Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Superdiversity
Why were these additions removed? I cited good academic sources. BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those edits were reverted per WP:BRD, as they have no consensus. "Superdiversity" is also a WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly with regard to Somalis. The remittance system is likewise redundant and already noted. Additionally, the driveby COI tag was unexplained and unjustified. Middayexpress (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I needed consensus to add something unless it was contested? There are plenty of academic sources applying the superdiversity concept to Somalis in Britain. See Google Scholar and the references in my additions that you removed. BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit was contested per WP:BRD. The fact that the "superdiversity" stub was already once deleted for being "obviously invented" likewise more than qualifies it as a WP:NEOLOGISM in general, nevermind relative to the Somali community in particular. Even if that had been a common concept, that doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate or relevant. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That argument would hold more weight if the superdiversity article hadn't subsequently been recreated, seemingly successfully. If you think it's a neologism with insufficient coverage in secondary sources, Midday, you should nominate it for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Recreation of a deleted page doesn't necessarily mean it is valid. Indeed, there's a formal undeletion process that usually must first be followed, and which wasn't here. Thanks for the tip, though. Middayexpress (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I think that if the issue you have is with the concept of superdiversity itself being a neologism that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then it's worth dealing with that page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at BrumEduResearch's edits in more detail, I don't really see the problem with them. The superdiversity material actually provides some good introductory material, explaining how the Somali community is made up of people who have arrived in the UK via different migration paths. The Aspinall paper outlines some of the problems of data availability that we've struggled with here, and the research on Somali businesses adds to our understanding of Somali entrepreneurship (albeit it's limited to Leicester). The sources are all articles in well-regarded, peer-reviewed academic journals, so there's not a WP:RS issue. In sum, I'd support the reintroduction of the additions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already taken a look at them. They're WP:REDFLAG, particularly vis-a-vis the Somali community. The concept itself is also a WP:NEOLOGISM. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you see them as exceptional claims, as defined by WP:REDFLAG? That might help me understand your objections. I also note that the "superdiversity" concept is in wide use in the academic literature in relation to Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ~480 random hits that or may not be relevant and over half of which date from 2011 onwards is hardly wide use. On the contrary, it underscores the fact that that is indeed a neologism, particularly vis-a-vis Somalis. For the rest, I've already explained it above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of those results are articles in high-quality academic journals, which are considered reliable sources. You haven't explained what exactly it is about BrumEduResearch's additions that you consider to be a breach of WP:REDFLAG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure I did. The neologism policy applies to "what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That's a difference a random search engine test cannot guarantee, even if the hits had been greater and the concept had not been a neologism. Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The neologism point aside (we could always report what Vertovec argues without using the term superdivsersity, if you wish), do you consider all three sources that BrumEduResearch added to be WP:REDFLAG? I'm really struggling to understand what's controversial about their claims. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exceptional statements require exceptional sources. It's also not what I consider; it's what is. "Superdiversity" in general is a neologism, especially vis-a-vis Somalis. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. None of the claims are exceptional. I'll open an RfC to get wider input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's putting the cart before the horse. "Superdiversity" in general is a neologism, nevermind vis-a-vis the Somali community. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments are requested on material added to the article by BrumEduResearch, which was subsequently reverted by Middayexpress, citing WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. My perspective is that the material is based on high-quality academic sources, and that the "superdiversity" term appears well established in the literature (the Vertovec paper that BrumEduResearch cited has more than 1,000 citations). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

To assist editors in commenting on the issue, these were the additions:

Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help Larry. As a compromise may I suggest dropping the word superdiversity and just reporting the facts from the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrumEduResearch (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Superdiversity" is a WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly vis-a-vis the Somali community. 1,000 citations for one paper, most of which have nothing to do with Somalis, doesn't alter that. The superdiversity wikistub itself was also already deleted for being "obviously invented", only to be restubbed without going through the formal undeletion process. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that only one of the additions concerns superdiversity directly - the others are about data availability and Somali entrepreneurship. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is no longer relevant since I've noted the business material. "Superdiversity" is still a neologism, though. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only since I raised the issue here. Thanks for adding it back in though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, only since I saw that it had nothing to do with the neologism "superdiversity". Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Midday, I did suggest above that you nominate superdiversity for deletion if you believe it to be in breach of WP:NEOLOGISM. Have you considered that? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That too is putting the cart before the proverbial horse. It shouldn't have been restubbed to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, contest the recreation! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunately not how it works. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made that suggestion above. Here's another, secondary, source that could be cited in support of Vertovec's claims. This article makes the same point too. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following alternative wording for the first of BrumEduResearch's additions:


 * How does that sound? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds redundant. This is already noted in the arrival section. Middayexpress (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, the article covers this pretty well already, but spread through several paragraphs. As I noted above, I think this addition early on in the article would provide a nice summary in a single sentence of the different categories of Somali migrants in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly necessary or accurate. Many Somali secondary migrants from other European states are citizens and economic migrants. The lede also already accurately summarizes these migration tiers. Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, it doesn't necessarily cover every single Somali in the UK - that's why I used the word "includes", which doesn't preclude that there are other categories - but it's not inaccurate and it's sourced to highly reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It places the various tiers on parallel footing, when they're not. Most Somali immigrants are certainly not undocumented immigrants; they are legal residents, even if it pains certain types of people to admit it. Relevant sources are also already in the article. The lede likewise already summarizes the tiers. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the wording suggests that most Somalis in the UK are undocumented migrants. I have no idea where you got that impression from. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support restoration. WP:REDFLAG is not relevant here, as these opinions are shared by academics, and they are attributed with along their names. VandVictory (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the material is actually already on the page. The tiers of immigrants emigrating to Britain, though, should be attributed to official data from the UK government itself. Middayexpress (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though peer-reviewed academic sources are usually considered the most reliable sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Immigration figures are officially gathered by the government, so that is the entity they should be attributed to. That is the actual most reliable source on these figures. Middayexpress (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There aren't specific government statistics that could be used for all of this, though. For example, there are no official figures on secondary migration of Somalis from other EU states to the UK, hence why we rely on academic research for that material in the article. Similarly, pretty much by definition the government doesn't record undocumented migrants. As for the Aspinall article, he's specifically outlining some of the problems of official data availability, so how can we use official statistics instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Home Office does provide data on such irregular migrants. It also notes that "undocumented" migrants can be construed as pejorative, so "irregular" migrants is more appropriate (e.g. ). Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are government estimates, but not by nationality as far as I'm aware. There's lots of debate about the appropriate term for irregular migrants (I actually prefer that term too), so we could discuss the appropriate term to use here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Home Office provides stats per country in that link. It also indicates outright that "undocumented" migrants can be construed as pejorative, explains why, and concludes that "irregular" migrants is more appropriate ("the term 'irregular' is now used to describe this group of people. Only some of them are covered by more traditional labels such as 'illegal' or 'undocumented' migrant, which are also seen to be inappropriately pejorative, particularly as they can wrongly associate migrants with criminality" ). Middayexpress (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It gives partial estimates for some countries, but no overall estimates of the overall number of irregular migrants for any country, as far as I can see (give me the page number if you've seen something I've missed). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the terminology, I would much prefer that Wikipedia use "irregular immigration" rather than illegal immigration, but I don't think my chances of getting that page move agreed are very high! I'm happy to use "irregular" here though, if no one objects. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good because WP:LABEL instructs against value-laden labels; that includes "illegal" or "undocumented" per the Home Office. At any rate, the Home Office provides official figures on irregular migration, dividing it into four tiers. Among these tiers is rejected asylum applications, which it quantifies here . Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WP:COMMON must have been judged to overrule WP:LABEL at illegal immigration, but thanks for pointing that policy out. If ever I feel up to nominating the latter for a move, I'll cite that policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I support reinstatement, obviously.BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I'm glad sense prevailed. These sources were always reliable.BrumEduResearch (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

270 Somali migrants had their applications rejected during 2010
The Home Office's 270 figure for the number of rejected asylum applications is not for first decisions. There were 485 first decisions, which are listed on Table 5.3a on page 77. The 270 figure is for the final decisions, and is clearly labeled as such on Table 5.3b on page 78. Middayexpress (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Middayexpress, I was getting confused with your first addition, of the 1,020 figure. I'm still not sure that we can say all of those rejected people become irregular migrants. Some might return to Somalia when their applications are rejected, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what we could do is note that one way people become irregular migrants is remaining in the UK after having had asylum claims rejected (using this source (p. 4), for instance), and then noting the 270 figure. That avoids us saying that all 270 are necessarily irregular migrants, but explains the link between asylum and irregular status. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixed that 1,020 first instance figure a few minutes later after seeing the appropriate 270 final decision figure on Table 5.3b . At any rate, the Home Office explains on page 3 therein that it defines irregular migrants in part as declined asylum applications. This is one of its four tiers of irregular migration . Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that confusion - my fault. I think this this edit you made helps clarify, although personally I wouldn't use the word "tiers" as it suggests some sort of hierarchy ("categories", maybe?). I also wonder if you're confusing a stock and a flow? 270 isn't the total number of Somalis whose application has been rejected living in the UK in 2010, but the number whose applications were rejected during 2010. For example, this source mentions that the total number of failed Somali asylum seekers in the UK numbers in the thousands. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's that journalist that has it wrong. Per the Home Office, 270 is the figure for "applicants whose application has been rejected following a final decision", and its lists it under 2010. This can also be seen on page 63 ("In 2010 the top ten nationalities made up 67 per cent of all rejected first asylum applications; the majority of which were from Asia (59%)"). "Categories" instead of "tiers" is fine . Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, 270 Somalis had their applications rejected during 2010. There will also be Somalis who had their applications rejected in previous years still present. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the number processed and rejected in 2010. You just need to look at the table in our article to see the refusals over ten years or so make a bigger stock, unless they've all gone home. And the UK doesn't return people to Somalia because it's unsafe. BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the government has tried to return people to Mogadishu, but not the rest of the country, as the Independent article notes. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the Home Office, irregular migrants in general may be eligible for a voluntary return package. Other irregular migrants may need to be returned to their country of origin under an enforced return. Applicants don't hang around more than briefly after their asylum claims have been declined; they don't have that luxury. See page 5 . Middayexpress (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately many enter into limbo and are placed in immigration detention centres as the government can't return them against its own advice. I've now mentioned this in the article, based on this source that was already cited in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As of October 2011, voluntary return schemes were only running to Somaliland and Puntland. It's possible that they've expanded since then. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Home Office indicates that irregular migrants may either be eligible for a voluntary return financial package to their country of origin, may make arrangements on their own for repatriation, or may be returned through an enforced return process that may involve a brief stay in immigration detention . According to Detention Action, between 2005 and 2013, 84 Somali nationals who had had their asylum applications rejected were held in immigration detention while awaiting repatriation . But yeah, as of 2011, the UK government conducts direct voluntary assisted returns to Somaliland and Puntland only . Middayexpress (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds like we agree, although the Detention Action figure of 84 is just for those people that the organisation has supported, not the total number in detention. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attributed the Enforced Returns and Enforced Removals to the European Migration Network since per it, it is the UK government's official policy that "Enforced Returns are conducted to Somalia and each case is considered on its individual merits" and that "Enforced Removals can be conducted to all areas of Somalia". So it's not enforced returns to just Somaliland as the journalist claims, but instead potentially the whole country . Middayexpress (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your edit is that it misrepresents some of the sources. For instance, as I've pointed out, the 84 figure is just those people who have been supported by Detention Action, not the total number in detention, and the 270 figure is the number of final refusals in 2010, not the stock of people refused as of 2010. I'll revert and we can discuss the wording further to get it right. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, which journalist (or which source) is saying that it's only returns to Somaliland? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Need to be clear here Middayexpress, as I've been watching with some concern this discussion. WP:THIRDPARTY sources are preferable to 'official' sources as they have greater independence. Stick to those sources, please. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem using official sources for statistics such as the 270 rejections one, but we can't misrepresent flows as stocks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, here are the wikiphrases at hand:
 * "In 2010, there were 270 such irregular migrants in Britain from Somalia who had their asylum applications declined in final decisions" - Please point where in that phrase it indicates that the figure is "as of 2010"? It clearly indicates "in 2010" per the Home Office's Table 5.3b . Middayexpress (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to Detention Action, between 2005 and 2013, 84 Somali nationals who had had their asylum applications rejected were held in immigration detention while awaiting repatriation" - Detention Action indicates that "Detention Action's research shows that the majority of Somalis in detention came to the UK as children, spending their formative years in this country. 61% of the 84 Somali people we have supported in the last eight years were children when they arrived in the UK" . It is thus indeed referring to the total number in immigration detention. I also don't see why this is hard to believe. There were only a few hundred asylum rejections each year, and of those, only a small proportion were repatriated via that route. Middayexpress (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In relation to the second, the source states, as you note, "84 Somali people we have supported". What about the people that Detention Action hasn't supported? It's a charity and, unless you can find a source that suggests otherwise, I don't think they support every single person in immigration detention in the UK. As for the first sentence you highlight, it's rather ambiguously worded and could easily be understood as a stock. Moving the "in 2010" to the end of the sentence so that it's clear that these are all decisions made in 2010 would be clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is based on official documents it will not be neutral. The government has been criticised left right and centre for ita detention and deportation policies and some of it takes place secretly. You need 3rd party sources here more than almost anywhere. BrumEduResearch (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That could be said of any government policy. Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the reason behind WP:THIRDPARTY. Official sources can be used when they clearly are correct, but when they are biased, they need to be interpreted and interleaved with independent sources. This avoids WP:POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, I don't think you're reading the passage properly. Detention Action indicates that most Somalis in immigration detention came to the UK as children, and then goes on to quantify that by taking 61% of the 84 individuals. That's thus presumably the total. At any rate, this can be simply adjusted to the following: "According to Detention Action, between 2005 and 2013, it supported 84 Somali nationals who had had their asylum applications rejected were held in immigration detention while awaiting repatriation". With regard to the other wikiphrase, "there were 270 such irregular migrants in Britain from Somalia who had their asylum applications declined in final decisions in 2010" works fine too. Is there any other phrase in my edit you object to? Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked again and I'm even more convinced that the 84 is just the number that the charity supports. That's why they refer to them as "our clients" in several places in the document. Your proposed alternative wording sounds fine, although the grammar doesn't quite work. The other proposed rewording is also OK (although you haven't explained why the current wording needs changing). We could also note the figures for other years given in the source, which would help further clarify that the figures are an annual flow, not stocks. As for other issues, could we get the statistics correct first and then look at those? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found the Home Office's latest published statistics. They show that the number of Somali nationals entering immigration detention in the years 2009-14 were 377, 174, 147, 103, 91 and 167. The numbers leaving were 190, 160, 115, 85 and 135. The total number (i.e. the stock) in detention at year end 2009 was 68, in 2010 it was 52, then 43, 28, 20, 53. So it looks like the number in detention at any one time is quite small, but there's quite a throughput. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed, but here are some issues with your text that you might want to consider and propose alternatives here:
 * The casual reader probably won't understand the distinction between "Enforced Returns" and "Enforced Removals".
 * The European Migration Network source is from 2011 - are we sure nothing has changed since then?
 * "This prompted the Home Office to issue new advice to its case workers in April 2014, suggesting that it was now safe enough to resume repatriation of rejected asylum applicants to the capital, Mogadishu. One exception to the new recommendations was a test case in June 2014, when a judge granted an injunction to halt the repatriation of a Somali national to the city". Judges aren't bound by the Home Office's advice to case workers, so the "exception" wording is a bit misleading. The judge effectively overruled the advice in this particular case.
 * "A few of asylum applicants whose claims were declined or whose temporary status had expired also voluntarily repatriated to their country of origin". Ungrammatical, plus the Joint Human Rights Committee report notes that it's more than "a few". Also, the sentence is written in the past tense but doesn't specify a time period that it refers to. That's why I preferred "Of those Somalis whose asylum claims have been declined or whose temporary status had expired, some have voluntarily repatriated". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current text? I've not seen objections explained by Midday except that it's not all based on official docs, which doesn't fly. BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, with regard to the "exception" phrasing, I meant that while the Home Office recommended repatriation to Mogadishu, that one judge overruled that advice. If this may be confusing, it can be reworded as "in a test case in June 2014, a judge granted an injunction to halt the repatriation of a Somali national to the city" ("the city" for better word flow since Mogadishu is already mentioned in the preceding sentence). The last sentence was grammatically fine; it read "a few of the asylum applicants whose claims were declined or whose temporary status had expired also voluntarily repatriated to their country of origin". But if the tense is perhaps confusing, "of those Somalis whose asylum claims have been declined or whose temporary status had expired, some have also voluntarily repatriated" is okay. The official government immigration detention figures work better. However, I can't seem to find where in that link it indicates that they are for Somali nationals specifically; can you please point me to the appropriate area in it ? If legit, we should place the figures in an additional column in the extant asylum figures table alongside the other official figures. With regard to the European Migration Network, we should instead use its 2014 factsheet on migration policy in the UK. It also indicates therein the top 5 third country nationals that were ordered to leave the UK in 2013 based on Eurostat figures. Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy to respond fully just now, but the table in that spreadsheet that you want are dt_04, dt_08 and dt_13. Once you're on those sheets, you need to apply the "country of nationality" filter, selecting Somalia. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok; I'll have a look. Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On page 3 there are 4 definition of the irregular migrants, and here only those are mentioned who were asylum seekers. VandVictory (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Home Office explains therein that the clandestine nature of irregular migration and the lack of a common definition mean that it is difficult to produce robust estimates of the irregular migrant population in the UK. It can thus only estimate this via rejected asylum applications, which it quantifies. Frontex has the figures for the number of illegal land and sea crossings in 2015 via the circular route to Albania and the Western Mediterranean route, among others . These are the preferred routes for migrants seeking to enter the UK since they are the nearest . Middayexpress (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, my understanding was that this was why this material was being included in the asylum seekers section rather than a section on irregular migrants. The current wording notes that failed asylum seekers are only one type of irregular migrant. Perhaps for greater clarity, we could reword "According to the Home Office, irregular migration to the United Kingdom is divided into four categories, which include rejected asylum applications" to "Reject asylum seekers constitute one of a number of categories of irregular migrants present in the UK"? The four categories aren't official, anyway, and are just used for the purposes of the paper that uses them. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My wording was that "according to the Home Office, irregular migration to the United Kingdom is divided into four categories, which include rejected asylum applications." This is more factually precise. The official government immigration detention figures should be placed in a column in the extant asylum figures table alongside the other official figures. Also, the European Migration Network's 2014 factsheet should be used for the official migration policy in the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source states "Irregular migration has no official definition in the UK. For the purpose of this report, the following types of migrant are classed as irregular" and then lists five categories, so I'm not sure how your version is more accurate. I don't support the inclusion of the official detention figures in the asylum table, because failed asylum seekers aren't the only people detained. See this source for an overview of the different categories of people detained. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That phrasing is more accurate because the Home Office specifies that there are four categories of irregular migration, not a number of categories; the latter is open-ended and could mean anything from 4 to 24. The Home Office indicates that "the largest proportion of the total number of irregular migrants in the UK is likely to comprise overstayers rather than illegal entrants", so the official immigration detention figures must be indicated to quantify most of that irregular migration. Rejected asylum applications were already clearly labeled as one of the four categories in my phrasing, but it should also note per the Home Office that that category is the largest . Middayexpress (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Home Office source lists four categories in the introduction, but then five several pages later. I wasn't saying that failed asylum seekers can't be mentioned in the context of the detention figures, if we include those, but that the place for the detention figures isn't the asylum table, because the detention figures include all categories of people detailed under the Immigration Act, not just asylum seekers. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On what page does the Home Office indicate that there are five categories of irregular migration? Also, what are the Immigration Act categories? Middayexpress (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in the definitions section on p. 8. The types of people who can be detained are discussed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok; I'll have a look. Middayexpress (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Omer source
Middayexpress, can I ask why you are removing the source that establishes the period that Ahmed Omer was mayor of Tower Hamlets for? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with one that is more neutral and specifically indicates that he was appointed civic mayor (not ceremonial mayor) in 2009. That is an office that rotates annually every May, so it is already implicit that he served from 2009/10 . Middayexpress (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability, not implicit understanding, and removing a source that clearly states how long he was mayor for goes against that policy. I don't see why the Evening Standard source is not neutral. It reports that he received a summons for not paying council tax, but that seems to be a well-established fact. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: The reason I was using "ceremonial" (and indeed updated the wording that said he was the incumbent mayor) was to try to differentiate him from the elected mayor of more recent years, given recent events! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * His official title is civic mayor, not "ceremonial mayor" as that link claims. The other link likewise already indicates that he was appointed in late April 2009 to that annual office. That means he served from 2009/2010 . This is also indicated on the borough's mayor list, which I linked to. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and being a civic mayor is a ceremonial position (as described here). The source you've introduced says when he was appointed, but not for how long. It's therefore inferior to the Evening Standard source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the civic mayor position is largely but not exclusively ceremonial . It is also known as the Lord mayor office, not "ceremonial mayor". Middayexpress (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an article about Sheffield, not Tower Hamlets. I'm not too fussed about how we describe the position, but I am concerned about your removal of a source that supported the statement about the length of his tenure. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference if the link got his tenure right, when it mislabels his office itself. He was a civic mayor, not a "ceremonial mayor" as it claims. At any rate, I've linked to the official borough announcement that he was to serve from 2009 to 2010 as the civic mayor . Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way does the Evening Standard source mislabel his office? Anyway, I'm glad you've seen sense and accepted the need for a source that actually supports what is said in the article (although ideally, it would be a source from after his term ended, because we don't know from one from the time of his appointment whether he was reappointed). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you actually linked above two separate links; one that erroneously claims that he was "ceremonial mayor" (and which I was referring to), and another that does not. Either way, the official announcement is best . Middayexpress (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I only used the Standard one as a reference for the article. A secondary source from after he finished being mayor would be best. We don't rely on a source from 1997 to say how long Tony Blair was British prime minster for, for example. I used a source from after the event and you removed it for supposedly not being neutral, but still haven't explained why you think that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then, you sure fooled me since you originally indicated that he was a "ceremonial mayor" like the second link (although he actually was not), not the first . Anyway, neither link is on his appointment but rather something different. On the other hand, the borough link is official, and it indicates what was his actual mandate ("Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer elected Mayor until the Annual meeting of the Council in 2010" ). Although it's perfectly adequate, I've replaced it with his farewell ceremony as civic mayor . Middayexpress (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you only objected to the "ceremonial", you could just have replaced that. There was no reason (or at least you've failed to articulate one) to remove the reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I took you at your word that it asserted that he was a "ceremonial mayor", when it actually did not; only the other link did. Either way, he was a civic mayor, and his farewell ceremony officially establishes his mandate. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, you wouldn't object to the reinstatement of the source I originally used, which very clearly states that he was "mayor of the east London borough in 2009/10"? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, he wasn't a directly elected mayor, but rather a civic mayor. The link doesn't differentiate between the two, so this is unclear. The borough farewell ceremony does, though, and it is official; so it is best. Middayexpress (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a directly elected mayor in 2009/10. Let's cite both sources as a compromise. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The average person doesn't know that. The official borough farewell ceremony is also unambiguous and adequate. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's strange that you should think people will understand that it's "implicit that he served from 2009/10", but not that a civic mayor isn't elected. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The average person will have an idea of what a civic mayor is since it and the borough's civic mayor list are linked to. It is also indeed implicit in the link that he served from 2009/10 since it indicates that he was appointed civic mayor in 2009 (not just as "mayor"). Civic mayors serve in office for only a year. Middayexpress (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone from France, Italy, or any other country would know that a civic mayor isn't elected. AcidSnow (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. I've added an explanation of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah good point AcidSnow. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely nothing is lost by refernecing the newspaper too? Just use both sources. BrumEduResearch (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have suggested that, and it was also the view given on the RS noticeboard, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Violation of WP:YESPOV reason for latest revert
My apologies Middayexpress, with our need to adhere to process I should have indicated more clearly why I had reverted your edits, but I was under the impression you had finished editing for the day. A number of the paragraphs you removed conveyed more complete information - detrimental to Somalis in the UK, yes, but more complete - information, and their removal is in violation of WP:YESPOV. This is continuing the trend of your POV-distorting edits as discussed at the RfC (I'll link it in a moment). I had intended to restore a number of the paragraphs where you added helpful new information. I will remind you again, that where we have WP:THIRDPARTY sources, they are preferable to official sources, and thus the other reason for your content removal is invalid. When I make my next edit to this page I will restore the completing-information paragraphs that you have just removed again, but retain the additional helpful data, sourced to official sources, that is not invalidated by THIRDPARTY sources.

My patience is nearly at an end Middayexpress: you are continuing to repeatedly introduce/twist POV (often trying to reduce content that is detrimental to Somalis) with many edits. You are driving away editors that can play by the rules. I can only ask you to cease and desist so many times. You should now be aware my next step is an WP:ARBCOM case. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I have reverted Middayexpress's reestablishment of the material subsequent to Buckshot06's revert and the message above being posted, since Midday hasn't engaged here. There is indeed value in some of what Midday added, but simply (continually) replacing scholarly with official sources isn't the way forward. Ideally, we could find a way to use both, and that should be agreed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I disagree that the material is detrimental to Somalis. There's nothing wrong with a sensitive treatment of the problems Somalis face in the UK - problems that there are very good reasons for. Censoring these problems is the real problem, because then readers will simply go elsewhere for this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Patience, Buckshot? You've been following me from page to page, when you were specifically advised to stay away from me. Fact. You also knee-jerk reverted my update of the educational qualification figures with no explanation. You only posted your explanation above -- which I'm seeing for the first time today and which has nothing to do with the actual content -- after I had restored the material, as timestamps readily show. Please take note of this Dougweller. Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, why would you revert my update of Somalis' educational qualifications? It's per the 2011 UK Census. The other qualifications are also apparently official (Department for Communities and Local Government), but they're from before 2009. The figures have therefore been superceded by more recent ones. Also, the indicated employment and unemployment rates are outdated; they're now at 31% and 18%, respectively, per the latest census. I would like to update that as well. Inayity, AcidSnow and 26oo, please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I'm trying to take a look at those employment figures as that seems an uncontroversial update, but I can't find them in that source? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the correct link . I had to upload it through docdroid since a wiki bot was filtering out the direct Google link; the new figures are on pages 7 & 8 therein. Middayexpress (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see those figures now. The problem is that that document is clearly marked as a draft rather than being published. We'd need to find the published version, or at least check on the reliable sources noticeboard whether citing a draft ONS paper is OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The published release is available as well, I believe. Middayexpress (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks to be the published version, but the material about employment rates is no longer in it. Perhaps that material was moved to another publication, but I've not (yet) been able to find it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's the same document. The ONS has a link here. Middayexpress (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted because you had reinstated material, ignoring this discussion on the talk page, per WP:BRD. I actually support inclusion of the census qualifications data, but I don't think it should replace the CLG material that BrumEduResearch had added. The CLG material was a comparison of the qualifications of Somalis with those of other immigrant groups, whereas what you replaced it with was raw data on Somalis alone. Perhaps we could compare the percentage of Somali-born people with different levels of qualifications in the census with the average for the foreign-born population from the same spreadsheet? That would make it a more equivalent replacement of the CLG statement, although it might be considered a bit WP:PRIMARY. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned by your comment above that again indicates that you think only "official" sources can be used, or should be preferred over scholarly secondary sources. You've made that argument several times, but I'm yet to see a policy that supports that view. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BRD had nothing to do with it since the Brum account never bothered discussing the CLG passage to begin with, although he already knew the qualifications were controversial. The CLG figures are also outdated, so it makes no difference what they are comparing. As Maunus explained, outdated means that the figures have been superceded by more recent data; the data is not automatically outdated as long as it is the most recent, which the CLG figures are certainly not. That said, I'm not sure how the qualification figures in the census' Table 14a can be compared against those of other countries, as they are absolute numbers and that would involve handpicking certain areas. The relative percentages at each level can, though, easily be tabulated by dividing each figure by the indicated total population of 89,022. The passage would then read: "According to the 2011 UK Census, 48,678 or 55 per cent of Somalia-born residents aged 16 and over in the UK had completed a lower secondary education (Level 2), 22,275 or 25 per cent had completed an upper secondary education (Level 3), 17,779 or 20 per cent were in the first stage of tertiary education (Level 5), and 290 or 0.3 per cent were in the second stage of tertiary education (Level 6)" . Middayexpress (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we select countries to compare with, just compare with the equivalent percentages of the total foreign-born population at the top of the table. That would make this more of a replacement for the CLG statement - otherwise, it's not really an update of what has been said by CLG, which is a comparison with other groups. Other than that, your suggested passage seems fine, although I think it should read "15 and over", and I'm not sure why there is the switch from "had completed" to "were in" mid-way through the sentence. Aren't these all qualifications obtained, rather than being worked towards (sorry, can't seem to get the source to load at the moment to check for myself)? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to replace the Clg reference with a comparison of census percentages for Somalis and all foreign born. The Economist article from 2013 can also be quoted for a recent statement of the fact that Somalis are amongst the least qualified groups.BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless, it is an update of the CLG's actual figures either way. But sure, we can compare the figures for the Somali-born individuals with the equivalent percentages of the total foreign-born population at the top of the table. The passage would then read: "According to the 2011 UK Census, 48,678 or 55 per cent of Somalia-born residents aged 16 and over in the UK had completed a lower secondary education (Level 2), 22,275 or 25 per cent had completed an upper secondary education (Level 3), 17,779 or 20 per cent had completed the first stage of tertiary education (Level 5), and 290 or 0.3 per cent had completed the second stage of tertiary education (Level 6). By comparison, 29 per cent of total foreign-born residents aged 16 and over had completed a lower secondary education (Level 2), 24 per cent had completed an upper secondary education (Level 3), 46 per cent had completed the first stage of tertiary education (Level 5), and 0.9 per cent had completed the second stage of tertiary education (Level 6)". Middayexpress (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Perhaps that can be reworded to avoid the repetition of "Level 2", etc., so as to shorten it a bit? Also, do we need to state the absolute values or can we just report the percentages? I'm not sure what value there is in reporting that 290 Somali-born people had upper tertiary education, for instance - that's only meaningful in the context of the size of the community. Another option would be to use a table. Also, I've managed to get the spreadsheet to open again and it seems that it was both "16 years of age and over" and "15 years of age and over" on that sheet. Any ideas how we deal with that confusion? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it indicates both 15 and 16 years of age; something like "aged 15/16 and over" should disambiguate it. The "Level 2" etcetera duplicates would likewise be adjusted. The percentages alone are okay as well, as long as the total size is also noted. The passage would then read: "According to the 2011 UK Census, out of a total 89,022 Somalia-born residents aged 15/16 and over in the UK, 55 per cent had completed a lower secondary education (Level 2), 25 per cent had completed an upper secondary education (Level 3), 20 per cent had completed the first stage of tertiary education (Level 5), and 0.3 per cent had completed the second stage of tertiary education (Level 6). By comparison, 29 per cent of total foreign-born residents aged 16 and over had completed a lower secondary education, 24 per cent had completed an upper secondary education, 46 per cent had completed the first stage of tertiary education, and 0.9 per cent had completed the second stage of tertiary education". Middayexpress (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. I looked into the 15/16 thing more, and I'm pretty sure that it's the 15 that's wrong because 16 seems to be what is used elsewhere (and indeed is a more standard classification in British official statistics). It would also be good if the first mention of "level" could be linked to the International Standard Classification of Education article, if that's OK? I'd also like us to add a short narrative based on a secondary source, explaining why Somalis in the UK are less likely to have tertiary education than the foreign-born population as a whole, but I don't think we need to agree that before adding this description of the statistics, unless anyone objects? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but I now realise that "had completed" is a bit misleading. All of the people who have tertiary education will have completed secondary education, for instance, but they're only counted in the tertiary level figure. Something like "55 per cent were educated to lower secondary level" might work better. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For proper context, the lower level of tertiary education should be attributed to the census paper on the average family's structure. It explains that most of the families have dependents, and that dependent children are those aged under 16 living with at least one parent or aged 16 to 18 in full-time education . That said, "had completed up to" would probably better capture the phrase. The passage would then read: "According to the 2011 UK Census, out of a total 89,022 Somalia-born residents aged 16 and over in the UK, 55 per cent had completed up to a lower secondary education (Level 2), 25 per cent had completed up to an upper secondary education (Level 3), 20 per cent had completed up to the first stage of tertiary education (Level 5), and 0.3 per cent had completed up to the second stage of tertiary education (Level 6). By comparison, 29 per cent of total foreign-born residents aged 16 and over had completed up to a lower secondary education, 24 per cent had completed up to an upper secondary education, 46 per cent had completed up to the first stage of tertiary education, and 0.9 per cent had completed up to the second stage of tertiary education". Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, "completed up to" works well. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, while we're at it, can we do the same with the occupations data from the census and replace absolute numbers with percentages there too (retaining the absolute value for the total)? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok; I'll have to tabulate the percentages first though. Give me a few minutes. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright so the passage would then read: "Of these immigrants, the majority worked in elementary occupations (26 per cent) and had arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011 (4,117)[...] The next most common occupations among Somali immigrants were caring, leisure and other service occupations (14 per cent), process, plant and machine operatives (14 per cent), sales and customer service occupations (11 per cent), professional occupations (10 per cent), associate professional and technical occupations (8 per cent), administrative and secretarial occupations (7 per cent), managers, directors and senior officials (5 per cent), and skilled trade occupations (5 per cent)." Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but do we need to mention year of arrival here? It wasn't clear to me from that wording that the 4,117 were part of the 26 per cent until I checked the source. If you do want to give figures for the more recently arrived, perhaps you could give percentages for all Somalis regardless of year of arrival, and then percentages for those who arrived between 2001 and 2011? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me a while and I'll knock up a table as an alternative option. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Such as this. We can pick out the important bits in the text (such as the main occupation groups), and leave the rest to the table. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The table looks alright, but it's huge. Is there anyway to make it smaller? Also, the title should perhaps read "Occupations by year of arrival of Somali-born residents aged 16 and over in employment, England and Wales, 2011" to more closely match the ONS table. Middayexpress (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem about the title. I've tried to narrow the columns. I guess how it appears depends on screen resolution, but this at least looks smaller on my PC. I'd like to make it smaller still, but I'm no expert on tables. 18:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The table still looks the same size on mine, but now it's bunching up the text. Perhaps the other format works better on most computer screens? Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Principal asylum applications
I just noticed that the principal asylum applications table is based on initial decisions. It should instead be based on the final decisions. Middayexpress (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that's the standard way the Home Office reports asylum statistics (I presume because appeals may take a long time). However, if you can find statistics on final decisions, then please do post the source here and we can look at replacing the data in the table. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The European Migration Network provides the final decision figures for 2008-2010 (page 78 ). Middayexpress (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, that's just the figures for rejections, not accepted applications. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The refused applications column in the wiki-table is also under initial decisions. It should be under final decisions per the European Migration Network's figures. Middayexpress (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, then I suggest just adding an extra column to the table to put the final refusals in. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the total grants of settlement as well (on page 40/56 ). Middayexpress (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be appropriate in a table on asylum statistics, as settlement is granted to all sorts of categories of migrants. We could use those figures elsewhere in the article though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I rendered the grants of settlement figures as text and appended the rejected asylum applications final decisions column to the table. Middayexpress (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I updated the settlement grants statistics with a more recent source and moved them out of the asylum section to where I thought they fitted better. Hope that's OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)