Talk:MigrationWatch UK/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent edits to this article have been clearly anti-MWUK

and have strayed too far from the neutral POV standards required for an encyclopaedia. If you don't like MigrationWatch, blog about it.

I have edited as follows.

(1) Removed implication that MWUK is anti-immigration. It is not; it is against uncontrolled mass immigration.

(2) Removed the reference to David Coleman's membership of the Galton Institute. The statement that the Institute is "pro-eugenics" is clearly intended as a slur. Additionally, Prof Coleman's membership is not directly relevant to his association with MWUK; it should be dealt with if anywhere in the article about Prof Coleman himself.

(3) I have removed the quote about MP Nick Clegg's comments on a recent MWUK report about the net economic benefit of migrants to the UK. This item seems to have been plucked out of thin air to serve as a negative quote about MWUK. If we are going to quote examples of MWUK's work, we need a more balanced sample than this. EdwinGreenwood 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to define what "uncontrolled mass immigration". On The website of MigrationWatch it is quite clear that they are against migration in the low hundreds of thousands. Thus 100,000 200,000 or 300,000 is too much for them. They positions are against this migration even if it is 100% legal and controlled. I understand controlled to mean deciding to for instance let in x +- 10% people per year. It may be high in number but can still be controlled. Again I would contend that WigrationWatch is against even controlled migration.

Please see the following links on their own website that confirms this.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/overview.asp

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faqs.asp

Immigration in the "low hundreds of thousands", legal or otherwise, managed or otherwise, is arguably mass immigration, given that what we are actually talking about is "hundreds of thousands per year". A flow of 100,000 people sustained over 10 years is a million. Actual net legal inflow is probably 200,000 to 300,000 per year, depending on whose guess you are inclined to believe, and with nothing to indicate that this level will not continue indefinitely. The actual situation seems to fall pretty clearly within the range of "uncontrolled mass immigration" to me, and I would say concern about the impact of 100,000 new arrivals a year, however well-managed, is entirely legitimate.

By the way, Custodiet, don't forget to sign your posts.

EdwinGreenwood 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We need some honesty here

I wanted and still want to clear up the matter of uncontrolled immigration. The group is against any from of mass immigration - even if it is all controlled. Characterizing its position using the rhetoric of ‘uncontrolled immigration’ implies that if it was controlled then it be legitimate. Let me give an example. Millions of people migrated to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet they were inspected at the port of entry and given official papers. The migration was en mass yet it was controlled and part of a conscious effort to promote immigration.

The current British government also seems to want mass migration to the UK. It wants them to come legally; nevertheless it is after hundreds of thousands. It wants mass migration, but in a controlled manor. Migration Watch is against even 100% legal and controlled mass migration even if it is consciously directed by the current British government. Of course both the British government and MigrationWatch oppose illegal migration.

I think it is important to talk about this because many who are against mass migration use the language of ‘uncontrolled’ to imply they are just against illegal migration whereas they are also against mass numbers of the legal kind too. Of course it is legitimate to object to both types of immigration. However its simply scurrilous to object to all immigration but to sometimes carefully word one's public statements so as to create momentary ambiguity when talking 'mass migration' so that it appears one is only objecting to illegal migration when one also objects to legal immigration. This constant double speak makes any kind of intellectually coherent discussion close to impossible. It’s a finely nuanced issue.

Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I think it best if we get those nuances correct. We should carefully discuss what types of migration a group is against and why it opposes that type and not get caught up in false arguments.

Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The stated aim of Migrationwatch is to see 0% net immigration to the UK. i.e. the number of people leaving is the same of the number of people migrating. It is not particularly against or for any particular type of immigration, although I would expect they would prefer any immigration to the UK to be done legally rather than illegally. As part of its aims it criticises any failings (or deliberate policy) that allows (or encourages) large numbers of people moving to the UK whether legally or illegally. Part of their criticism is that at present even legal immigration is to a large scale uncontrolled and is mass migration. e.g. 100,000s of people being granted asylum over the last decade, 100,000s of work permits being granted with insufficient checks on the applications, 100,000s of migrants moving to the UK from Eastern European EU countries. Lager7 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MigrationWatch is anti immigration

MigrationWatch has repeatedly shown itself to be anti immigration, this can be seen by reading the press releases, which are here [1] I looked though 100 of them starting with the most resent (march 2007) and working backwards until i got to November 2003, (i stopped here because i was sick of reading racist scare mongering propaganda). Out of these 100 articles i found 94 were negative about immigration and non were positive, there were about 4 articles that referred only to other articles / reports and made no direct mention of immigration as a good or bad thing.

Several articles (at least 20), objected to immigration on grounds that it would change the ethnic makeup or the culture of Briton, and some referred to British nationals born in Briton as immigrants.

Some articles claimed that immigration should reduced because it would reduce the wages for British workers or the number of available jobs while others claim that immigrants are not necessary to fill unfilled jobs because they would 'add to demand' producing new shortages of workers! [2]

Most of the articles about 70 of them, made statement to the effect that the level of immigration is extremely high and is increasing rapidly, many also claimed that the government was lying about the level of immigration, attempting to conceal the level of immigration and encouraging new immigrants and presenting immigration in and excessively favourable light.

Also the [Galton Institute] is the former Eugenics Society which changed its name in 1989, I think membership of such an organisation is vary relevant if some one is discussing immigration

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism misses the point that immigration to the UK is extremely high and has increased extremely rapidly and that the government has concealed figures in the past about the level of immigration (e.g. pretending they had no way of estimating the number of illegal immigrants in the UK during the 2005 election). The ethnic makeup of Britain is changing rapidly, (simply checkout the wikipedia articles on the ethnic minorities in Britain and demographic transition) and that it is undisputed economics that widescale immigration does hold down wages (although this can be good as it stops inflation) new jobs are created but the pay is lower.

I think MigrationWatch have a right to raise these issues without simply being branded as racist, whether they are right or wrong it is not fair just to try and shutdown the debate in this way. Lager7 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lager7: your personal opinions of the effect of immigration have nothing to do with whether or not MigrationWatch are pro or anti immigration. Even if they're dead right, they could still accurately be described as anti, since they consistently argue against it. And so could you from this evidence. That's not a judgement of the accuracy of your argument, just an observation of the position it takes.

--5cc 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Migrationwatch is self-evidently racist, as any cursory look at their website will show

Non-political

I think this article should include some note of Migrationwatch's claim that they are a non-political organisation. with perhaps a link to semantics. Mighty Antar 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right Wing Pressure Group

User:Migrationwatch's constant revert of the accepted status of Migrationwatch UK as a right wing pressure group to the groups self-billed status as "an independent non political immigration and asylum think tank" is misplaced. A group which chooses to offer its own perspective on a political issue is whether it likes it or not engaged in politics and if the group disagrees with the ruling political position, and chooses to express its disagreement publicly is by default attempting to exert political pressure.

That the control of immigration is seen as right-wing issue in the UK is a matter of historical fact and the headline in the cited article from The Independent should be a clear enough indication of how the media judge MigrationWatch UK's political stance.

Migrationwatch UK may like to bill themselves as an apolitical discussion group, but their every engagement with the media to date in no way reflects such a hands-off stance Mighty Antar 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to improve article further

I have added quite 5 news sections in the last few months. I am always looking for new sources should people have any ideas. Especially if the source looks at migration watch over a period of few years.

IMHO one of the reasons this subject is so difficult is that merely admitting that one has a political agenda effects how the issue is seen. If it was health care no-one is too ashamed of admitting where on the political spectrum they are and how it informs their viewpoint. Here however if one admits one's viewpoint one loses respectability and politcal support. So many want to play games and pretend they are only looking at objective data. Additionally this question effects questions of self and group identity which are quite primal and not susceptible to rational logic.

On the flip side quite often there is evidence that the immigration numbers are much higher than predicted. Thus it is legitimate to ask a government to explain that they said only x people would come when 10 times x did come.

But even this is complicated by the fact that the UK's economy is booming partly as a result of migration. Opponents might sometimes ask about the permanent consequence on the culture of the UK. But this too muddy water. Aren't people entitled to adopt a culture of their choosing so long as it is lawful? Do those who oppose immigration think they can mandate what the culture of the country should be? Yet here still the situation is complex in that cultural cohesion provides people with a sense of well being, low crime and social cohesion. Some people may say that they will be miserable if the culture quickly changes due to an influx of newcomers. Perhaps their happiness should be weighed in the equation? This contradicts somewhat with the liberty of the individual even if they obey the law. Well perhaps we can, as objectively as possible, explore these issues, and try to document this cultural and political conflict. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of neutral material which does not reflect well on Migration Watch

The neutrality of this right-wing organisation in the right-wing UK media has been challenged on several occasions. Repeatedly deleting sourced and cited references to this material just because you disagree with is rather pathetic. This is not an advertising service for Migration Watch - they have friends in enough high-places already. I have added tags to the article accordingly. Hopefully the positive spin constantly given to this anti-immigration and anti-human rights organisation will be addressed in due course. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What a feed of horse apples. Why are you so adverse to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.69.139 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Deletion of neutral material...

This latest post illustrates the clear bias of some of the previous entries.

The revised version is much more balanced and objective. It states the objective of the organisation in the words of its own web site and gives references for the key points of the arguments.

Equally, the history of the organisation is taken from the factual base contained in the web site.

The section on wages makes it clear that the Migrationwatch view is disputed by some economists.

As for the net economic impact, that has been revised in the light of the 1 April, 2008 House of Lords Economic Committee's report 'The Economic Impact of Immigration', which is the most recent and most authoritative study.

It is absurd to describe Migrationwatch as anti-human rights. They have, however, pointed to the difficulties in coping with international terrorism which stem from article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights while calling for national legislation to replace it.

Finally, the revised version quotes both critics and supporters of the organisation's activities.

Taken as a whole, this is a far more up to date, accurate and dispassionate view of the organisation than the selected, and often hostile, elements in the previous version.

I agree that Wikipedia should not be an advertising service for Migrationwatch. But nor should a Wikipedia entry be a vehicle for attacking an organisation - including libellous allegations of racism.

--Moonshineblue (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what cited material it was that you deleted from the article which amounted to a "libellous allegation of racism"? Or where it described Migrationwatch as "anti-human rights". Mighty Antar (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

5cc (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Surely, in a section that's supposed to clearly reflect MigrationWatch's approach to the contribution of immigration to GDP per head, it's relevant to point out that the organisation's own calculation was wrong, had to be removed, and was over 14 times lower than the official estimate and 12 times lower than the organisation's own co-founder.5cc (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

--Moonshineblue (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC) It is important to be clear why the Migrationwatch calculation of 3 January, 2007 came out at only 4p per head. The reason was not misinterpretation of a statement in the House of Commons by a junior Minister, Joan Ryan. The fact is that she "misspoke". Column 288WH of 18 October, 2006 reports her as saying "Our migration system should be responsive to economic needs and produce economic benefits. The Treasury estimates that migration has increased output by at least £4 billion and attributes 10 - 15% of economic trend growth to migration. Migration has eased skills shortages in key industries and public services, including health and education. We want to build on that success".

The natural interpretation of this passage is that she was talking about immigration as a whole. The Government later indicated that she had meant to refer only to immigration from Eastern Europe. When this was clarified, the Migrationwatch calculation was revised as indicated in Briefing Paper 1.16. All this was explained in an introductory note to that paper.

As regards libellous comments, Mighty Antar's remark on 16 May that Migrationwatch is self evidently racist is one example. And the description of the organisation as "anti-immigration and anti human rights" on 7 April, suggests an element of bias in the amendments put forward. --Moonshineblue (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page discussing improvements to the article. The disgust with Migrationwatch I expressed in my comments of 7 April on this talk page reflect my opinion of your attempts to censor all cited material that is critical of your organisation from this article and other articles relating to it. The one comment you quote as "libellous" was made by an unregistered user and not by me. Wikipedia is not the Daily Telegraph so I've no idea why you expect me or any other editor to allow Migrationwatch or its "distinguished" panel to get the same free and uncritical advertising. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

5cc (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)The 'natural' interpretation of Joan Ryan's comments is that migrants have contributed at least £4bn to the economy, since that's what she said. She did not say that migrants contribute exactly £4bn a year. That is MigrationWatch's misinterpretation, which it arrived at by dismissing the 'at least' modifier and inserting the interpretation of it being an annual figure.

If asked what the contribution of a group of people is, it's entirely reasonable to answer by saying it's 'at least' the contribution of a subset of that group is if the total isn't known. The total wasn't measured at that time.

The Treasury Enquiry Unit later answered a query from a member of the public which asked what the £4bn figure referred to. The Treasury did not say that Joan Ryan had meant to only refer to immigration from Eastern Europe, nor did it say that she'd "misspoken", to my knowledge.

Of course, if you have evidence that the government actually said Ryan had meant to say something else or said that she "misspoke", you'll be able to provide a link or present it here. As it is, it looks as though you may have misinterpreted the Treasury's reply! 5cc (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Complaint filed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Editors who work on this article are welcome to join the discussion at that noticeboard. We are considering semi-protection for the article. There has been a high level of unbalanced POV editing by editors who appear to be strong and uncritical supporters of the organization. We expect that Wikipedia articles will be neutral and weigh evidence in an even-handed way. Both the POV tags and well-sourced critical material have been repeatedly removed from the article without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add to that an expansion of my comment at WP:COI.

WP:V requires sourcing in reliable published third-party sources, and an organisation's self-description is not automatically privileged as the most reliable, except as source of what the organisation says about itself.

WP:NPOV also requires all significant viewpoints to be represented. Personally I've doubts about the Daily Mail, but the Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian are all well acceptable as reliable newspaper sources. As major newpapers, they're also significant viewpoints (as is the Daily Mail). If they differ in their slant on the topic - i.e. some describe MigrationWatch UK as right-wing, others don't - those variants should be collated and included per WP:NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Press

I've removed this section. Unless this analysis of newspaper references has been previously published, it's original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Next thing to deal with is original synthesis.

It's OK to have"MigrationWatch UK, stating grounds of X and Y, believes Z'".

It's not OK to have "MigrationWatch UK believes Z. As pointed out in X and Y, Z is the case" (ie. where the editorial is filling in evidence or argument not previously made).

At a quick glance, the Wages, Asylum and Human Rights Treaty sections look like original synthesis at the moment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I have deleted the last two sentences of the present article. Loading the final paragraph with negative comments is contrary to NPOV. As now drafted, the two sides of the press are balanced. Furthermore there is no evidence that the Oxford students actually submitted their petition. If not, theirs was merely a student stunt and does not merit inclusion in a serious assessment. --Moonshineblue (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and added a citation for the STAR petition. On that point, NewsBank finds 15 hits in national newspapers for the STAR petition, including multiple stories in the Daily Mail and Telegraph. If they thought it worthy of such detailed coverage, they must have thought it a significant view.

Also, NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be mentioned; this doesn't require equal text length or equal numbers of sources between some fallacious two sides (in any case, the rest of the article gives extended uncritical description).

And now that COI appears to be demonstrated - see WP:COIN#MigrationWatch UK - by your editing on behalf of the organisation [3] ("the amendment to Sir Andrew Green's personal information has been inserted at his request and that, written by anti-immigration individuals removed"), you should not be making contentious edits to the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Sorry, I know we're supposed to improve rather than revert, but this edit by User:Custodiet ipsos custodes needed reverting. The previous version was somewhat slanted toward MigrationWatch, but that's no excuse to change it unilaterally into a deeply hostile version. The article needs improving, but by consensus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so User:Custodiet ipsos custodes has re-reverted. I won't get into an edit war, but the current version needs as much of an overhaul as the original. For instance, I just removed this material, which was clear WP:SYNTH - an illustrative exposition about asylum abuse only loosely connected to MigrationWatch. Remember this is supposed to be an article about the organisation - not a vehicle for generally discussing asylum issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH again

Moved here for sourcing or amendment. Has Philippe Legrain specifically made this argument in relation to MigrationWatch somewhere reliably published? If not, bringing in his, and other, theories about why some people dislike foreigners is WP:SYNTH. The italicised section is also unsourced OR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippe Legrain has said that there are various psychological studies that confirm that opposition to immigration tends to originate from an emotional dislike of foreigners. Quite often, intelligent advocates then construct an elaborate set of rational arguments to justify that prejudice. When immigrants are unemployed, they are considered to be scrounging from the state; when they are working, they are stealing the jobs of native citizens. When they are poor, they are driving living standards down; when they are rich, they are driving general prices up. Immigrants cannot win in such a situation: they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. MigrationWatch is viewed by its critics as being such an intelligent advocate. They see its claims to just deliver facts and statistics and "provide the public with full and accurate facts placed in their proper context" as a thinly veiled advocacy organization for the reduction of immigration where providing data acts as a tool to criticize immigration. It has not to date publicized statistics or data that significantly detract from its cause and stands accused of actively distorting data.

The italicised section IS sourced. See here: [4] The article as it stood as reverted by Gordonofcartoon was astonishingly biased. It contains very little balance and even fails to state that migrationwatch is right wing. For the last year I have spent tens of hours carefully researching and expanding this article. I consciously used sources from all shades of political opinion. I carefully put forward MW's position and balanced them with the opposing views. Indeed both sides in the debate make good points. The article has been rewritten in the last few weeks so as to grossly violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That sourcing needs to be explicit. Since none of the citations to the passage I disputed go to the Progress Online article you just linked, how is anyone supposed to know that's a source? Otherwise, it's original synthesis which comes down to:

Y has this theory why people dislike foreigners. X dislikes immigration, which is an example of Y's theory.

The introduction of Y's theory into the picture is a novel synthesis of sources - the WP:SYNTH flavour of WP:NOR - unless you explicitly provide a reliable source where Y has commented specifically on X in relation to this theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be precise in keeping with your analogy: Y has this theory why people oppose immigration and how intellectuals and advocacy organizations justify this dislike. X is one of these organizations. There is no novel synthesis of sources here.

More simply put:

x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Righto. So you wouldn't see any problem to adding Adams, H.E., Wright, R.W. & Lohr, B.A. (1996). "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?", Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, no. 3, pp. 440–445 to the Criticisms section of the article for <fill in any notoriously homophobic public figure>?. Point being, that's an identical chain of reasoning: (sourced fact about a person's views) + (sourced opinion about a superset of persons who have that view) = a novel deduced result (in this example, a highly inflammatory implication about X that no-one has stated). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Gordon for his extensive effort to make this article neutral. Since this is a disputed article which has already been posted for general attention at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, people who have real-life interests in this issue who impulsively revert the contents of this article without getting consensus at Talk may be exposed to admin sanctions for tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look carefully you will see the following source that talk has linked to:

See: "Opportunity knocks - The government must persuade the public of the overwhelming benefits of immigration". Progress Online. 2007-12-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) This source was explicitly cited. Its at the bottom of this page in the discussion as well. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the LeGrain article you cite explicitly mentions MigrationWatch (though very briefly) maybe you could propose a sentence or two to be added to the article that refers to that article? The large item about LeGrain that you added here under 'Controversy' seems out of proportion, but a briefer mention of LeGrain's analysis might be OK. I added a missing '{{' to your above citation to make the link work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I missed it because it wasn't adjacent to the text it was used to cite. Nevertheless, I still think there are problems: as you say, prominent weight being given to a rather polemical statement of the views of a pundit who doesn't appear very well-known. The link sentence is also problematical - MigrationWatch is viewed by its critics as being such an intelligent advocate - in that it implies other criticisms are based on that same 'psychological' interpretation, which other citations don't support (they view it merely as advocacy veiling its political allegiances). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Moonshineblue's review of the article

Custodiet Ipsos Custodes writes that "for the last year I have spent tens of hours carefully researching and expanding this article. I consciously used sources from all shades of political opinion. I carefully put forward Migrationwatch’s position and balanced them with opposing views. Indeed both sides in the debate make good points. The article has been re-written in the last few weeks so as to grossly violate Wikipedia; Neutral Point of View". Despite these claims, Custodiet’s latest re-write is, as Gordon of Cartoon remarks, a deeply hostile version. The following are a few examples:

The first line contains three references to hostile press articles. One of them, wrongly dated, is six years old, another four years old, the third turns out to be a casual reference in an article about rough sleepers.

The section on history claims that "he (Sir Andrew Green) tried to remove Masari from Britain……" The author seems to be unaware that Civil Servants take their instructions from Ministers rather than vice versa.

Well Moonshineblue apparently is unaware that civil servants have great discretion and that ministers do not have the time to deal with all details and nuances of policy. Secondly Sir Andrew Green admitted himself to trying to remove Masari from Britain. Quote: "I was under-secretary for the Middle East at the time and I was trying to remove Islamic extremists like Masari from Britain," Sir Andrew told The Independent yesterday. "But, because of our asylum laws, I found I was unable to do so, despite having the support of the Prime Minister, John Major." Direct quote from The Independent [5] Please read the next two paragraphs there if you have any doubt that this was his own personal desire and later crusade. Indeed he explains that his being unable to remove Masari was one of the reasons why he starting MaigrationWatch UK to begin with. Now if he was merely acting on ministerial wishes alone the whole episode would make no sense. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is then a reference to Saudi arms contracts which are surely irrelevant.

The remainder is pure conjecture. "He perceived immigration to be out of control…..he then looked to extend his brief from asylum into the wide issue of immigration…etc. This is followed by selective quotes from Professor Coleman's ninety papers and eight books.

Are you saying that he did not think that immigration was out of control? Here is another quote from Sir Andrew Green: "I found immigration out of control but I also saw there was not a healthy debate about the issue, that the information was not getting out to people." The independent quoting him [6]. So let me get this right - it's conjecture to say he perceived immigration to be out of control when Sir Andrew actually said that he found immigration to be out of control?

The section on wages says "Migrationwatch has claimed that migration into the UK has and will significantly cut the real wages of British citizens". The reference given includes no mention of a "significant" cut in real wages. The reference is, in any case, three years old, in a developing debate.

The paragraph on net economic impact makes no reference to the government’s own evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords which put the benefit in terms of GDP per head at 58p per week. Nor does it mention that the same House of Lords report endorsed the consistent Migrationwatch argument that it is GDP per head rather than overall GDP that is important.

Paragraph 2 of the abstract of the House of Lords report reads "Overall GDP, which the government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the UK…. The focus of analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that these affects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to the increased labour supply".

The section on asylum says "Migrationwatch claimed that the asylum system was skewed in favour of bogus applicants and does not efficiently deport those who have no right to stay". However, the reference (14) is to an article in The Guardian where these are the words of The Guardian, not of Migrationwatch.

The section on asylum numbers confuses the proportion of failed asylum seekers who were removed in 2001 with the proportion of applicants whose claims failed. On the latter, he (or she) quotes an extraordinarily muddled article on the BBC website. The estimate outcomes of asylum applications made in 2001-2004 can be found on page 19 of Asylum Statistics UK 2004 which shows that the proportion refused asylum, other forms of protection, or withdrawn varied from 58% to 75% over that period. There is no question of Migrationwatch having "selectively revealed information thus distorting the truth".

The section entitled "further disagreement over numbers with the British government" is simply incredible. MW and Home Office statements are contrasted in pairs but each deals either with an entirely different issue or an entirely different period. There is nothing to substantiate a disagreement over numbers.

The section on the role of the British press seems to be associating Migrationwatch with the headlines in The Sun. It is surely obvious that Migrationwatch has no control over the headlines given to its reports. The article then reaches its low point by repeating the substance of a libel in the Daily Mirror for which the newspaper has been obliged to apologise, withdraw and pay damages and costs.

The last paragraph on "controversy" is the final absurdity. The quotation attributed to Sir Andrew Green is a misreading of a hostile article in The Guardian. The quote was in fact attributed to Professor Coleman. As for the slur on Baroness Caroline Cox as "further evidence of an anti-foreigner mentality" this is extraordinary. Baroness Cox is famed for her humanitarian work all over the third world as will be clear from the website of her charity HART.

It will be apparent from the foregoing that this latest re-write is both severely inaccurate and, indeed, hostile. It fails the basic Wikipedia test of NPOV.

I will therefore be suggesting a much shorter, and genuinely neutral, article which might be a more suitable vehicle for improvement. --Moonshineblue (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis. I agree that the article can use further work, and appreciate you are starting off with a discussion rather than editing the article immediately. I changed the header over your comment to simplify navigation; change it back if you prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for changing the header over my article. It does simplify navigation. I hope to improve my presentations as I become more familiar with Wikipedia. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As indicated in my post of 10 May, I have edited the article as follows:

Paragraph 1: I have included the point that it is often referred to as a pressure group. As regards "right-wing" it is more accurate to say that it is so described in some sections of the press.

The second paragraph entitled 'History' is now short and factual, omitting extraneous or speculative material.

I have brought forward the paragraph on immigration numbers which is the central activity of the organisation. I have deleted some inaccurate material on asylum numbers and the alleged disagreement over numbers with the British Government which, on closer inspection, does not actually show any differences.

The paragraph on asylum has been shortened with a link to the organisation's statement on the subject and a further link to its position on an amnesty. I thought about putting in a link to an organisation that favours an amnesty but this is an article about the organisation, not about amnesties.

The paragraph on the economy needs updating in the light of the recent major report from the Economic Committee of the House of Lords. References are included to a number of organisations who disagree with the Committee's conclusions.

Two words have been deleted in the first line of Wages and the last sentence in HIV Testing otherwise those items and the Human Rights Treaty remain the same as they appear to be reasonably balanced.

The role of the press is more difficult since there are literally hundreds of references which can be used to support either point of view. I have put in one headline from The Sun and a piece from a relatively left-wing newspaper, The Observer, which seems to be quite balanced.

Mr Legrain's views on psychology have already, and rightly, been edited out. His main expertise is on immigration. He is the author of "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them", published in 2006 by Little Brown. His own point of view is that there should be minimal immigration controls between rich and poor countries. "I am essentially arguing that rich countries should open their borders to service providers from poor countries...."(page 20). Later he writes "if you believe that the world is an unequal place and that the rich should do more to help the poor, then freer international migration should be the next front in the battle for global economic justice."(page 21). This, of course, is a perfectly respectable point of view but it is not neutral in the present context. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Moonshineblue's version (which ClueBot reverted) is reasonably balanced, but it would be better to make any needed changes one section at a time, and get feedback from other editors who have studied this material closely, like User:Gordonofcartoon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One of ClueBot's criteria is large deletions, and it mistook it for vandalism. I've reverted ClueBot and reported it as a false positive. It looks to me pretty well balanced: a reasonably neutral basis for expansion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the two editors agree that the present Moonshine Blue contribution is a reasonable basis for improvement - and no amendments have been forthcoming since it was posted on 17 May, perhaps it is time to consider removing the 'scales' at the top of the opening Migrationwatch page? What do others think, please? --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, in light of recent improvements in neutrality. If anyone still thinks the article is POV, please be specific about the remaining problems that you see. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Custodiet has simply reverted to the earlier draft without the agreement of other editors and without responding to my earlier criticism that other editors accepted. I suggest that the entry be reverted to the simpler and clearer draft and that specific problems be raised before further changes are made.--Moonshineblue (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As Gordonofcartoon and EdJohnston both regarded my earlier posting as a reasonable and balanced article EdJohnston removed the POV tag, on 31 May, and asked anyone seeking to amend the article to be specific about remaining problems. Custodiet Ipsos Custodes has ignored this. I have, therefore, reverted to the agreed version. If this is removed, without consultation, it may be necessary to consider Administrator intervention on the grounds of vandalism. Custodiet appears to be using Wikipedia as a means of attacking Migrationwatch UK (an organisation I support) and, in doing so, could be seen as damaging the reputation not only of Migrationwatch UK; but also Wikipedia.--Moonshineblue (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

Of course the issue of immigration is highly controversial. But I am astounded by how extremely biased some of the editing has been. It seems that people wish to deny that it is a right wing think tank. Well I list the following sources:

1. "While the right-wing lobbyists Migrationwatch UK argued the immigrants’ contribution was “very slight indeed”...." The Times [7]

2. "However, these calculations are disputed by the right-wing group Migrationwatch UK, which estimates that 40,000 people a year from eastern Europe will soon be entering the UK." The guardian [8]

3. "Following on from our list of the Top 100 Lefties, we bring you the final installment of a list of the top 100 most influential people on the Right of British politics today." And then "50. SIR ANDREW GREEN Director, MigrationWatch Castigated by the left, Sir Andrew has ploughed a sometimes lonely furrow in alerting the country to the dangers of excessive immigration" [9], [10]

4. "Now we have to tolerate a new right-wing organisation, Migrationwatch UK, which is suddenly being treated with undue respect. This wants no more immigrants and warns that blacks and Asian Britons are having too many babies." The Independent.

Here you have it. 2 right wing and 2 left wing sources. They all identify Migration watch as right wing. This information should not be censored. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT bias

Everything you have just said, you have said before, and you were thoroughly debunked (see above). Migrationwatch are a non-political body, they are not left right or centre. Your desperate clawing to pigeonhole the groups reason for existence as belonging exclusively to right wing thinking reveals your inherent hostile political bias. For every ref you have put here calling them 'right wing' I can put up 100 that state the non position of the group. Please leave this article alone as you have proven time and again to be incapable of taking a non-POV position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.171.211 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, there are plenty of reliable sources that state that MigrationWatch is a right-wing body, including newspapers and academic articles. Please stop removing these sources and changing the text to say that MigrationWatch is politically neutral without references. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the current wording doesn't even say that MigrationWatch is right-wing, it says that "various commentators and academics have characterised it as a right-wing lobby or pressure group". This is an incontrovertible fact, as established by the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Custodiet is struggling to paint Migrationwatch as a right-wing organisation on the basis of casual classification in various newspaper articles. His first example is from the Sunday Times: "The right-wing lobbyists Migrationwatch UK argued that the immigrants contribution was "very slight indeed" …..". The substance of the matter is that the House of Lords Economic Committee reported in April 2008 that they “had found no evidence of significant economic benefit from immigration to the resident UK population”. Nobody accuses the House of Lords of being right-wing for making that report which was, in fact, unanimous between all parties.

He then quotes The Observer in 2004 referring to the Migrationwatch estimate that 40,000 people a year would enter the UK from Eastern Europe. The actual figure has been approximately 100,000 a year. Hardly a matter of being right-wing, more a matter of making a much better estimate than the government.

His third quote is from the Daily Telegraph which, again, is a matter of opinion rather than fact. For his fourth quote he has had to go back to 2002 for a comment from Ms Yasmin Alibai-Brown, not noted for her political neutrality. I note, from the Migrationwatch website, that the Independent and Ms Alibai-Brown have since been obliged to pay damages on two occasions to Migrationwatch. They can hardly be regarded as objective observers.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, it would be surely preferable that comments be based on direct evidence rather than second-hand opinions.

As regards Custodiet’s remarks on the Masari case, editors who are familiar with government will know that, in major cases of this kind, officials act on the instruction of ministers. The Masari case was a major bone of contention with Saudi Arabia and would certainly not have been left to officials.

As a point of fact it should be noted that Migrationwatch does the research for the Balanced Migration Parliamentary Cross Party Group. I intend putting this fact on Migrationwatch's Wikipedia page if there are no objections.

--Moonshineblue (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you mentioning that they do research for the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, providing it is referenced. On the right-wing characterisation, as I have stated above, the article does not claim that the group is right-wing but rather that several commentators and academics have characterised them as right-wing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've now added a line about the Cross Party Group, although I think the wording is problematic in relation to the reference. The article states "Migrationwatch does the research for the Balanced Migration Parliamentary Cross Party Group", implying that all of the group's research is conducted by MigrationWatch, but the reference only seems to support the fact that MigrationWatch once did a single piece of research for the group. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

--I have added another link to a page on the Balanced Migration web site that confirms Migrationwatch does research for the Group. --Moonshineblue (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That confirms that they've conducted two pieces of research for the group. Again, it doesn't say that they conduct all of the group's research, which is what the current article text suggests. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reword this line in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

--I can count a further six papers whose research has been done by Migrationwatch for Balanced Migration. There does not appear to be any other reference on its site to any other organisation doing its research. --Moonshineblue (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The current wording - "MigrationWatch conducts research for the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration" - seems fine to me. It establishes that MW conduct research for the group without suggesting that this is some sort of exclusive arrangement, for which we don't have evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the section History needs looking at for Bias. It states that tha chairman "approached professor Coleman after reading some of his anti - immigration letters in The Times". The expression "anti -immigration is loaded, especially as the organisation claims not to be anti immigration, let alone anti immigrant. The phrase turns out to have been taken from an article in The Observer but that is insufficient for an allegation of this kind. Where are the letters? What is the evidence that they were the lettrs in question? And in what respects were they "anti - immigrant". If the point cannot be supported it should surely be deleted. Jumping George 1900 29 Dec 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumping George (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is fully supported by the reference, and furthermore is a direct quote from that article (which is in the Independent, not the Observer, by the way). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The House of Commons Register of All-Party Groups shows clear evidence that Migrationwatch does all the research for the Cross Party Group: Balanced Migration. --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was noted below and I've already added it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References

UK Web Archive

--If there are no objections I should also like to add that The British Library has selected Migrationwatch's web site for preservation and regularly archives the site. I would, of course, put in the link. --217.43.86.141 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made this an external link. It's useful but I didn't see the need to mention it in the text. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if it would be better off as an external link. I have expanded slightly the explanation. --Moonshineblue (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the link text is a bit overblown now. It makes it sound as if the MigrationWatch website has won some kind of award, when in fact websites are selected for inclusion in the archive to reflect a diversity of views, with website owners able to nominate their own sites. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the previous link text since no one has indicated support for the present version. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am alive to the fact that organisations can have their sites archived in the UK Web Consortium Archive at their own request. Surely the fact that it was not Migrationwatch that asked for their site to be archived; but The British Library show that Migrationwatch's web site it highly thought of in serious academic circles and this deserves to be highlighted which I have now done, again. --Moonshineblue (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshineblue (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sites are included in the archive because they are likely to be of interest to researchers, not because they are thought highly of. Several BNP websites are included. Are you suggesting that this is because they are "highly thought of in serious academic circles"? Also, where on the UK Web Archive site does it say that inclusion of the MigrationWatch site was requested by the British Library? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

--It is highly improbable that the British Library would bother asking for Migrationwatch's web site to be preserved unless it felt it had a high degree of merit for serious research. The link will take you to where it is made clear it was the Britis Library that requested Migrationwatch site be preserved. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, where does it say that the British Library even asked for it to be preserved? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking against the relevant wording in the External Link field. It takes you to the Consortium's web page which makes it clear it was added at the request of the British Library. --81.155.1.249 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The link says that the British Library selected the site, not that they requested it be added. It could be the case that someone else requested it and the British Library approved that request - we just don't know. Furthermore, I'm sure that the British Library do think it's a useful site to have archived. That's the whole point of the archive. But that shouldn't be presented as some kind of badge of honour for MW since sites can be of research value for many different reasons, not just the quality of their contents - hence the inclusion of party political sites. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the wording I get when I click on the link to the UK Web Site Consortium:

"Migration Watch UK This site was selected for preservation by the British Library."

Migrationwatch obviously could not put that on the Consortium's site. If you think they, or someone else, wrote to the British Library asking them to preserve the site then you will need to contact the British Library and ask who requested it to be preserved. After all you expect me to go to my local library to try and obtain evidence contained in an academic paper (which, incidentally means nothing much. There will be as many academics who agree with whatever Kushner says as disagrees with his views).--Moonshineblue (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. The simple fact is that the external site linked to says that the British Library "selected" the site, and you want the wording to say "requested". When I challenge this, you ask me to prove that it wasn't requested. The onus shouldn't be on me to prove that something in the article is incorrect. Rather, the onus is on you to prove that the article was requested by the British Library if that is the description you want to use. Comparisions with the Kushner quote are completely spurious since that is properly referenced, whereas in this case the site linked to clearly doesn't support the version of the text that you want to employ. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

--Yes I'm finding it tiresome too. I don't want the wording to say "requested". The wording on the UK Web Site Consortium says clearly "This site was selected for preservation by the British Library." I therefore feel that quoting the exact words from the Consortium's web site should be entirely acceptable. --81.155.184.66 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Presuming that you are Moonshineblue but not logged on, you were the one who added the word "request". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be up to viewers of Wikipedia's Migrationwatch site to decide whether to look at the UK Web Consortium's site to see why the British Library asked for it to be preserved. For example, as part of a special General Election collection. Viewers are more likely to take a look at the Link if they see it is the British Library who want it preserved. But then again that is possibly why you do not want the link to show this. --86.149.214.205 (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the posting on ELN. I don't think the link is needed, really. We usually only link to site archives when the site itself is permanently down. Just because the site was selected for preservation in the British Library doesn't mean we have to link to the archive. I would suggest writing this information into the body of the article, as it is encyclopedic knowledge, and then it can be referenced with the external link provided. ThemFromSpace 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm shortly going to add an "outputs" section to the article which mentions the group's website, publications, their contributions to newspapers and the work they do for the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, so I'll mention it in that. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is now done. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Can we get clarification on why the page has been protected? Is it because of this dispute? If so, I suggest that we do include the word "some". While I think that Ramdrake was well intentioned in removing it, we need a word to portray the fact that some, not all, commentators are of the view subsequently mentioned ("although some commentators have characterised it as a right-wing lobby or pressure group"). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This page was protected because of a request to do so at WP:ANI. If you would like it unprotected early, then please demonstrate that the problems raised at WP:ANI have been resolved, or use WP:RFPP to request that it be unprotected. --Jayron32 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised the problem at ANI because the anon was using not one but several IPs to continually revert the consensus version, therefore possibly requiring something like a range block. Cordless Larry did go to RFPP, where he was told to discuss the matter with you. As you can see, we're running around in circles. And BTW, I totally agree with Cordless Larry. I did misread the intro.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that solves the edit conflict then. Can we have the page unprotected now? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, can we have the protection changed to semi-, so as to avoid the anon revert-warring again for some time at least?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1