information. Instead you choose to describe in excruciating detail the operations of a Somali company and the industry its in. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing policy is not 'patronizing', I'm afraid (nor will labeling my quoting policies for you as such prevent me from mentioning them whenever and wherever necessary). It's pointing you to Wikipedia's rules and best practices, both of which are determined by its actual policies. If you didn't keep running afoul of them, then I wouldn't have to keep quoting them for you. For the gangs & terrorism, do yourself a favor and re-read my first post. The quotes I've provided -- including the explanations you completely omitted in your out-of-context, POV edits -- are from those same references you yourself supplied. If you wish to keep feigning incomprehension on this issue, that's fine too; the nice thing about Wikipedia is that there is always a recourse for such situations. An article's size or, in your words, its "bigness", is also not in and of itself a demonstration of that article's quality. If that were the case, all stub articles would be dreadful, which obviously isn't the case, nor is every large article a good one. The fact remains that this article is better in spite of your edits, not because of them. Middayexpress (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have explained in excruciating detail about this gangs issue. Your sentence is 'While initially troubles with adolescent gangs began to emerge, they have now increasingly given way to community youth forums that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime.' They gangs are not 'initial' or 'beginning to emerge', they are well-established and have been for a while. You have one source (and only one) that says that groups are beginning in the community. The same source says 'London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence'. Also Which suggests that gangs are becoming more prominent, not less, which contradicts your claim. Aside from the fact that the article doesn't suggest quite what you're saying. You have a well-established gang culture and 'fragile shoots' counter-groups beginning to form. Yet from this you conclude that gangs are 'increasingly' giving way to youth and women's group. You have a large body of evidence and one other bit which doesn't really contradict the main bit and you claim that 'yes it does!' and disregard the main bit.
 * 'Somalis are already associated with gang and knife crime'
 * 'already associated with gang and knife crime'
 * 'The city is home to one of the largest and longest-established Somali communities in Britain, which is facing uncomfortable questions with the emergence of gang culture and crime.'
 * 'Gangs from new communities have also started to form, including a Somalian gang called the Somalian Mandem.'
 * 'We have now ended up with Somali gangs moving into the areas where you have black gangs, white gangs, which is causing even more tension than before. We decided to set up a gang unit to help tackle the problem.'
 * 'And it's in this potential vacuum of missing social networks that some alienated young Somali men have forged a defensive gang identity, say experts.'


 * This is the last time I'm going to address your very obvious attempt to transform this article into an WP:Attack page and place undue weight on exclusively negative issues involving the Somali community. As I've pointed out many times before, that gang source is ironically enough one you yourself supplied (not me), and it indeed makes it clear that the Somali community has taken matters into its own hands and is closely collaborating with police to deter crime:


 * "'London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence. There are encouraging signs however that a community characterised by its tribal structure, distrust of authority and sense of alienation is beginning to tire of its reputation and realise that it can empower itself to improve its situation."


 * "Youth forums are working with the police and women’s groups are emerging from a male-dominated culture to make their voices heard. A Somali woman recently joined the Metropolitan Police and witnesses from within the community played a part in solving a murder in South London."


 * "These fragile shoots are being nurtured by the police and other agencies who recognise that the problems of crime and violence from within a difficult-to-reach community have gone unchecked for too long.'"


 * Those links above to any little gang-related news item you could muster in no way invalidate those policing efforts much less Wikipedia's aforementioned policies. I'm sorry if this bothers you, but life goes on. Middayexpress (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For terrorism, Anyway, I am too good to fight you over the article about these matters so not going to waste my time forcing the issue. Open to the possibility that I am wrong. That's why I haven't bothered including any 'controversial' material. Also remember that 'sweeping things under the carpet' is never good. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'The Independent on Sunday understands that the number of young Britons following the trail every year has more than quadrupled to at least 100 since 2004 – and analysts warn that the true figure (which would include those who enter the country overland) will be much higher.'
 * 'increasing flow of young Britons into Somalia'
 * 'A growing number of Britons are answering the call to jihad in Somalia and joining the ranks of militants linked to al-Qaida'
 * '“Pakistan rightly gets the most attention in terms of external threats,” a senior counter-terrorism source said. “But we believe we should focus more on the Horn of Africa and Somalia in particular.” '
 * '“The numbers I hear [going from Britain to Somalia] are 50, 60 or 70, but in reality we don't know. You don't need big numbers for terrorism. Somalia will never become another Pakistan, but that does not mean it is not a threat.” '
 * 'One senior official told The Times that Somalia had risen sharply up the list of threats to Britain’s security and was probably now second after Pakistan. “It’s something we worry about a lot,” he said. Lord Malloch-Brown, the former Foreign Office Minister, warned before leaving office in July that “the main terrorist threat comes from Pakistan and Somalia, not Afghanistan”. '


 * Uh, your own quotes again debunk your entire argument. You claim terrorism is a massive issue with Somalis in the UK, yet quote passages confounding the latter immigrants with rebels (including Britons) heading for Somalia -- another country -- to take part in the insurgency there. Your own quotes also again point out that actually, domestic terrorism in the UK is much more associated with the British Pakistani community. One guy even states that "Somalia will never become Pakistan", not that that even matters since this article is on Somalis in the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Black
Look at page 28 of Communities. It says 'However, many respondents highlighted problems with ethnic data collection under the Census categories, which means that Somalis are subsumed under the black African or Other black category'. Which is more or less what I wrote in the article. This also means they get 'lumped' with other groups without being recognised as distinct. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what you meant, Stev44444. That still, however, doesn't change the fact that ethnicity is not 'assigned' by the UK census, as you seem to believe or are insinuating. It is self-assigned and voluntary:


 * The ethnicity data used in UK national statistics relies on individuals' self-definition. The Office for National Statistics explain this as follows:


 * Is a person's ethnic group self-defined?
 * Yes. Membership of an ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned, and this is the principal basis for ethnic categorisation in the United Kingdom. So, in ethnic group questions, we are unable to base ethnic identification upon objective, quantifiable information as we would, say, for age or gender. And this means that we should rather ask people which group they see themselves as belonging to.


 * And:


 * "Since the UK Census relies on self-completion, the composition of the other ethnic group category is not fixed. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics of the 220,000 people in England and Wales who ticked the other ethnic group box in the 2001 Census reveals that 53 per cent were born in the Far East, 10 per cent in the UK, 10 per cent in the Middle East, and 7 per cent in Africa. People could write in an ethnic group under the 'other' heading. 26 per cent did not specify an ethnicity, but of the remainder, 23 per cent wrote Filipino, 21 per cent Japanese, 11 per cent Vietnamese, 11 per cent Arab, 6 per cent Middle Eastern and 4 per cent North African."


 * It also doesn't change the fact that Somalis by and large do not consider themselves black, that they do not, in fact, share much ancestry with so-called 'Black Africans', and that people within the Census system understand all this and are working towards accommodating this information into their data. Here's a paper that explains that, while some groups may attempt to classify Somalis as such, Somalis "may not consider themselves to be Black African" and that "in order to identify Arab-African groups, such as those from Somalia, it will be necessary to revise the 2001 census ethnicity question that was used in HSE 1999 as this does not identify people who consider themselves to be Arab ethnicity." There's also a movement spearheaded by the National Association of British Arabs and other Arab groups to include an Arab entry in the census, which would include Somalis. I hope that clears up the situation for you. Middayexpress (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So what did the Somalis in the Census write? That they were Other? And they put down 'Somali'? They should if they were unhappy with the current situation. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference what they did or did not put down. The fact remains, the census is voluntary and dependent on self-assigning. Attempting to use it as you have to classify people how you personally would like them to be classified -- in spite of their own self-perception, their history and actual biology -- won't fly. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Census makers (and other people) would expect to classify them as Other Black. Of course, since they can choose what they like, they might as well choose Korean, and say 'it's our decision'. All I was saying was that they were forced to choose Other Black by the Census and that probably some did. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't noticed, Somalis can literally tick "Irish" if they wanted to. And that's specifically because the census is voluntary and self-assigned. You are free to delude yourself into thinking that some or many Somalis ticked 'Other Black' or some other variation thereof if it makes you feel any better (even now after you are quite aware of their self-perception), but that won't change reality. By the way, the specimen 2011 census questions were already published in 2009 and included a new Arab category. The real thing is coming out just next year, making your little scenario above even less likely. Middayexpress (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You really don't get it. I don't give a damn whether I consider them black, arab, or even inanimate objects. All I was saying was that they get lumped with Black by other people (which may be problematic for them). Which is why they wanted to create a new category. You seem to be exceptionally sensitive to these issues. Any particular reason for that? Christopher Connor (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you don't get it. You attempted to use the census to classify the Somalis a certain way. I then explained to you that the census is based on self-assigned ethnicity, and even quoted for you the relevant passages from the census people indicating this. That logically should have been the end of the discussion. Instead, for some reason known only to you, you chose to press the issue, suggesting against all evidence and history that Somalis classify themselves as such. And now you're arguing that they are lumped in with Blacks "by other people". Actually, throughout the overwhelming majority of their long history, Somalis were expressly differentiated from other groups in the Sub-Saharan region, whether it was by the ancient Greeks they traded with, who referred to Somalis as Barabaroi, or by Yaqut al-Hamawi and other medieval Arabs, who described them as dark-skinned Berbers whereas they referred to blacks as Zanj, or of course during the Hamitic craze of the late 19th century to the late 20th century. This "black" label is what is brand new, applied only selectively (and without any scientific validity), rejected by the Somalis themselves, and is in competition with other labels such as Arab (e.g. 1). Which brings us full circle back to the 2011 census and the fact that it is about to include an Arab entry. End of story. Middayexpress (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All I said was that 'they are subsumed under the 'Other Black' category amongst Black British' (yes, it wasn't very clear at all), not that Christopher Connor was doing the subsuming. Can you explain why the Communities document says exactly that. You seem to jump at every little edit I make and attack it ceaselessly. You have such a confrontational attitude that you have tagged me as the 'enemy' and everything I do is seen through those eyes. Whereas I am calm and see you not as the opponent, but someone I just have to patiently contend with. . Christopher Connor (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the issue here. The census is clearly based on self-definition, as established by the ONS quotes above. The ONS is the ultimate authority on this, and while it may be the case that the vast majority of Somalis were categorised as "Other Black", I don't see the need to mention it here given the impossibility of establishing this for certain. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IP comments
ermm, on the side the city of Birmingham is named as a city with a big somali community, but on the passage someone keeps removing eveyrhing abotu Birmingham.

Here's a fact Birmingham has the highest Somali community in the UK only London boroughs of Newham, Camden & Woolwich can match.

So maybe you want to stop being jealuos of Birmingham beautiful multi-culture.

racist jelaous cunts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.124.125 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Provide proof of your claims. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I recently tried to make some improvements to the article, which were reverted. I'll go through the issues in turn, explaining why I think my edits should stand.


 * Firstly, I removed "Somalis in the UK have produced several politicians, sports figures and filmmakers" from the introduction. The number of Somali politicians, sports figures and filmmakers in the UK is very low and I don't think they merit mention in the introduction. The politicians, for example, are all local councillors or mayors, not MPs.


 * Second, I removed the excessive material about Mo Farah. We only need mention him here, not give a detailed account of his career. That's what the Mo Farah article is for.


 * Thirdly, I expanded the social issues section to give more details about the problems with violence already mentioned. I thought I did a good job of maintaining balance since I know this section has proved controversial in the past. I included one quote saying violence was a problem, and another saying that members of the community had started to make inroads into preventing violence.


 * Fourthly, I edited the material on employment rates since the existing text suggested that economically inactive Somalis might be children or retired, whereas the IPPR source only covers working-age Somalis.


 * Finally, I added a comment by Sayeeda Warsi about khat use. This seems to be relevant given her statement that a Conservative government would ban khat. The reverting editor said in their edit summary that they were removing it per WP:BLP, but I don't see what that guideline has to do with this issue.

I plan to reinstate my edits unless a proper argument for their removal is put forward here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While I generally appreciate your contributions, I believe that there are clearly quite a few problems with these current edits.


 * The lede mentions the Somali politicians, sports figures, filmmakers, etc. because, per WP:LEDE, it is meant to summarize the important points discussed in the article. That includes the fact that several Somali immigrants have made their mark in the sporting field (in particular Mo Farah, who is, at least at the moment, certainly among Britain's most famous athletes), as well as several Somali policymakers on the political scene. The edit originally read "numerous politicians..." etc. have made their mark, which is indeed debatable. However, it now states that "several" have, which isn't really.


 * The article only discusses Mo Farah's actual wins for Britain, not his life. Because he is easily among the most decorated athletes running under a British flag at the moment, that necessarily includes several major wins and records. I don't see why this is a problem or which policy forbids it.


 * The quotes on the social issues are undue weight on material that was just discussed. That is, the article mentions "troubles with adolescent gangs" and the quote right after that repeats "a significant number of young Somali men to become involved in crime and to use violence". Similarly, the next quote basically indicates that the gangs are giving way to communal counter-measures, which is also mentioned in the article. That quote is also not entirely factually accurate since it alludes to the Somalis' apparent "tribal structure", when in reality, Somalis are divided into clans (not tribes), an altogether different anthropological unit.


 * It is the Labour Force Survey's own definition of economically inactive that indicates that the term officially pertains to children, retirees and homemakers.


 * The part of the text sourced to that politician pertains to actual, living people. Hence, it obviously falls under the scope of WP:BLP. And that politician's opinion (which was taken from an opinion piece, published in the opinion section of the paper) on Somalis (a third party) is not permissible: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)". And from WP:QS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."


 * That's basically why I adjusted your edits. Middayexpress (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the LFS, I realise that the definition of economically inactive includes children and the retired, but the point is that the IPPR analysis only includes those people of working age, so children and retired people are not included in their analysis. Please read the source.
 * As for the Warsi quote, I don't think that the argument that BLP applies here is convincing. Why is the article not tagged as such if it comes under the BLP project? You're welcome to try tagging it, but I don't think it will be accepted. It's also perfectly possible to include opinions of politicians, provided that they are identified as such. Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on this. The statement is verifiable, isn't original research and conforms to NPOV if it's introduced as an opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the politicians point, the are tens of thousands of local councillors in the UK. Is it really so notable that a handful of Somalis are amongst them that it needs to be mentioned in the lede? The same is probably true of pretty much every country of birth group in the UK. How about we replace the text with the names of individual Somalis or British people of Somali origin who are famous, such as Farah and Rageh Omaar? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And on the social issues section, I don't see how the quotes place too much weight on an issue already mentioned. The violence point is clearly an important one and the reader should expect some level of detail, which the quotes provide. If we don't include the quotes, some more detailed explanation could at least be included. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I raised the Warsi khat comments issue on the BLP noticeboard and it seems to not be a BLP issue. I've reintroduced the material, but with more context and balancing views. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, the quotes on the social issues are undue weight on material that was just discussed since the article mentions "troubles with adolescent gangs" and the quote right after that repeats "a significant number of young Somali men to become involved in crime and to use violence". Similarly, the next quote basically indicates that the gangs are giving way to communal counter-measures, which is also mentioned in the article. That quote is also not even factually accurate since it alludes to the Somalis' apparent "tribal structure", when in reality, Somalis are divided into clans (not tribes), which is an altogether different anthropological unit.


 * As for the opinion from that politician, you have not produced any actual Wikipedia policy contradicting the ones I've quoted from above, policies which make it clear that opinions (published in an opinion piece, no less) are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says nothing about whether or not opinions from individuals can be used as reliable sources to cite contentious claims about third parties. On the other hand, as I've already pointed out, other policies do. WP:QS, for one, clearly indicates that:


 * "'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.'"


 * That said, I've read that post on the BLP noticeboard that you link to above, and most of the editors there have likewise indicated that opinions cannot be used to cite contentious claims about third parties (and that's without them even having had the benefit of reading a reply by me or what I have posted here today):


 * citing fairly sweeping statements of fact about khat use in an entire community to an op-ed by a politician doesn't sound like the best approach, attributed or not
 * selective use of op-ed sources that present a derogatory picture of an ethnic group would be a serious NPOV breach
 * seems a bit like band-standing politician type comments to me, the idea that a race of people are underachieving in the education results and the employment market due to kat is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. I think it is a bit undue in the article actually. If the report has come to this conclusion then it is fine but if it is a politician opining and band standing, we will ban this drug..and that drug etc..


 * I've also taken a closer look at what Sayeeda Warsi actually writes, and not only is it strictly an opinion (i.e. it is not based on any actual scientific evidence; ironically enough, this is what that other opinion piece you produced also makes clear ), it is also factually inaccurate. You indicate in the article that she "suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement". However, what she actually writes is that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." Of course, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. The unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. The IPPR paper actually specifically attributes the employment rate to the following:


 * "'This unusually low figure is indicative of the fact that the majority of Somalis in the UK will not have come here through labour migration channels, but rather because they are fleeing violence and persecution in Somalia, and of the relative newness of the Somali community, which we discuss further later in this report. Given that a large proportion of Somalis in the UK are likely to be refugees, this low employment rate may reflect the difficulties such groups have in accessing employment once they have gained refugee status'"


 * Similarly, the other actual study you cite clearly states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use:


 * "'The suggestion from some previous research, that people use khat more in this country than in Somalia because they are unemployed was not supported by the data from this study. Firstly, there was no evidence that people in this sample were using khat more in England and secondly, a smaller proportion of those who were unemployed compared with those in employment reported using khat.'"


 * That same study also debunks that other 7 year old newspaper article's unsubstantiated claim that 90% of Somalis in the UK use khat when it indicates that, in reality, only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat." The paper also concludes that:


 * "'The overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use.'"


 * And that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat."


 * That hardly qualifies as a social issue. Certainly not any more than alcohol use is in any of Britain's many non-Somali and Yemeni communities, as the Brian Whitaker opinion piece you yourself produced was good enough to point out :


 * "'Like alcohol, qat is neither intrinsically bad nor intrinsically good – it all depends on how people use it... Warsi's arguments about the social ills of qat abuse could be applied just as easily to alcohol, say, or betting shops.'"


 * I have therefore removed this undue weight on what the aforequoted study itself makes clear isn't really much of an issue at all, but rather a social pastime peculiar to Somalis, Yemenis and other neighboring peoples.


 * As for the lede, it's a bit subjective to single out Mo Farah and Rageh Omaar and describe them as "well-respected". Something along the lines of "award-winning" would work better, since they of course do actually have a few awards to their name. However, the fact remains that these gentlemen are not the only notable Somali immigrants out there; there are also other athletes, businesspeople, politicians, etc. in various fields. There are indeed many councillors overall, but the Somali immigrant community itself makes up only a tiny fraction of Britain's population and is, for the most part, quite new to the country. So mentioning the fact that the community has produced several politicians, among others, is not odd at all (incidentally, many councillors have their own articles; c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to do with the Warsi quote. In no way am I suggesting that she is correct. The point is that she is saying the Conservatives will ban khat use, and from her article it is clear that this is based on her views on its use by Somalis. We may think they are misguided, incorrect even, but they exist and seem to be informing government policy and should therefore be mentioned. The reason I included the Home Office study and the Brian Whitaker wasn't to contradict myself, it was to demonstrate to the reader that Warsi's claims are contested. They are there for balance to avoid the selective use of opinion pieces that editors at the BLP noticeboard, who you quote, were concerned about. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care what your intentions were. I look at actions, and the fact remains that you indicated in the article that that politician "suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement", not that the Conservatives may or may not ban khat use (something which is completely irrelevant to this article anyway). And that, of course, is not what she stated, nor are her opinions even factually accurate (as others have also pointed out) or permissible for sourcing contentious material on third parties. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also removed that allusion to Somali women being "less likely to be literate in both English and Somali than their male counterparts". It is sourced to an outdated eight year old paper, which in turn sources the claim to a decade-old study. The Somali immigrant community has grown substantially since then, so it in no way reflects the modern demographic makeup of the community. In addition, I have removed the expand tag you added to the further reading section since at least two of those sources are grossly outdated. One was published six years ago and was based on sources from well before that, and the other is from thirteen years ago. Further, I have replaced the similarly outdated seven year old housing data you added with more recent material from the EHRC. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've flagged the khat issue on the NPOV noticeboard to get third-party opinions. Just a minor point of clarification: you say that "study also debunks that other 7 year old newspaper article's unsubstantiated claim that 90% of Somalis in the UK use khat when it indicates that, in reality, only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat"", but that's not comparing like with like. The newspaper claim is that 90 per cent of Somali men chew khat, whereas the study includes men and women. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference whether that article says 90% of men only. The fact remains that it is a 7 year old estimate sourced to nothing but that article -- an estimate that is completely contradicted by a much more recent actual study  on khat use in the Somali community in the UK. And the latter paper of course indicates that there is no connection between khat use and unemployment in the Somali community, and that only a small number of people used khat abusively to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the lede, I've made a minor change noting that the politicians are local ones. Hopefully that satisfies both of us. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't because the term "local" in the lede does not only preface Somali politicians; it also applies to the other notable Somalis from other fields, many of whom are hardly local but actually lead international careers while of course being based in the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll reorder the sentence to avoid that problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Employment
I'm moving these comments on employment to their own section to make navigation easier. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted your edit to the employment rates section, which you didn't explain. I don't understand what "early statistics" means given that the report makes clear that similar statistics are available from the LFS for a period ten years earlier than the ones being quoted. Similarly, to describe the unemployment rate as "even lower" than the employment rate is confusing since unemployment rates being low is presumably a good thing, whereas employment rates being high is good. Also, Somalis have the second-highest unemployment rate in the study, so to infer that it is low is a problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very disingenuous. Firstly, it is the study you just added that indicates that the Somali unemployment rate is high, not the IPPR study that was already in the article. Unfortunately, this other study you produced includes students amongst its population sample:


 * "'The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels.'"


 * This only serves to skew the results, as it classifies people (students) who normally should be classified as economically inactive instead as unemployed, thus artificially inflating the unemployment rate and deflating the economic inactivity rate. The IPPR study, however, expressly avoids making this error:


 * "'Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners.'"


 * I have therefore restored the IPPR study's non-skewed results, including the fact that the unemployment rate in the Somali immigrant community -- which the study makes clear is for the most part new; hence, my use of the term "early statistics" -- is actually lower than its employment rate (it is not by itself described as "low"), and why exactly that is. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPPR study also excludes those who are not working age. The ONS adjustment are to avoid the data being skewed, so I don't see why you want to suggest that it's the IPPR figures that are non-skewed. I will restore the ONS figures since they are newer than the IPPR ones, and the ONS are the authority on national statistics after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got the sources the wrong way around there! You're right that the data source that the ONS paper is using includes students. If you take a look at the employment and unemployment figures they calculate though, these are based on the economically active population. That's the standard way to calculate employment and unemployment rates. Since students are not counted as economically active, they are therefore excluded from this data, just like in the IPPR source. In fact, the IPPR paper doesn't give the unemployment rate in this way. What it gives is the proportion of all working age people (excluding students) who are unemployed. This is not the same thing as the unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the economically active who are unemployed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That, with all due respect, is irrelevant. Both studies exclude people who are not working age; but the fact remains that only the the IPPR study does not include students -- people officially defined as economically inactive -- in its figures whereas the other study does, exactly as the quotes above show. On the relevant Table 1 & Table 2 of the ONS paper (which cite the employment and unemployment & inactivity rates, respectively), the captions both read that "Countries are ordered according to the 2008 working age household population as presented in Table 3." As already shown above, the paper defines the working age household population as including (not excluding) students. And as the IPPR itself clearly indicates, including student data necessarily skews the results. It makes no difference whether the ONS figures are "newer" (by one year) or what some other paper states; the actual ONS paper itself indicates this. The results are still skewed and only serve to artificially inflate the unemployment rate and deflate the economic inactivity rate. I have therefore again removed this skewed data, and replaced it with unskewed data of comparable age. Middayexpress (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read note 3 to table 2. It makes clear that the unemployment rate is calculated as a percentage of the total employed plus unemployed (i.e. economically active, thus excluding students). The difference is also more than one year. The IPPR data is for 2005/06, whereas the ONS data is for mid-2008. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid note 3 on table 2 says nothing of the sort (i.e. "economically active, thus excluding students"); it states what I have quoted above. You're also forgetting that Table 1 is also based on the working age household population as presented in Table 3, which, again, includes students (it doesn't exclude them, as I have also quoted above). If you disagree, by all means, quote the material that proves you right. Otherwise, it is original research. Middayexpress (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The note states that "Unemployment rate is expressed as Total unemployement/(Total employment + Total unemployment)". The bottom half of that equation is the total number of economically active people. I repeat again, the proportion of unemployed people given in the IPPR study is not the same as the unemployment rate. Please see this source on how unemployment rates are calculated. The IPPR study defines the unemployment rate as the proportion of unemployed people in the total working-age population, minus students. That's not how the official rate is calculated. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not clear from the above, my case for using the ONS figures rather than the IPPR ones is that they're more recent (2008 versus 2005/06), they use the official definition for the employment and unemployment rates, and they are published by the UK's national statistical authority rather than a think tank (albeit a respected one). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're literally inventing arguments now, whereas I specifically asked you to quote a passage from the ONS source in question (not some other unrelated source) that supports your claim. But of course, you cannot do that since the ONS source itself clearly indicates in its relevant Table 1 & Table 2 (which cite the employment and unemployment & inactivity rates, respectively) that "Countries are ordered according to the 2008 working age household population as presented in Table 3." As already shown above, the paper defines the working age household population as including (not excluding) students:


 * "'The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels.'"


 * This only serves to skew the results, as it classifies people (students) who normally should be classified as economically inactive instead as unemployed, thus artificially inflating the unemployment rate and deflating the economic inactivity rate. The IPPR study, however, expressly avoids making this error:


 * "'Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners.'"


 * It makes no difference whether the ONS figures are "newer" (by one year) -- they're still distorted, and you have yet to produce one quote proving that they aren't and don't actually include students. Middayexpress (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Table 2 lists the unemployment and inactivity rates as distinct items. Students are included in the inactive columm, not the unemployment column, so what's the problem with the unemployment rate then? Again, the difference between 2005/06 and mid-2008 is more than one year. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Countries are ordered according to the 2008 working age household population as presented in Table 3" quote simply refers to the order in which the countries are listed in the table. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mo Ali
We need a source that says that the film director Mo Ali is considered Somali, as this claim is made in this article. A reference was added recently, but it states he was born in Saudi Arabia and I can't find any mention of him being Somali in it. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Somali councillors
The sentence about Somali councillors being elected in 2010 is sourced with election results. While these sources verify that those people metioned in the article did get elected, it says nothing about them actually being Somali. We therefore need sources that establish this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since the source you provided is a blog, and blogs aren't usually accepted as sources, should we reference the original source linked to from the blog? The disadvantage is that it's not in English. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source I provided is not a blog; it's an Arabic newssite. The English translation of that article was just hosted on a blog, not the source article. Wikipedia already anticipates that some articles have translations via its 'trans_title' field in its 'cite journal' template (which is what I used). This way, both the source & its translation are cited. Middayexpress (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that. I was suggesting including a link to the original, that's all. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondary migration
I reverted the part of this edit that concerned secondary migration from the Netherlands. An academic journal article is more reliable than a Washington Times editorial when it comes to this subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Employment
The employment section needs restoring to a previous version; the current edits removed mention of ONS data and kept in more favourable information. Sentences like The low employment rate is also a reflection of the newness of the Somali community in the UK and the fact that most Somali immigrants did not come through labor migration channels but rather in search of asylum; data suggests asylum seekers in general appear to have more difficulty accessing employment and likely did not have the right to work while their claim was/is being processed are not attributed correctly and presented as fact. The new version is vastly less balanced and contains more POV than the previous content. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put back the material with slightly more neutral wording. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain how the sentences above are not attributed correctly when they are direct paraphrases of what the IPPR source itself indicates:


 * "This unusually low figure is indicative of the fact that the majority of Somalis in the UK will not have come here through labour migration channels, but rather because they are fleeing violence and persecution in Somalia, and of the relative newness of the Somali community, which we discuss further later in this report. Given that a large proportion of Somalis in the UK are likely to be refugees, this low employment rate may reflect the difficulties such groups have in accessing employment once they have gained refugee status" p. 17
 * "The relatively low rankings of Somalis, for example, may be down to the fact that many newcomers came to the UK as asylum seekers (and probably did not have the right to work while their claim was/is being processed)" p. 43 Middayexpress (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the WP article text it was not attributed directly to the report but presented as fact. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the entire passage was sourced to the IPPR, which was identified as the source of the report in the first sentence of the paragraph. Middayexpress (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Errant. The IPPR quotes are now clearly identified as such, and I'm glad you agree about the use of ONS statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, can I ask why you removed the Bloch source? I know there's another reference for that statement but having two never harms, especially since Alice Bloch is an academic expert in the field of human migration. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Over-linking, the fact that it's an old study, and that the material is already sourced. Middayexpress (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two references hardly seems excessive. It is quite old though, I agree, though the BBC source is also getting on a bit. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed indicates that to attributes. Firstly because it avoids implying fact (which we can't do in this case) but is actually, too my mind, makes a much stronger link between the figures and the possibly cause. I felt that the wording of the sentences that were changed were a) too wordy (and were hard to parse right) and b) only made a weak link (when the report implies a strong link to the causes). I feel this wording is much more neutral and a lot less negative about somali's --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. It's important that we explain why Somalis are in the employment situation they are in, given that this information is available and the risk of people coming to their own presumptuous conclusions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

City population statistics
I was just editing the statistics on Somalis in Bristol as the source being used was a blog, and some Google searching revealed that vastly differing estimates are available for all of the cities we list in the article. Sometimes the article reflects this, but sometimes it just seems to pick one estimate of many. Does anyone have any suggestions for ways forward on this? Sticking to a single source that covers a number of cities (or several) and attributing all of the city statistics to it (/them) might be an idea? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To give an example, for Birmingham we quote 3,000-4,000 from the CLG study, when the IoM study gives a figure of 35,000! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We should list the cities and numbers in table format and list a few of the most reliable and recent estimates. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good solution. I'll work on it when I get time. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That generally looks fine. However, all of the cited sources generally refer to the same community (i.e. the Somali one). The "community" entries at the top should therefore be changed to refer to a few specific mainstream sources on the different city-specific population estimates, like they do in the infobox. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Table looks good. It can be tricky though as some of these reports are themselves referencing other reports. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is that the middle column (from the CLG study) figures are from a range of sources that have been collated in the report. I will be what wording I can come up with to reflect this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this for the headings? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say. I was trying to explain that all of the cited sources generally refer to the same community (i.e. the Somali one), so there is no point in differentiating the "Somali-born" from "Ethnic Somalis" and the "Somali community" -- in Britain, they all generally refer to the same people: Somalis. If the point is to differentiate between Somalis who are citizens of Britain and those who aren't, than this can be better accomplished by something resembling the following:


 * I also note that some of these estimates are really old. The census can of course be forgiven for this, but these other hoary estimates are surely not the only ones available. Middayexpress (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's good. I went for "Somali community" because the IoM source that lists the ICAR estimates isn't that clear on what it means by this term, but I think you're right that it refers to the same concept as the CLG source. I can continue to look for newer estimates. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure about the "Somali-born and British citizens" wording. These two categories are not mutually exclusive, and it's unclear who counts under this definition (e.g. it might be read to only include someone who was born in Somali and is a British citizen). "Ethnic Somalis" might be better. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ethnic Somalis" is not better, as that is pretty much what most Somali immigrants to Britain are. A better distinction would therefore probably be something along the lines of "born in Somalia" vs. "born in Britain". The former alludes to Somalis who are recent immigrants to Britain while the latter refers to Somalis born in the country. Middayexpress (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "ethnic Somalis" to mean all people of Somali ethnicity, regardless of birthplace. If you don't like that, how about "Somali-born and UK-born Somalis"? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or "Somalis regardless of birthplace" since some are likely to have been born in other countries? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Khat
I generally agree with Middayexpress's edits to the khat section that I added to the article. I just wanted to raise a couple of issues though. The text now reads "Within Somali culture especially, khat chewing has a long history as a social custom that traditionally brings people together to relax and to encourage conversation". However, a reference used later in the same paragraph states that "opinion is unanimous that khat use is part of the Somali tradition, with long historical roots. This chapter argues that this is a misreading of history and that khat has only gained popularity among Somali users in recent decades. The problems associated with khat use are therefore not simply reducible to the pharmacological properties of the drug, but need to take into account a new cultural context of its use within the UK". I suggest that we should perhaps take account of this alternative view in the text.

Secondly, the text that I originally added to the article included a quote from that same source ("In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture"). That's now been removed but I wonder if we should add it again as it does a good job of establishing how divided people are on this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The text that reads "Within Somali culture especially, khat chewing has a long history as a social custom that traditionally brings people together to relax and to encourage conversation" was taken specifically from the Home Office's actual study on khat, and it cites the basic history of khat use in the Somali community. The argument presented in that other report you link to above (i.e. that "khat has only gained popularity among Somali users in recent decades") is a tiny minority view. The author himself admits that "opinion is unanimous that khat use is part of the Somali tradition, with long historical roots", whereas his novel argument presented in that paper that it isn't is completely contradicted not just by scholarly consensus on the matter, but also by the very existence of historical sources citing khat use in the Somali community (e.g. the following refs from the 19th century: 1, 2, 3). It is therefore hardly a "new" custom to the Somalis.


 * Further, that passage on khat use being contentious in the Somali community is already captured in the paragraph that reads "some commentators, health professionals and community members have expressed concerns about the long-term effects of the use of khat by Somalis in the UK, suggesting that excessive use has a negative social and health impact on the community.... Some Somali community organisations have also campaigned for khat to be banned", as it is in the cited Home Office study's figures on the percentage of those surveyed who were or were not in favor of banning khat. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the author of the book chapter isn't presenting the orthodox view, hence the way in which he introduces his argument. I don't think that he's denying that Somalis ever chewed khat in the past, but arguing that it "was not widely used". Anyway, I don't think we necessarily need to mention this alternative viewpoint, but I think that we should avoid presenting the view that the custom has a long tradition as an uncontested fact. Perhaps something along the lines of "It is generally accepted that..."? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of that paper personally believes that khat use is, for the most part, a recently invented custom in the Somali community ("For the most part, however, Somalis had no experience of khat until the mid-twentieth century"), and that, prior to that time, it was mainly restricted to the northern Somali territories. However, he is apparently unaware of the fact that almost all Somali culture originates in the northern regions since that is precisely where the Somali people themselves originate: that is the Somali homeland . The Somalis began migrated down from the north only a few centuries ago in a series of movements that ended just recently, during and as a consequence of the pre-independence era. He might as well argue that all Somali culture is a "recent invention" for the same reasons. As I've already pointed out, there is also no shortage of historical sources from as far back as the 19th century citing widespread khat use in the Somali community, including the Yearbook of pharmacy from 1887 and even none other than Charles Dickens himself .  Besides actual Somali history and historical sources contradicting his argument, there is also scholarly consensus, which the author himself readily concedes his theories are counter to: "opinion is unanimous that khat use is part of the Somali tradition, with long historical roots". The author's idiosyncratic, speculative and ultimately ahistorical views are therefore tiny minority opinions, not merely unorthodox views. And per WP:REDFLAG, those need not be entertained. Middayexpress (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Middayexpress
I have reverted most of Middayexpress's edits for these reasons: Basically, the edits greatly degrade the article in all areas of article writing. Please make use of the talk page to discuss edits in future instead of ceaselessly reverting. I have kept a few however where appropriate. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of compliance with WP:MOSLEAD: things being said in the lead not said in the article etc.; inadequate summarising, considering the lead as a summary of the article.
 * The relationship between the UK and Somalia is important in understanding migration patterns. My version makes this clear.
 * WP:OVERLINK of common terms like professional, protectorate etc.
 * Removal of page numbers. See WP:CITE. Semi-vandalism, really.
 * Edits that leave a redirected wikilink. Second World War for example. Careless.
 * Unjustified removal of information and references of some sort, which leaves some sentences not as well supported.
 * "Most are recent arrivals" - needs clarification, which my bit in the history section does.
 * "Mosques are the primary centres for religious and social gatherings." - evidently an appropriate statement, now sourced.
 * "As with other communities" - meaningless without clarification, and not even true.
 * There is no need to immediately remove every little titbit of information that isn't cited.


 * I beg to differ.
 * It's actually your lede that cites material which is not even in the sources; and when it doesn't, it just repeats material that has already been mentioned (such as citing a few select sports figures when they have collectively just been alluded to). For example, you write that "the instability and civil war in Somalia lead to a large number of refugees arriving in the UK, comprising the majority of the current Somali population." This is not true. The cited source clearly indicates that most of the early asylum seekers were refugees, whereas later ones more often than not received temporary status ("In the late 1980s, the tendency was to grant refugee status to Somalis claiming asylum, while those arriving in the 1990s have more frequently obtained temporary status.").
 * The version of the relationship between Somalia and Britain that you added is patently false and ignorant of basic Somali history. British Somaliland -- which is not the same thing as the modern-day autonomous Somaliland region of Somalia that you keep linking to -- was a protectorate, not a colony. Prior to Somalia's independence in 1960, the term "Somaliland" was a generic expression used to denote all of the Somali-inhabited territories in the Horn of Africa. There was thus French Somaliland (modern-day Djibouti), British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland (modern day Somalia), Ethiopian Somaliland (the Ogaden), and Kenyan Somaliland (the Northern Frontier District or NFD). This is why in the colonial literature, for example, one would often read at once about "Hargeisa, Somaliland" or "Mogadishu, Somaliland" or "Merca, Somaliland" or "Kismayo, Somaliland" or even "Harar, Somaliland", etc. None of those expressions have anything to do with the modern-day Somaliland region of Somalia.
 * A protectorate is not a "common term". It is a technical, geopolitical term not many people understand, and therefore will be linked to. "Professional", however, admittedly is a common term. As for "etc.", that could refer to anything (or nothing in particular).
 * I did not realize your "rp" tags referred to page numbers. I can honestly say that I have never seen that kind of formatting anywhere before on Wikipedia. I was actually under the impression that they referred to footnotes because they look exactly like super-scripted footnote numbers, albeit unlinked ones. This is why when I removed them, I indicated that the material had "failed verification"; I literally checked the footnoted sources with corresponding numbers cause that is what I thought they were. It's unfortunate that you have chosen to not assume good faith for what is essentially a case of unfamiliarity with a little-used, idiosyncratic formatting style, and have instead rather cynically opted to insinuate that it is "semi-vandalism, really". Either way, those page numbers all presumably refer to one source on the community from six years ago by Harris et al. that is, in fact, a dead-link -- something I have also mentioned in my edit summaries. That material thus requires verification anyway; I've tagged it with the appropriate verification needed tags as well.
 * Again, claiming something is not the same thing as proving it (which you have not done). The Second World War, by the way, was already linked to in the intro, so this too is much ado about nothing; refer to your own comments about WP:OVERLINK.
 * See my comment above on those "rp" tags & the dead-linked source you supplied for your answer to this point.
 * Your bit in the history section is factually untrue, as I've demonstrated above.
 * Whether or not that material on mosques is appropriate could not be gauged since it was original research. You claim to have now added a source for this, but it's just that same old dead-link by Harris et al. as before, a ref that requires verification either way.
 * Yes, there is indeed a need to remove original research => See WP:NOR.
 * You claim that the passage I've added which begins "As with other communities, Somali immigrants residing in Britain represent a dynamic group of people, with diverse histories and contexts of migration" is "not even true". Unfortunately, you are yet again mistaken, as that is what the source itself (which is, by contrast, verifiable) indicates: "Just as other communities, Somalis living in the UK constitute a dynamic group of people with diverse life trajectories. Mobility is an important part of many Somalis’ identities but as this briefing has shown, the social and political contexts of Somali migration are complex."
 * You keep unnecessarily doubling up on sources, when certain statements are obviously taken from one particular source. For example, the statement that "The first Somali immigrants were seamen and merchants who settled in port cities in the late 19th century, mainly in Cardiff, Liverpool and London" was obviously taken almost verbatim from this source, yet you've gone ahead and attributed it to this  article which doesn't include that information, as well to that old Harris source. This is not warranted.
 * I notice you also removed the fact that Somali women that joined their husbands in the 1950s and 60s began establishing community organisations in the cities where they resided, some of which still exist to this day.
 * In short, I already explained my edits in my edit summaries and what was wrong with your edits. But since you didn't appear to understand what I was referring to, I of course have no problem clarifying the situation for you here too. Middayexpress (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also managed to track down a cachelink to that six year old Harris source, and it's even more outdated than I had thought. Its most recent reference material is from 2003, with many even of its sources dating back to the 1990s. That is unacceptable, especially when referring to statements of fact that allude to the present, such as the claim made in this article that the "Somali community has a low profile in mainstream society", which is sourced to a section of the paper that claims that "the existence of an enormous number of Somali community groups has not ensured their representation in local and national bodies concerned with their welfare, and there are no Somalis in the corridors of power" -- a statement that is of course rendered patently absurd by the Somali immigrant community's unprecedented level of political representation in the UK's most recent 2010 polls. That's just one of the many outdated statements attributed to the paper. And that's not even touching on the general unduly negative portrayal of the community, something that the paper was already soundly criticized for  at the time of its publication, nevermind now. Criticisms include:


 * The fact that it was primarily based on obscure, limited and/or overlapping secondary material: "Hermione Harris (author) explained that the main focus of the research was the collection and analysis of secondary material, but that she had also contextualised her findings by speaking to members of the Somali population. She indicated that she had found a total of 138 published items on Somalis in the UK. Books made up 4% of the material; academic articles 6%; theses 9% (a few were published) and reports 60%. In general the material was very hard to identify and locate, and it seemed that the information contained within this body of work had not been widely circulated. This meant that much of it is repetitive and often reaches the same conclusions. She made the point that some organisations are no longer aware of the reports that they have commissioned in the past and are therefore unlikely to be acting on the recommendations made therein."
 * A lack of first-hand and qualitative material in general: "Another weakness in the type of publications produced on Somalis is that Somalis themselves do not feature heavily in the production of the research. About a third of reports surveyed by ICAR involve Somalis in some way, but Somalis do not feature as authors or commissioners of the work. In general, the reports also seemed to be reluctant to use qualitative material and were not good at putting across what it ‘feels like’ to be marginalised or disempowered. There is an over-emphasis on questionnaires and a lack of ‘real voices’ coming through."
 * An unduly and unrealistically negative portrayal of the community: "Another important issue is the kind of information that is being produced about the Somali community and how this affects its public profile. The material covered by the ICAR report presents the community in terms of failures or deficiencies and consequently ‘problematises’ it. At worst, the Somali community is presented as needy and dependent on the state. What the reports fail to do is focus on the positive achievements in the community, such as the establishment of drop-in centres, community groups, and businesses."


 * According to the director of ICAR, the organization that published the Harris paper, the entire purpose of that report was to provide up-to-date information on the Somali immigrant community in the UK:


 * "'She explained that while there is not a lack of research on the Somali community, the existing research needed to be pulled together into a report that reflects the ‘state of knowledge’ and takes stock of the current situation. This is the aim of this report.'"


 * Unfortunately, this is something that that old paper obviously does not do all of these years later in 2010. The Somali population, for one thing, is by some estimates over three times larger than it was at the time of the paper's highest population estimate for the community (~40,000-70,000 in 2002/2003 vs. 90,000-250,000 in 2008/2009). That's a lot of unaccounted for people; the majority, as it turns out. And as WP:RS indicates, "some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field" -- all of which describe this controversial, outdated paper. I've therefore removed its contentious, outdated claims. Middayexpress (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, the Harris reference is not a dead link for me. I checked earlier and it was working fine, so I thought that maybe the ICAR website was down last night when you checked it. I'm therefore surprised that you still can't access it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly a dead-link. I checked on two separate computers, and it worked on neither. But that's neither here nor there since I was able to access its cachelink on Google, and that is what I address above. Middayexpress (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange. I've just tried again and it opens perfectly. It is a little slow because the PDF is 6.7MB, but it opens. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More generally, I agree that we should avoid using the Harris reference if possible for contemporary issues. It contains some useful background and historical material though, regardless of its age and any criticisms that have been made about how it portrays the Somali community. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Harris reference is both outdated (fact) and has been explicitly criticized by third parties for its unrealistic, unduly negative portrayal of the community. As I've also explained above, the paper dates from a period when the Somali immigrant community in the UK was, by some estimates, less than half of what it is now. That makes its conclusions pretty close to useless for the present population any which way it is viewed. Middayexpress (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The link works fine for me too. Regardless of whether one can access it online, the item exists as a print source so removing it because it "failed verification" is patent nonsense and yet again an abuse of policy. It only fails verification if you actually check the source and finds that it doesn't comply with what it is supporting. Misusing policy seems to be a habit of yours. The rp method (see Template:Rp) is for "referring to specific pages within a cited source many times in the same article". People can have each page number as a separate ref (the most common) or use this method to limit the number of refs. Certainly it is not a "little-used, idiosyncratic formatting style". If you were unfamiliar with this style, then why would you remove it when you had no idea what it was refering to? Would you not, for example, seek to find more information about this or at least defer tampering with until you were more knowledgeable? How is colonisation an inappropriate word, when it appears in many of the sources? If you dispute the use of "colonisation" and related forms, then how about: "The UK has historically been close to Somalia, through its involvement with the British Somaliland protectorate. This link has given rise to a long tradition of Somali migration." The exact wording anyhow was lifted from the Identities source. Nobody is refering to the current entity Somaliland and nobody has linked to it. You claim I have added the Dissanayake BBC source. This is untrue as I have not added this in recent days. Please carefully check your statements before making them. The bit regarding the first immigrants was not taken from the Identities source, and neither (I think) has it been used as a source for that statement. That statement has been supported by a print source (now longer used) and the Harris and BBC ref (which itself references Harris). (Sometimes this is used to show that some source has been cited by other sources. Since you appear to be disputing bits of the Harris source, is this not appropriate for this sentence?) That sentence is only somewhat similar to the Identities source (which mentions 20th century as opposed to 19th century) and obviously was not taken from that source. Again, check your statements so that others don't have to clean up after you. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Just as other communities". Here you use a statement and say that it is supported by this source (Identities). Elsewhere you dispute material sourced from that same source (see blockquote). I have already said that without clarification, this sentence is meaningless and worthless. For example, which other communities does it refer to?
 * Describe why the additions in the religion section are unsuitable?
 * With regards to Harris, you seem to equate "has been criticised" to "unreliable". This is a misunderstanding of sources. You have also failed to link to where you got your comments from. Seems to me that you don't want to use it simply because it says negative things. Anyhow, most material from that source is used for the history and settlement section, and there is no suggestion it is unreliable with respect to that. Therefore stop removing material from this source used to support the migration history area.
 * As I already explained, I did not realize your "rp" tags referred to page numbers. I mistook them for footnotes because they look exactly like super-scripted footnote numbers, albeit unlinked ones. This is why when I removed them, I clearly indicated that the material had "failed verification"; I literally checked the footnoted sources with corresponding numbers cause that is what I thought they were. It's unfortunate that you have yet again chosen not assume good faith for what is essentially a case of unfamiliarity with a little-used, idiosyncratic formatting style.
 * I know what the source states regarding 'Somaliland', but you apparently didn't even read the full paper because it later clearly explains that it is referring to the British Somaliland protectorate (not a colony): "Further, during the 1960s and 1970s, Somali students from the former British Protectorate came to study in the UK." So any which way you slice it, the paper is referring to the British Somaliland protectorate not Somaliland, so that is what should actually be written unless one wants to confuse the modern reader. Also, it is inaccurate to state that the UK has been historically close to all of Somalia simply because of the existence of British Somaliland since British Somaliland only formed part of the current Somali nation. The other part was made up of Italian Somaliland, an area where Britain had few relations.
 * I don't dispute material from that same source; I dispute your misunderstanding of it and refusal to read further down the page to the part where that paper explains that it is referring to the British Somaliland protectorate. And the fact remains that the passage I've added which begins "As with other communities, Somali immigrants residing in Britain represent a dynamic group of people, with diverse histories and contexts of migration" is a paraphrase of what the source itself indicates: "Just as other communities, Somalis living in the UK constitute a dynamic group of people with diverse life trajectories. Mobility is an important part of many Somalis’ identities but as this briefing has shown, the social and political contexts of Somali migration are complex." The "other communities" refers to just that: other communities in the UK in general. The statement is key for people who are under the (false) impression that the modern Somali immigrant community is only made up of refugees -- a view that isn't even supported by the old Harris source, ironically enough.
 * Yes, you did indeed attribute the statement that "The first Somali immigrants were seamen and merchants who settled in port cities in the late 19th century, mainly in Cardiff, Liverpool and London" to this, when it was obviously taken almost verbatim from this other source.
 * I understand the Harris paper just fine, thanks. The paper is not merely "criticized" as you suggest. It is actually expressly identified as having used shoddy methodology to gather its (now obviously very dated) evidence and of putting forth an unduly negative portrayal of the Somali community by a third party source (not me) -- a source which I did, incidentally, link to. So when you accuse me of not wanting to use the Harris ref "simply because it says negative things" (see WP:NPA for more on that), your comments are actually better directed at that critique's author since that is who I quote above (not me). Were I a cynic, I could return the favor and likewise accuse you of liking the paper "simply because it says negative things". Only you wouldn't be able to point to another paper that says that criticism of the report is unwarranted and that dispels point-by-point all of said criticisms; you could only point to your own arguments. And that's the difference.
 * As I've already stated before, unless the purpose is you claim things one has no real hope of backing, it is important to actually quote which passages you are referring to. That said, if you are referring to your comments in history section and lede claiming that "In the 1980s and 1990s, the instability and civil war in Somalia lead to a large number of refugees arriving in the UK, comprising the majority of the current Somali population", you should know that not only the "Identities" source doesn't support it (since it indicates that it was only in the 1980s that most of the asylum seekers were refugees), but neither does that outdated Harris source (a six-year old source that cannot be used to reference anything related to the modern Somali immigrant population in Britain anyway). The Harris source likewise indicates that it was in the 1980s and early 1990s, just after the civil war, when most Somali immigrants were refugees. It actually states that, at the time of writing, "in more recent years, a large proportion of Somalis seeking entry to the UK have come from countries other than Somalia... The characteristics of Somali immigration are therefore changing. Although, like the previous phase, the inflow is mainly composed of women and children, it is largely drawn from the wider diaspora rather than from those escaping Somalia itself"; that's a reference to secondary migrations from other countries, not a modern "refugee community" as you indicated. So either way, the edits to those sections were misleading.
 * The additions in the religion section describe the community as it was over six years ago, back when it was almost half of its present size. The community has grown a lot and changed since then, so if the community still indeed has "a small number of mosques specifically built and run by Somalis", as you indicate, rather than quite a few, this should be attributed to an actually modern source. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that you have also totally failed to defend your position at the NPOV noticeboard (and the BLPN), yet you continue to bring disputes in that area to this article. Twice people have gone to the noticeboards and twice they disagreed with your position. We can go to the noticeboard for every little addition but there comes a time when you have to admit that you cannot understand or conform to policy. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least ostensibly, Cordless (not you) posted on the noticeboards; the first was a bust, and on the second, he received some support. I have also not "failed" to defend my position. I'm a busy editor who actually builds pages, so getting into yet another pointless shouting match with you (which you always seem to seek out) is not exactly a priority. I also saw some changes that I could make to the edit that Cordless had already added to the article; so that is what I did. It's called being practical. I'm sorry if I have burst your bubble here, but believe it or not, what you write is not foremost on my mind at all times. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the first was a bust". The discussion concluded that Somalis as a group are not covered by BLP, which is what I was trying to establish. Anyway, hopefully that episode is now over with. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your assertion that my edits do not comply with LEAD and yours do, your version says "During the 1980s and 1990s, the civil war in Somalia lead to a large number of Somali immigrants, most consisting of asylum seekers." This is not stated in the article. Please check your claims before making them (yet again). Also, the students bit isn't appropriate for the lead. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comments above for more on this. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is talking about Somaliland? You keep misrepresenting other people's positions and this needs to stop. The word colonial is used to describe the relationship between the UK and British Somaliland, not that British Somaliland is better described as a colony as opposed to a protectorate. Nobody has said this so stop implying people have. Your comments are only tangentially related to what I am saying. See my most recent edits and above. The first Somali immigrants were seamen and merchants who settled in port cities in the late 19th century, mainly in Cardiff, Liverpool and London. whereas the Identities source goes In the early 20th century, seamen from the cities and rural areas of Somaliland migrated to the UK to work and live in the dockland areas of London, Cardiff, and Liverpool Evidently they are quite a way off "almost verbatim"; indeed they refer to different centuries. Of course, whether they are almost verbatim or not is not all that relevant here: the important point here is that your claim is false (like many others). You have failed to address many of my concerns above (in my earlier post). I could go on but it seems to be a waste of time. Your tendentious behaviour is starting to grate. Also, don't simply wholesale revert other people's edits. Do manually reverts and only remove those bits you are disagreeing with. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you know what the rp template does, can you stop removing uses of it?
 * Your link about the first immigrants is to an older revision, not a diff. Your claim I have introduced it hasn't been proven so far. (I'm can't remember if I introduced it some weeks ago, just not recently.) Because you keep claiming they are almost verbatim, I'll list both sentences here. The article bit reads:
 * Your comments with regards to the Harris paper are irrevelant. Do you dispute the paper is a reliable source for the migration history only (generally pp. 20-25)? Those pages are the only (or possibly almost only) pages used in this article.
 * Refugee can mean the general common meaning or to the status that someone can get. The general meaning is the most common and unless clarified, refugee should be taken to mean that. My edits however, took account of this and refugee was changed to asylum seeker. This bit is easily resolved yet you insist on grinding it out with walls of text and missing the point.
 * My recent edits brought in "During the 1980s and 1990s, the civil war in Somalia lead to a large number of Somali immigrants, comprising the majority of the current Somali population in the UK." Yet you have again falsely misrepresented my position. Refugees was in the version before that, so mentioning it now is irrelevant and seems to be a case of WP:HEAR.
 * With regards to the students section, you have failed to address this, merely saying see above, when your "above" comments do not mention it at all.
 * With regards to the noticeboard, far from being a "shouting match", I made those comments in response to your blatant violations of policy, false accusations, and misrepresentations and incivility towards other users. You failed to address my comments there or even here. Or are you saying that your misuse of policy is not worth talking about? (You seem to reply doggedly to any comments people make so I was quite surprised that you didn't make any reply there. I think that was because I had utterly refuted your arguments and exposed your behaviour.)
 * The bit on the religion section came from the April 2009 communities paper. This refutes your claim that it is "over six years" old. Yet again, perhaps you could actually check some of the sources and what you are writing before clicking save page? Yet even if it were old, has the position of mosques as primary religious and social centres been superceded?

Money transfer operators
This section seriously needs to be trimmed. Detailed pricing information for a product and other such is not relevant here. (See WP:DUE if one desparately needs a policy.) Christopher Connor (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. At least the section isn't taking up such a huge proportion of the article as it was before we significantly expanded other sections, but it still goes into too much detail. Parts of it also read like an advert. A relatively short summary of the extent and impact of Somali-run money transfer operators would suffice. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not need to be trimmed. There is no detailed pricing information for any products; the firms aren't retailers. The fact is, the Somali money transfer firms offer some of the most technologically advanced and competitively priced money transfer services not just in Britain, but in the world ; that is not undue weight, but indeed due weight. Many of these firms (the ones that are actually cited in the article) also have a presence in Britain, with the largest one actually headquartered in London. Its award-winning CEO is likewise a British citizen, which is why he too is mentioned by name. This company as well as several of the other Somali MTOs invest considerably in the local communities, and this philanthropy and community investment is thus also mentioned. So it's all most certainly relevant and notable. Middayexpress (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can of course go to the NPOV noticeboard yet again to get more opinions. I have a feeling, however, that they will not go along with your position so it will just be a waste of everyone's time. Anyhow, I will open up a discussion soon unless you make the appropriate changes. (You're free to open the discussion yourself; however, I'd rather you didn't in case you misrepresent other people's positions like you did at the last noticeboard.) Christopher Connor (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sound suspiciously like threats. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I don't bow down to them. And if you really had a point, it wouldn't be difficult for you to disprove what I have written above (which you understandably have not even attempted to tackle). I still nonetheless invite you to disprove the sourced fact that the Somali money transfer firms with a presence in Britain offer some of the most technologically advanced and competitively priced money transfer services in the world, and that this, along with their local community investment, is also notable. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggesting that the claims about pricing and so on are untrue. The question is about the weight we put on them. At the moment, the money transfer section is bigger than each of the social issues, housing, employment and politics sections, because it goes into more detail than is required. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the section, particularly the bit on pricing and how it's cheaper than other organisations for sums over $whatever. Further reductions may be appropriate though less urgent now. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Liban Abdi
Liban Abdi is described in the sports section as a Sheffield Unitted player on loan to Ferencváros. His move to Ferencváros seems to have been made permanent now though. See the Liban Abdi page and this newspaper article. Shall we reword the text or remove him from the article altogether? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it appears that he was released by Sheffield United in July and is now with his Hungarian club . Middayexpress (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading his history, I don't believe Liban Abdi is a British citizen. He also doesn't live in the UK or play with a British team any longer, and appears to actually be a Somali international. This doesn't really make him a Somali immigrant to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove him really. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, I already did. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New topics
As I see it we are missing material on at least these topics: and other bits in the other topics (e.g. more history of Somalia may be relevant). Christopher Connor (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Education
 * Somali clan and family structure
 * Asylum applications
 * Civil society and community organisations


 * The Somali clan structure in Britain is not any different than in Somalia, so that's a non-issue. A separate section on asylum applications is also very clearly putting undue weight on the already mentioned history of settlement, and gives the false impression that the modern Somali population primarily consists of refugees (it doesn't; see my comments above). The history of Somalia also is WP:IRRELEVANT to this topic on Somalis immigrants to Britain. Middayexpress (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By your same argument, "Somali religion is not different in Britain than in Somalia" would lead to the religion section being removed (along with many others) With respect to asylum, see the many sources that discuss this issue in some detail (and hence DUE supports its addition). Of course, nobody is advocating adding irrelevant info. However, we have mentioned the civil war, a part of the history of Somalia, when it is relevant to the article topic. That is all I am saying so don't imply otherwise. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that these are good topics around which to expand the article further. I don't really understand the argument that "the Somali clan structure in Britain is not any different than in Somalia, so that's a non-issue". If it is indeed the case that the clan structure is the same in Britain, then that in itself is worth mentioning. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This source might be useful for a community organisations section. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation style
I wonder which style we are going to use? I prefer to have separate citations for each page (or page range) for the publication (if more than one page is used) and create a new section for these sources (e.g. == Sources ==). Christopher Connor (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what it says at WP:CITESHORT, so perhaps we should go with that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't really have commented on the peer review since that only makes them archive it faster. Nevermind. I agree we should adopt this style. The author/title and page number in the References, and the full citation in another section. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've queried the archiving of the peer review here. Hopefully we might be able to get it reopened. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Peer review reopened) I've done some of the shifting to the new style. One or two still remain. The new section Sources gives the full citation for those in the References section. I've given them names for consistency eg 'IOM' for Somali regions, 'Kleist' for the report by Kleist. There's still page needed tags scattered about the article, and I'd rather peer reviewers didn't have to comment on that. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added page numbers where there were tags suggesting they were needed. There might still be other instances where they are missing, but the existing tags are gone. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In the sources section, some of the references have two PDF icons. I would remove the templates to fix this, but they are serving a useful purpose by informing readers about large files. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a way to fix that but it requires some complicated programming. (Another reason why citation templates are a pain.) Christopher Connor (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a non-muslim Somali
This article indicates all somalis are muslim. I am a non-muslim somali, so where do i fit in? I am an apostate agnostic, but i know a few other irreligious somalis, so i am not an isolated case. So have we left the fold of being Somalis? Are we outcasts from the community or what? I also know that a lot of Somalis are simply cultural muslims aren't they? Also, many non-muslims (like myself) are afraid to be open about our apostasy or non-belief because of fear of stigmatization or persecution.

There has never been a census on religion in somalia, so its pure guesswork on this article. Maybe we could change it to predominately muslim or something else, or even leave that blank. I dont like it how wikipedia seems to label your spiritual beliefs for you; I've noticed the same problem on other ethnic articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.30.166 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the word "predominantly" in the infobox and the religion section. I agree that many aspects of ethnic group articles on Wikipedia are problematic, including the assumptions made about religion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we have two changes made please
1. Can we change the title to British Somalis. I mean, you don't see other wikipedia pages with the title "Nigerians living in the United Kingdom".

2. Can we have images of British Somalis? Other pages have 3 or 4 images of an ethnic group living in the UK. Surely images of Mo Farah, Rageh Omaar, Mo Ali and Aar Maanta can be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazancourt (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the articles in Category:Immigration to the United Kingdom by country of origin, you'll find that the majority use the "X in the United Kingdom" name format. If you want to request a move to British Somalis, however, I suggest you do so by following the instructions at WP:RM. On your second point, we already have an image of Mo Farah in the article. I would add images of the others you mention, but their respective articles do not have images so I presume that there are none on Wikipedia to use. Please let us know if you know of any that could be uploaded. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is an image at Aar Maanta. I'll add that to the article now. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so plase bare my lack of understanding of how things work. Anyway, just want to know. Is there any chance the images can be placed above the population in that little blue box on the right handside of the corner? As oppose to say way down the page as it is now. For example if I go to the british pakistani page, you immediately see british pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.235.165 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I prefer the images where they are. While we could make a montage and add it to the infobox, I think the bigger images that are integrated into the main text of the article look better. Perhaps if there were more images of famous British Somalis and we had other images to place in the main text, then a montage would be better, but I don't think that's the case yet. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)