Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"According to the Warwickshire Police Force..."

The employment section of the article includes the rather odd sentence "According to the Warwickshire Police Force and a report by ELWa, asylum seekers are also not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed". Do we really need to mention Warwickshire Police (which is an odd source for this fact anyway!) and ELWa in the sentence, rather than just in the citations? It's a fact that asylum seekers aren't allowed to work, not some opinion of a particular police force. I just feel the current wording suggests that this is more contentious than is actually the case.

Can we reword this to simply: "Asylum seekers are also not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed"? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. The simplified phrasing above is fine. Middayexpress (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam & nationality

The ~89% figure for Muslim adherents is inaccurate, as many Somalis were undercounted [1]. Also, Article 8 of the Constitution of Somalia stipulates that "a person who is a Somali citizen cannot be deprived of Somali citizenship, even if they become a citizen of another country" [2]. "Previous nationality" is thus inaccurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where "previous nationality" comes into it? The report states: "According to the 2001 census 89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population in England is Muslim". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. That comment referred to the naturalisations data, not the religion section. Yes, "previous nationality" is standard Home Office speak, but of course not everyone who takes up British citizenship will be giving up their original nationality. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the 89.3 per cent figure. Of course, no census is 100 per cent accurate, but that doesn't mean we can't report its findings. Figures from the census are used elsewhere in the article, and as long as we note the source I don't see why they shouldn't be reported. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The 89.3 figure from 2001 is inaccurate per the 2011 census [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The 2011 census will yield a figure for 2011. That doesn't change the fact that the 2001 census found 89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population in England to be Muslim in 2001. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The most recent reliable census should be used. Any problems with the census should be reported if they are sourced to reliable sources stating these concerns. If not then it shouldnt be mentioned since doing so would be OR.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A figure from the 2011 census isn't yet available (or I haven't found one), so 2001 remains the most recently available. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is pointed out in text that it is a 2001 census that shouldnt be a problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Thanks for your input. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 figures have already been released. Salaam provides links to them [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the equivalent figure there (religion by country of birth). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There are ten links there at the top, seven of them pertaining to religion. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but none of them lead to tables of religion by country of birth (or not at the level that allows Somali-born residents to be identified). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So, in line with Maunus's comments, and given that equivalent data is not available for 2011, I propose we add the 2001 figure back in, noting that it refers to 2001, not the present day. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to the table where the 89.3% Muslim adherent percentage was drawn from? Or was this inferred as well, like you apparently believe Salaam is? Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's from this reliable secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I asked or meant. Again, which census table did that paper get its 89.3% figure from? Or do you not know? Because if you don't, there's no reason to take umbrage at the Salaam reliable secondary source, which is a good decade more recent. Middayexpress (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the data was published in a table. It's in a government report, and of course they have access to the raw census data, so can present data that's not been published by the ONS. I don't have any particular problem with the Salaam source, but it doesn't say anything about the percentage of Somalis who specified they were Muslims in the 2001 census being wrong so I'm not sure how it contradicts the government source. It does claim that the census undercounted Somalis, but says nothing about the proportion of Somalis who are Muslim being wrong as a result. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Salaam indicates that as of 2011, "the Muslim population stands at 2.7 million - the statistic in 2001 was 1.55 million", and that "factors accounting for the increase include[...] improved response to the voluntary Religion question compared to 2001 e.g. less undercounting amongst Somali communities". It also notes that the number of Christians, the largest faith, decreased over the same period. That means the percentage of Somali Muslim adherents as of 2011 is indeed higher than 89.3% [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That the overall number of Muslims and Christians in the UK has changed doesn't mean that's true within each and every country-of-birth group. Even if it had changed between 2001 and 2011, that doesn't change what the 2001 census reported. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't change the 89.3% figure. However, it does mean that the overall number of Somali Muslims increased in 2011. This is why Salaam indicates that less undercounting amongst Somali communities was one of the main factors accounting for the increase in the overall Muslim population. Had they been Christian or adhered to another religion, the increase would instead have gone toward that other religious population. Middayexpress (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it claims that the census 2001 census undercounted Somalis, and since the vast majority are Muslim, that contributed to an undercount of the total number of Muslims in the UK. As you concede, it doesn't change the proportion of Somalis who stated they were Muslim in 2001. I'll add that stat back in. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion. It's possible that the undercounting of Somalis during 2001 census skewed the data on their religions, as Middayexpress suggests. But it's also possible that all Somali religious groups were undercounted equally, and the 2001 percentage was relatively accurate. Salaam doesn't actually give any opinion on the subject, so without some other source, an assertion either way is original research that can't be included in Wikipedia. Yes, the 2001 data is dated, but it seems to remains the best available. We should include it while making clear its limitations. We already do a pretty good job, but I also suggest changing "89.3 per cent of the Somali-born population of England" to "89.3 per cent of the Somali-born respondents". —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a helpful suggestion. I've made that edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil P. Quinn. Do you agree that if 2011 census data on the number of Muslim adherents is available, it would be more accurate to note that instead of the figures from ten years prior? Maunus writes above that outdated means that the data has been superceded by more recent information. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Middayexpress: Yes, I agree with that, although it's often useful to give both to show the change over time (which we can't do with studies that use different methods to collect their data). In this case (correct me if I'm wrong), equivalent 2011 data isn't available.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe it already is, or at least will be soon. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's already available, we should try to find it. I've tried, but have only found religion by broad country-of-birth grouping (e.g. Africa), not for individual countries of birth. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several other such tables. Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015(UTC)

If you've found one that tabulates religion against country of birth, including Somalia, please do share it. I'd very much like to add it to the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on we all know that Somali are muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.249 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Salaam indicates that that lower 89.3% figure from 14 years ago was due to the fact that many Somalis were previously undercounted [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As explained above, an undercount of the total number of Somalis doesn't mean that the proportion of Somalis who are Muslim was underestimated - Muslim and non-Muslim Somalis could have been undercounted in equal proportions. We just don't know the impact of the undercount on the proportions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-Muslim adherents among Somalis represent less than 1% of the population per the Pew Research Center [7]. So yes, an undercounted Somali population necessarily implies an increase in both absolute and proportionate terms of the number of Muslim adherents. Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily mean that - the ones who weren't counted could all have been non-Muslim, for all we know. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they couldn't because less than 1% of 10 million (Somalia's population) could not account for such an increase even if one assumes all of the non-Muslim adherents moved to the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but someone's religion isn't fixed forever. Somali Muslims might move to the UK and then become atheists, for example. You also assume that the Pew report is accurate, which it might not be given the difficulty of collecting reliable statistics in Somalia. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's doubtful. The Pew Research Center is also actually regarded as perhaps the best global authority on religious composition. If anything, it actually underestimates the number of Muslims in Somalia [8]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pew in turn use the World Religion Database. It may well be accurate, but the point about people leaving Islam remains a possible explanation. Here's an anecdotal example. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the odd individual leaving Islam is obviously not a possible explanation. The Muslim total actually increased almost two fold between 2001 and 2011. Salaam specifically attributes this to the proper counting of the Somali population, which makes sense since virtually all Somalis are Muslim to begin with [9]. This isn't a community that embraced Islam only recently; the faith is an integral part of Somali society. In fact, per the Constitution of Somalia, Islam is the state religion, no prosleytism of other faiths is permitted, and no law that contravenes Muslim principles may be enacted [10]. The Masjid al-Qiblatayn in northern Somalia was likewise built in the 7th century i.e. almost within Muhammad's lifetime. As such, it is among the oldest mosques in the world. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's a possible explanation then. Given the restriction of other faiths in Somalia, it's not surprising that in a country where there is freedom of religion, then proportion of Somalis who say they are Muslims is lower. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not possible either since of course the constitution was adopted in 2012. It's thus indeed because the Somali population was properly counted. Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So there was freedom of religion before 2012? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Somalis are virtually all Muslim, wherever in the world they happen to reside [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite as reliable a source as the UK census. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that total Muslim figure was apparently marred by undercounting. The actual total Islamic adherent percentage is much nearer to 98% or 99%, as in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

New sources

I've found a few recent sources that we might want to make use of for this article:

• Saeed, Abdirahim (18 September 2014). "Young diaspora Somalis rediscovering entrepreneurial roots". BBC News.
• Osman, Jamal (6 June 2012). "British Somalis going back for a future". Channel 4 News.
• Hooper, Simon (22 March 2014). "Somalis fear 'death-sentence' deportations". Al Jazeera.
• Cantoobo, Mohamed Ahmed (6 June 2014). "A Record 9 British-Somali Councillors Elected in UK Local Elections". Warya Post.

Some of these can be used to update existing material, but others might be useful for article expansion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noted them, but fused the second one with the fourth as they overlap, and replaced the third one with official data. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also been some coverage of British Somalis and FGM this past week:

• Gill, Aisha (6 February 2015). "How do we bring FGM to an end in Britain?". New Statesman.

And some older coverage:

• Topping, Alexandra (6 February 2014). "Young British-Somali women fight FGM with rhyme and reason". The Guardian. London.
• Chakrabarti, Reeta (5 February 2014). "Female genital mutilation: A family speaks out against the abuse". BBC News.

Is this something we should cover in social issues section? There appears to be some academic literature about the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more academic coverage here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Another academic source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is already covered here. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but my point was that there might be a particular Somali-British angle to this that could be covered here, given that there seems to be some focus on the Somali community in relation to the issue. Perhaps not, but I just wanted to float the idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but this isn't solely a Somali issue, which is why it's dealt with there. Middayexpress (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be solely a Somali issue, just one that is relevant to the Somali community. Khat isn't solely a Somali issue either, but we cover that here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Khat is likewise better handled on the khat page, under the UK section. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OSF report

Note: The following comment was moved here from Middayexpress's user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you realized, but with this edit you introduced broken citation templates (using cite web where there is no URL). It's surely better to cite the OSF report, since that is published, rather than the Freedom of Information request responses that it uses for its data, which aren't online? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading to suggest that the data is from the OSF. It isn't; the OSF itself indicates that it culled the figures from the Camden Council and Tower Hamlet local authorities, and names which exact studies too. The data should therefore be attributed to those governmental studies; they don't have to be online per WP:OFFLINE. Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not said that the data is from the OSF. That's just a reliable, accessible, secondary source. See WP:WPNOTRS, which states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY likewise indicates that "unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia", that "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". As no interpretation has been made, the data should be attributed directly to the actual governmental studies they were drawn from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so they "may" be used, but "should" they, I guess is the next question. Do you have access to the primary sources, to verify what they say? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask? Do you doubt that the local authorities found that their Somali pupils were performing in line with the overall student population in those boroughs between 2011 and 2012? If not, WP:OFFLINE indicates that "even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources[...] In fact, many great sources are only available offline." Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that the source doesn't need to be online, but I would like at least one of us to have verified it. My concern isn't that the local authorities have got it wrong, but that we're dependent on the OSF study to faithfully report the data from the local authorities, so we should cite that as a secondary source, unless we can access the primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources, which we haven't seen to verify the data, had crept back into the article, so I replaced them with the secondary source again. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine WP:PRIMARY and offline ones are ok per WP:OFFLINE. Verification is not an issue unless you doubt the Camden and Tower Hamlet local authority figures; and if you doubt their figures, then you by default also doubt the OSF's relaying of them. Middayexpress (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I doubt anything, it's the OSF's relaying of them. Since we're reliant on this relaying though, we need to cite the OSF source, as explained above. If we can verify the primary source, fine, but neither of us have. We can verify what the secondary source says, so let's stick with that. WP:PRIMARY doesn't say that primary sources take precedence over secondary ones in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't verify the authenticity of the OSF's figures since they aren't from it to begin with. They're from the Camden and Tower Hamlet local authorities. So if you doubt the figures themselves (which I don't see why you should), then you indeed by default also doubt the OSF's relaying of them. Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We can verify what the OSF report says at least. We can't verify the original source. We should therefore cite the OSF. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What the OSF says is what the Camden and Tower Hamlets local authorities actually report, so it makes no difference unless you doubt the figures to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it's what the local authorities report, unless you've seen the primary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OFFLINE, materials don't have to be online. The exception is when there is doubt as to whether claims are accurate; that's where WP:BURDEN applies. Since there doesn't appear to be any doubt here about the Camden and Tower Hamlets local authority figures that the OSF is relaying, these should be linked directly to the actual studies themselves. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Them being offline isn't the problem. The fact that we haven't seen them to verify what they say is. I'm happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you insist on citing the primary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you still insist on direct links to the studies. Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not links, no. I just want someone to have verified what they say (also, they're not studies, they're replies to the OSF's freedom of information requests). Cordless Larry (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. Middayexpress (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And, to be honest, even if we get to see the primary source, WP:WPNOTRS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, here's why and when secondary sources are used: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors[...] Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." As no specialized knowledge is required here, the Camden and Tower Hamlet papers (not just raw stats) are fine. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They're not papers as such, they're responses to the OSF's FoI requests. We don't know what form they take. They might just contain raw statistics for all we know. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that remains to be seen. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

Inayity, I've been having a look around at the various immigrant pages and the main British people page, and it appears that there may be some systemic bias as far as what is being reported on those immigrant pages versus on the British people page. The immigrant pages seem to have an inordinate amount of negative material on various "issues" that are supposedly affecting these communities. Yet, curiously there's no similar discussion on the British people page. For instance, on this page, there's an unwarrantedly large section on khat, although the plant is in fact legal in its traditional area of cultivation and many other parts of the world (including Britain itself until a few months ago), and is, according to pretty much all major health authorities, less harmful than tobacco, alcohol and all other similar substances [12]. Yet, there's no analogous mention on the British people page of the local pub culture, use of hard drugs by youth and other vice (including hate crimes), as well as cultural peculiarities that may appear odd or inappropriate to outsiders, though those are often noted in the same publications. Similarly, the educational levels and socioeconomic status of the local population relative to immigrants and other nations in Europe do not appear to be touched on. This is odd given the fuss elsewhere about the GCSE levels of immigrants. These double standards should thus perhaps be balanced out by either trimming the "issues" purportedly affecting immigrant groups to a fair size in accordance with the British people page itself and WP:ATTACK, or similar material should be added to the British people page for consistency. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They banned it? I didnt know. Cant Tax it, then they ban it. (unlike Al-co-hol). To be brief but relevant, I have similar issues is the broad context of all things Wikipedia when it comes to marginalized "minority" groups. I have always had this problem and I previously identified one such problem of so-called RS. Where even minorities in SA can publish pretty books and dominant what is Real and what is true. The unfortunately disenfranchised (Majority) people have no such access and write blogs and small websites which Wikipedia washes-out as not R.S. So all that is left standing is the deep bias which is very Eurocentric. Let me run to the supermarket and deal with this when I get back. But It must be addressed at a policy level.--Inayity (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree in part. It is better discussed at a broader scale than this talk page. But we should not brush issues under the carpet. Somails in Britain are very deprived (for good reason) and it doesn't help them to not talk about that or the social issues it causes. Not everyone highlighting these problems does so to attack Somalis. I know of many researchers who highlight them to help improve policy and help Somalis resolve the issues. Many concerns come from the community too, such as khat or FGM. Censoring them doesn't help them. BrumEduResearch (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Brum that you literally just registered your account and almost immediately headed here [13]. Given this, forgive me if I take your remarks with a grain of salt. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. I conduct research on Somali pupils in England so this seemed a natural place I could help. BrumEduResearch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure you do; what an uncanny coincidence. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What a lovely welcome back. I'm reminded of why I left now. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. So you already have an account here. Can't say I'm surprised. What was its handle, if I may ask? Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the systemic issue which is a broad topic and needs broad policy changes so all affected articles (most of Wikipedia) can be more WP:BALANCE you know where I am, my time is tight, and I am not sure how you write new wikipedia policy like WP:INCLUSION, or WP:SYSTEMIC but It has to be done.--Inayity (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Inayity. Midday, it was years ago and I cannot remember my old username. I did explain this on my new account. BrumEduResearch (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How convenient. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Inayity, it clearly has to be done. I think we should start small with specific areas in need of fixing. For example, identifying similar double standards and eliminating them. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish you luck, although from what I've seen, writing new policies and having them accepted is very time consuming. Herding cats comes to mind. As a slight aside, I'm not sure that Somalis in the UK and British people are quite equivalent articles. A better comparison with the latter would surely be Somali people? Incidentally, I did once start adding a social issues section to the British migration to Spain article. I might resume that task. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The GCSE scores, etc. would specifically apply to Britain, so that's indeed the equivalent (not Spain). Either way, the double standards are evident and unsustainable. Middayexpress (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but British people isn't just about British people in the UK, it's about British people all over the world, so I'm not sure it's the place for such issues. I'm not sure if there's a "British people in the UK" type article though. There is White British, which could be the place to discuss GCSE results. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the equivalent page alright. British diaspora is for the rest of the world. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but British people includes both British people in the UK and the diaspora, just as Somali people includes Somalis in Somalia and elsewhere. Note that the latter article doesn't include a "social issues" section either. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not comparable, as the Somali people page pertains to the ethnic group, not to Somalia nationals. British people, on the other hand, pertains to the local population of the United Kingdom. It is thus indeed the analogue to this and other similar pages. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"British people, on the other hand, pertains to the local population of the United Kingdom". Perhaps you've not seen the geographic distribution section! To be honest, it's a bit of a mish-mash of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the section on the British diaspora, which it links to. The page as a whole indeed pertains to the native population of the United Kingdom ("British people, or Britons, archaically known as Britishers, are nationals or natives of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies; and their descendants"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen this comment from Drmies in response to a post I made on the ANI about reverts to the article, which addresses this section: "Midday, I read over the "Systemic Bias" section and that's really way too close to FORUM for comfort; I suggest you take that up on a project page. You may well have a point, but that particular talk page is not the place for it". Can I suggest you take that suggestion up, Midday? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's sensible advice as far as the hypothetical policy change is concerned. I am, though, sorry if Inayity and I pointing out the obvious double standards bothers you, Larry. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I completely support attempts to take a more balanced approach and would support inclusion of material on social problems relating to all communities. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept of balance there. Middayexpress (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would seem to be either that or we censor Wikipedia to not mention any social problems, unless you have a third alternative? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a social problem is often subjective. Khat, which is objectively less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol, is an excellent example of this. That said, I already suggested a fairer alternative in the OP; 26oo did as well. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"What is a social problem is often subjective". Absolutely, but that's why we don't make the judgement. We report what reliable sources say, and there are plenty of reliable sources that suggest that khat is considered a significant social issue amongst Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Worse could be (and has been) said about the local pub culture, so it's obviously not that simple. The fact is, there are plenty of sources that indicate the opposite on khat i.e. that there is insufficient evidence that the plant caused serious health or societal problems. That includes both the governmental Home Office and Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

One particular issue with the "social issues" coverage, as I see it, is that it covers issues such as the supposed problem of Somali gangs (portraying them as perpetrators), but says little or nothing about the extent to which Somalis in the UK are the victims of crime. Could we say anything about racism and discrimination faced by Somalis, or whether they have been the victims of hate crimes, for instance? I've found some anecdoate evidence that we could point to, but I'm sure this must be covered by some aspects of the research undertaken on the Somali community. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Somalis don't face any greater targeting from local, offline hate groups than other populations, as far as I'm aware. Then again, hate groups aren't my area of expertise. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just about hate groups. For example, the employment section does mention discrimination as a barrier to employment. I'm not sure that Somalis have to face greater levels of discrimination than any other group for us to mention it, if that's what you mean by "any greater targeting". As far as I'm concerned, if they face discrimination or outright hostility and it's been properly documented, we should mention it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Racism is defined as hate, which hate groups and their minions of course specialize in. There's no evidence that Somalis are subject to a greater amount of such targeting by these groups and others of that ilk, which would make it undue. Then again, that is offline; there could be some online hate campaigning or WP:ADVOCACY. Middayexpress (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not every racist is a member of a hate group. Some are just individually hateful! There's also the question of institutional racism, which might be a factor in employment prospects. Anyway, I need to look to see what's actually been documented before suggesting any additions to the article. There's certainly been some anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages, but I'm not sure we could find secondary sources that document that. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It also depends who you're comparing to. Somalis might not be subject to more racism than other minority groups, but I'd be willing to bet that they are subject to more than white people in the UK are. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's rather interesting, as I didn't mention there any anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages. If such hatemongering exists (which, judging by the remark above, you appear to be aware of), it can and certainly will be found out. It's only a matter of time, as this goes against not only website policy, but the very essence of Wikipedia as per its founder Jimbo Wales. That said, I'm not convinced that there's much offline, institutional racism in the UK against Somalis in particular. The British authorities generally don't accept immigrants into the country only to systematically discriminate against them once they have arrived. On the contrary, there are specific laws against hate campaigning, including in the constitution itself. Besides the law, there are of course also massive personal, vocational and social consequences for actual racists once the commonfolk realize just who they are and want nothing further to do with them. The reality is that the UK government, including the UK Ambassador to Somalia, is quite tolerant and even appreciative of its Somali community [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I took your link to WP:ADVOCACY to mean that you were talking about Wikipedia, but maybe I misunderstood. That did chime with my memory of some previous discussions on this talk page though. For example, you called out quite an anti-Somali POV in this discussion. On institutional racism, I'm not saying that the state is necessarily the offending party - it could be private employers, for example. Anyway, I don't have a particularly strong view either way on this; I just thought that mentioning that Somalis face some racism and discrimination (if it could be sourced) would be one way to reduce the bias of the article, which seems to portray Somalis in a rather negative light. I won't comment further, but perhaps Inayity and 26oo have a view on whether we should discuss this? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My assertion on WP:ADVOCACY said nothing about Wikipedia talk pages. I was referring there to hate campaigning in actual articlespace. Nonetheless, your remark on anti-Somali hate on talk pages (plural) is duly noted. There likely is some discrimination in the private sector (which is already touched on, btw), but nothing inordinate. This could also be said of most immigrant communities and even certain tiers of the local population. The main challenge here instead appears to be a dearth of recognition of professional qualifications that Somali professionals have gained in their home country. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, what hate campaigning in article space are you referring to? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was writing hypothetically. Out of interest, what other anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages (plural) were you referring to? Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy wording on my part. I'm only aware of (or I only remember) such incidents on this page and its archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The anti-Somali hate is here. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hate is a strong word, but there has certainly been some anti-Somali bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's the one you used. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably got carried away following your mention of hate groups. Certainly bias can be a result of hate, but it can also be caused by other factors. I wouldn't like to second guess motives here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Refugee resettlement

Thanks for the copy-edit of my addition on Somalis resettled under the Gateway Protection Programme, Middayexpress. You made the text simpler and more succinct, which seems appropriate given that the numbers are small. My only comment would be that the paragraph now discusses asylum, then the Gateway Programme, and then asylum again in the next sentence. That might cause a bit of confusion, as the Gateway Protection Programme is entirely distinct from the normal asylum system (it essentially bypasses it for a select group of people chosen from those identified as being refugees in third countries). Any thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gateway phrase is on settlement of asylum seekers like the sentence before it. The phrase after it is on repatriation of asylum seekers. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Refugees resettled in the UK under the scheme are not asylum seekers though. They don't have to claim asylum as they are granted immediate refugee status. See the Gateway Protection Programme article for an explanation of this, and also this government guidance ("The programme offers a legal route for up to 750 refugees to settle in the UK each year, and is completely separate from the standard procedure for claiming asylum in the UK"). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but 418 individuals were resettled in the UK itself between 2004 and 2012. The phrase after it is on repatriation to the country of origin. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we don't disagree on that. It's just that the order of the sentences goes asylum, resettlement, repatriation of asylum seekers. I thought that could be confusing to readers and lead them to think that all of the people being discussed in the paragraph were asylum seekers. It's not a big issue, I just think a minor reordering so that we discuss asylum all together and then resettlement as a distinct category could make it clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. However, it actually wouldn't make it clearer for the reasons above and also because the Gateway resettlement was from 2004 to 2012, while the repatriation is ongoing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly not. The Gateway scheme is ongoing as well though - it's just that I've only found data up to 2012. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, you reworded the text to say that the figures were for 2004 to 2012. The scheme started in 2004, but the first Somalis weren't resettled until 2010 (see the source). Could we revise the wording to reflect this? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This might also be of interest: "Excitingly, 2010–2011 saw the first Bhutanese and Somalis ever resettled in the UK, from refugee camps in Nepal and Kenya respectively. Other groups we resettled during the year were Ethiopians and Somalis from Dadaad refugee camp in Kenya, Iraqis from Jordan and Congolese from Tanzania". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gateway doesn't indicate therein that it's resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. Its Table 1 likewise pertains to 2004 to 2012, not 2010 to 2012. Suggesting that 418 Somalis were resettled between 2010 and 2012 rather than 2004 and 2012 is not the same thing, as the former is a shorter timespan relative to when the program actually began (in 2004). It also isn't what Gateway actually indicates. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This might also be of interest: "Excitingly, 2010–2011 saw the first Bhutanese and Somalis ever resettled in the UK, from refugee camps in Nepal and Kenya respectively. Other groups we resettled during the year were Ethiopians and Somalis from Dadaad refugee camp in Kenya, Iraqis from Jordan and Congolese from Tanzania". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the people in the refugee camps in Kenya aren't ethnically Somali, so that's not really relevant. That said, Gateway doesn't indicate that its resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. Its Table 1 likewise pertains to 2004 to 2012, not 2010 to 2012. Suggesting that 418 Somalis were resettled between 2010 and 2012 rather than 2004 and 2012 is not the same thing, as the former is a shorter timespan relative to when the program actually began (in 2004). It also isn't what Gateway actually indicates [15]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that we don't know if the resettlement of Somalis is ongoing, but I will investigate that. Table 1 presents data since 2004, but all of the Somalis have been resettled since 2010 (172 in 2010, 93 in 2011 and 153 in 2012), so it's a bit misleading to suggest that the total of 418 were resettled between 2004 and 2012, when none were resettled in 2004-09. Can't we say that while the scheme started in 2004, the first Somalis resettled under it were in 2010? On the Kenyan camps and Somali ethnicity point, the data is recorded by nationality and those resettled were Somali nationals. Is it possible that they were Somali nationals but not ethnically Somali? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This source indicates that Somali nationals continue to arrive in the UK from Kenya under the scheme into 2014-15. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible and even certain that many Somali nationals in those Kenyan camps aren't ethnically Somali; many are instead Bantu. I also didn't write that it's uncertain whether Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program. I wrote that it doesn't indicate that its resettlement of Somalis in particular is ongoing. The fact is, Gateway's Table's 1 and 2 begin at 2004 (not at 2010), as do their totals; so 2004-2012 is the date range that should be indicated. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't need to rely solely on the totals as there is also data by year. I don't really know why we wouldn't be specific about when Somalis started to be resettled in the UK? If we say that 418 Somalis have been resettled under the programme since it started in 2004, all of them since 2010, then there's no ambiguity. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On that ethnicity point, that's interesting but it does raise a further question, which is whether this article is about ethnic Somalis in the UK, or people with origins in Somalis, regardless of ethnic origin, in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is on individuals with Somali ancestry. Gateway did apparently resettle the first few Somalis through its program in 2010, but that program started several years earlier. 2004-2012 makes it clear that 418 is the total number of Somalis that it resettled in those eight years rather than in just the three years between 2010 and 2012. This is obviously what Gateway itself intended since it doesn't put a dash through the earlier years; it instead leaves them blank, like the other places of origin. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The blanks in the table indicate zero values though. The total is accounted for by those three years as 172+93+153=418. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that. The point is, Gateway started with 2004 (not 2010) for a reason i.e. to make it clear that 418 is the total for those eight years rather than in just the three years between 2010-2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to indicate both the total over the course of the programme and to indicate when Somalis started to be resettled though? I don't see it as either/or. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gateway doesn't indicate what was its resettlement schedule. For some populations, it has a blank entry in some years, then a given number of resettled individuals the next year. It's therefore most accurate to simply note what it does i.e. that 418 Somalis were resettled through the program between 2004 and 2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's because it has resettled refugees from those countries in some years and not others. We have reliable sources saying that it started resettling Somalis in 2010, so I don't see why that can't be mentioned alongside the total. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That implies that Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program, although it doesn't indicate this in its Table 1. What Gateway notes is that it resettled 418 Somalis between 2004 and 2012. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how it is worded. We could say something like, "as of 2012, 418 Somalis had been resettled in the UK under the Gateway Protection Programme, which was launched in 2004. The first Somalis were resettled in the UK in 2010". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"As of" leaves open the possibility that Gateway is still resettling Somalis through its program, although it doesn't indicate this in its Table 1. "Between 2004 and 2012, 418 Somali refugees were resettled in the UK through the Gateway Protection Programme, with the first of the migrants arriving in 2010" is more accurate. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's great - certainly better than my wording. Do you want to add that to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, and noted that Gateway is British government-run. Middayexpress (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Good job. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Khat

Comments are requested on whether this article should include a section on khat use amongst Somalis in the UK (it was in the article for years, but then recently tagged as undue and then removed), and if so, how extensive it should be. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The khat material notes twice that the plant was made illegal in the UK in June 2014; in the first sentence and again later on. The first phrase is redundant and awkwardly placed, as khat isn't illegal in its traditional place of cultivation. It was also made illegal in the UK only a few months ago, which is already noted further down. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's mentioned at the start is that otherwise, the reader gets lots of information about khat use that predates the ban, without knowing that it is now illegal, only to find that out at the very end of the paragraph. I agree that it's not an ideal structure though. The problem stems from the fact that the paragraph was written before khat was banned, and that fact has been fitting in recently. Perhaps some sort of rewrite is in order? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence was awkard because it indicated that khat is a plant that is mainly grown in East Africa and the Middle East, and then right after that noted that it was made illegal in the UK in June 2014. This gave the impression that it perhaps has a similar legal status in its traditional area of cultivation, when it is actually legal there. The phrasing is also awkard since khat was legal in the UK too up until only a few months ago. The end placement therefore makes sense. However, the prose should be in the past tense, except for the first few sentences where khat's traditional function is noted. Middayexpress (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought the "illegal in the UK" part was clear enough, but never mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Midday, could you explain your rationale for adding an "undue" template to the khat section? Is it because you think one perspective on the khat issue is given prominence over other perspectives, or is it that you think the issue of khat as a whole is given too much prominence in the context of the article as a whole (or both/neither of those things)? Knowing that would help other editors comment. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See below. Middayexpress (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Slightly cryptic. Do you mean that the inclusion of any material on khat here is biased? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See below. Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the section partly due to it's WP:UNDUE but also because it has no reason to remain a section in the article but should fall under Khat just as Alcoholism in Britain is redirected to the Alcoholism#Epidemiology section. The sources you say are reliable twice mention insufficient medical evidence on effects on its users so it seems to me it's rather UNDUE. However, it does state that Somali community organizations have lobbied for it to be outlawed regardless of that and they aren't the only users of the drug. According to the 2014 NHS's Health and Social Care Information Centre, "64 per cent of men and 52 per cent of women in Great Britain." drank alcohol once a week 1 which seems to me higher than the proportion of Somalis in Britain who have tried Khat once in their lives according to the section. But that doesn't appear on the page but rather another page. That said, it should appear in its appropriate page, Khat. 26oo (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's best to throw it out. AcidSnow (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're applying some variation of the WP:OSE argument, 26oo. The fact that many British people drink alcohol doesn't mean we can't mention khat use on this page. While it is not only Somalis who use khat, it is an issue of significant debate in the Somali community, which is the subject of considerable coverage in reliable sources. Please also see the discussions here and here. There was consensus to add this material to the article and it has been there for a long time. Removing it requires careful consideration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång has recently edited this section, so it would be good to get their input, as well as other disinterested parties. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you yourself said were reliable said there was insufficient evidence of negative effect on the community. So why should it exist on the page? Just because it is consumed by people in the community doesn't mean it should be included. It's also noted that it is not exclusively used by the Somali community. I'm simply drawing parallels of evident bias and accommodating NPOV. If it has no significant bearing, there's no reason to include it. 26oo (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be included because the topic (khat use amongst Somalis) is the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Yes, there's debate about whether khat has negative effects, and views that it doesn't should be included for balance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is too long. Khat is an issue for Somalis but we don't need so much detail here. Now it is banned it is uncertain how much of the section still applies. It might be of historical interest however. BrumEduResearch (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As 26oo and AcidSnow note, there is indeed undue weight here on khat. Pretty much all major health authorities indicate that it is less harmful than tobacco, alcohol and all other similar substances [16]. The reason why the plant was proscribed a few months ago in the UK was because the Somali community itself sought its prohibition, not because the government concluded that it ought to be prohibited on medical or social grounds. On the contrary, both the Home Office and Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs found that there was insufficient evidence that the plant caused serious health or societal problems. Now that the plant has been prohibited, few if any in the UK even chew it anymore. This material thus clearly instead belongs on the khat main page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Now that the plant has been prohibited, few if any in the UK even chew it anymore" is a fact that we should include in the article. Can you provide a source for it? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The khat houses have been closed, and the shops that used to sell it have stopped doing so. While a few chewers anecdotally assert that some sellers still offer it underground, there has been only one major seizure since the prohibition and that was in a Bristol county back in September; some bags were also seized in January, but no arrests were made in connection. The Avon and Somerset Police reports that it instead only had to give three people warnings for possession and one person a caution. Additionally, the Somali Resource Centre indicates that the prohibition seems to have been effective, and that it all but destroyed the import market since the plant (unlike alcohol) has to be fresh in order to be consumed [17]. This only further underscores the undue nature of the material. Middayexpress (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As Middayexpress has also pointed out, it was the effort by the community to have it banned that made it proscribed even contrary to the advisory board. Much of the text on the page is dismissable as it alludes to a problem when there is none. Two studies were sanctioned and both came to a similar conclusion. It clearly states there's no evidence it has an effect on public health. There is no historical context of khat having a negative effect in the United Kingdom either. Since it has been banned, the debate now only exists on Wikipedia. 26oo (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

People still use banned substances. Problem with the article now is it says there is no negative effect but it was banned because of Somali lobbying, without saying why they lobbied. Fair enough to say the health effects are not proved but you also need to explain why Somali groups wanted it banned. BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as khat wasn't prohibited a few months ago when it was in wider use, nor was it a major problem per the UK authorities themselves. Now that the plant is a controlled substance, its use has all but disappeared, making the material all the more undue. Middayexpress (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So why was it banned and why did Somalis lobby for that? The reader is left confused about that. BrumEduResearch (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The reader obviously isn't left confused since a link-through is provided to the khat main page, where the larger prohibition drive is explained. Khat was also made a controlled substance specifically because Somali community groups lobbied for it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove That Khat is used by some Somalis is no more newsworthy for an encyclopedic entry on Somalis on the UK than the fact that Heroin use has gone up in the United States for an article on the American people. Khat is grown in Israel too, but there is no significant usage nor news. Drugs are a societal issues, but do not represent the people in the general sense. It does not belong. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that argument Juda, but khat use in Britain is or was quite specific to Somalis and its use amongst them was widespread. One study found a third used it [18]. This generated a lot of media and research attention and the community itself was instrumental in getting it banned. I do think we need to tell that story. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Home Office concluded therein that most of the participants who were using khat were using it moderately in terms of both the quantity used and the frequency and duration of chewing sessions, that khat use was typically a social activity, and that only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. This is noted on the khat main page, where the material belongs. Pretty much all major health authorities likewise indicate that khat is less harmful than tobacco, steroids, cannabis, alcohol, and all other similar substances [19]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we mention this? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. Middayexpress (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Detailed census ethnicity data

I've found the detailed ethnicity data (based on write-in responses) for the 2011 census for England and Wales, here, in case it is of use. You'll see that "Somali" was written in under a number of the broad ethnicity categories. What we don't know is how many of the people who ticked the "Arab" or "African" box would consider themselves Somali (and vice versa), so perhaps that limits the usefulness of the data. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Association of British Arabs has a breakdown of Somalis vis-a-vis the Arab categories taken from the ethnic write-in responses [20]. At any rate, this is one reason why the 85% Muslim figure is inaccurate. Noting that nearly all Somalis in the UK are Muslim is sufficient and certainly more accurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is they don't break down people who ticked "Arab" further, as it wasn't possible to tick "Arab" and write in something such as "Somali". It was an either/or choice, so we'll never know how many of the people who ticked Arab are Somali. That's a shame, because it means we don't have a comprehensive Somali ethnicity figure from the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

NABA indicates 45,475 Somali write-in reponses under the Arab categories, based on Table CT0010EW. But yeah, it means that there isn't a comprehensive population figure for ethnic Somalis. The 85% Muslim figure is also definitely inaccurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

45,475 is the total number of people writing in "Somali" under any heading (like I say, you couldn't write in anything under "Arab" - see the census form). The 45,475 is made up of the following:

White: Somali 743

Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Somali 621

Asian/Asian British: Somali 257

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Somali 37,708

Other ethnic group: Somali 6,146 Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Association of British Arabs aggregates all 45,475 Somali write-ins under the "Arab" categories, based on Census 2011 Table CT0010EW:

Arab 240,545

African Arab 3,393

White and Arab 10,058

Moroccan 6,651

North African 22,052

Other Middle East 30,052

Somali 45,475

Somalilander 6,249

White and North African 2,294

Total 366,769

And that's not even counting the ones obscured under the "Arab" main category. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the NABA has classified them as Arab, but if you look at the ONS figures themselves, 37,708 of the people who wrote in "Somali" did so under the "Black" heading on the census from (you could tick "Arab", but not write in anything under it). Anyway, it's all academic as those who ticked "Arab" are lost in that broad category, as you say. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, those Somalis wrote-in "Somali" under "African" (where Greater Somalia is geographically located), the latter of which was administratively juxtaposed with the "Black" category. Had "African" been juxtaposed with "Asian", the situation would be no different. The fact remains that the National Association of British Arabs aggregates all 45,475 Somali write-ins under the "Arab" categories. And that's indeed not even counting the ones who ticked the "Arab" main category. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agreed, they wrote it in under the "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British" heading, so could well have meant to categorise themselves as African but not necessarily black. We could mention that they were subsequently categorised as Arab by the NABA in the article, but presumably there are a large number who just ticked "Arab", so I think perhaps we just need to leave this ethnicity data out on the grounds that it gives an incomplete picture when it comes to Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You are presuming that all of those individuals are ethnically Somali, whereas there is no indication that they are let alone that they meant "Black" rather than "African". On the contrary, it is established that most Somalis either opt for the "Other ethnic group", "Arab" or "African" entries. What's certain is that the ones who wrote in "Somali" under "Other ethnic group" are definitely ethnic Somalis. Many of the Somalis who ticked "Arab" probably are too since all major ethnic Somali clans have Arab patriarchs. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there's no indication that they meant black. When you say "You are presuming that all of those individuals are ethnically Somali", though, what do you mean? If someone writes their ethnicity in as Somali on the census, we have to presume that they're Somali, don't we? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Somali" is also a nationality for Somalia citizens, and Somalia is geographically located in Africa [21]; so no, it obviously isn't that simple for the respondents who selected "African" (not "Black"). It only is straightforward for the respondents who wrote in "Somali" under "Other ethnic group", as well as for many of the respondents who ticked "Arab". Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the question asks about ethnicity, not nationality. I suppose it's possible that some people misunderstood the question and answered it with their nationality, but that's always going to be a problem with surveys that people complete themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The confusion stems from "African", which (like Asia) isn't an ethnicity but rather a continent. So no, this isn't merely a general survey problem. Middayexpress (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, true. It's quite well documented that the census categories mix racial, ethnic and geographical categories. I've been trying to note some of the academic criticism of the categories in the Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom article. Anyway, I think we're in agreement not to use these figures in this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they list "Somalilander"? All Somalis come from the same ethnicity. AcidSnow (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because that's what some people chose to write in to the box, I suppose. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

NABA indicates 6,249 such odd write-ins. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. I think you mean 51,000 since "Somalilanders" are ethnic Somalis. Also, what on earth is a "Somali Jamaican"? AcidSnow (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure if you wait long enough, someone will create a Somali Jamaican Wikipedia article, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps someday someone will create a Racism on Wikipedia page, though. Middayexpress (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? How many Somalis are in Jamaica and leaving to the UK for this to happen? AcidSnow (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Was this a bad thing to ask?!? AcidSnow (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused too. Midday seems to have created a redirect from Somali Jamaican to this page. Are there even Somali Jamaicans, and why would that be a redirect to an article about Somalis in the UK? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There are few if any. Racism on Wikipedia does unfortunately exist, though, much like Sexism on Wikipedia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for changing the redirect to Somali people. That makes more sense (I doubt very much that anyone will search for the term but there's no harm in the redirect existing, I suppose). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I now know what you're both talking about: "Somali Jamaican" is mentioned in the NABA report. I was looking at the ONS table and couldn't find it. It could well be someone with one Somali parent and one Jamaican parent, but we can't know what was intended when someone wrote it in. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What perhaps makes sense is a page on Racism on Wikipedia, much like the already extant Gender bias on Wikipedia. Time will tell, I suppose. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd support such an article if we could find reliable sources for it (I'm sure there must be some newspaper coverage, if nothing else), but I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion about ethnicity data from the 2011 UK census? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure :) Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[22]. AcidSnow (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem to work, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted the wrong link. Here's what I wanted to show: [23]. AcidSnow (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Debates on this page do sometimes leave me feeling like I've been through a hedge backwards! :-) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I feel like I should back out and just disappear from this section. AcidSnow (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are always welcome, although I don't think there's much left to discuss in this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It just that this section has taken a sharp turn. AcidSnow (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In what sense, AcidSnow? The discussion of racism? I did ask Midday what that had to do with this discussion, but didn't get an answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how you yourself admitted that this page had a problem with anti-Somali hate, I don't believe I needed to. This was already understood. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is some anti-Somali POV in the page archives (although I didn't "admit" that, which sounds like I was responsible for it - I pointed it out). I don't see what that has to do with this specific discussion on ethnicity data though. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I belive you are refering to Ackees. AcidSnow (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that discussion, AcidSnow. What I had in mind was much longer ago, and was highlighted by Midday here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what you wrote was that there's certainly been some anti-Somali hate on Wikipedia talk pages. You then softened that to only this page and its archive. Interesting, all the same and duly noted. At any rate, the apparent non-sequiturs did not begin with Racism on Wikipedia or even Homer Simpson, but rather with one Somali Cat Club. Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think mine and AcidSnow's images of a cat and Homer Simpson were plays on words/jokes, whereas I presume you are serious about the racism point? If you are, I think it would be simpler if you could (a) explain how this relates to the current discussion, and (b) report anyone you suspect of racism at WP:ANI. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The hypothesized Racism on Wikipedia page was about as much in jest as your Somali Cat Club weblink. However, your remarks on the anti-Somali hate were unfortunately not a joke, and they've certainly been and shall remain duly noted. Middayexpress (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But they seem to love the cat: "to work for a much wider appreciation of Somalis"? AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's no wonder: "With a Somali you will feel loved". :-) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AcidSnow for pointing out what the actual write-in responses were per NABA. I see now why you alluded to "Somali Jamaican", as it is the only entry of its kind in Appendix 3. The rest are either "Somali", "Arab", "British", and/or various combinations thereof [24]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, it seems that we may actually have a rough idea just how many Somalis ticked the "Arab" write-in response. The National Association of British Arabs provides the percentages for the countries of birth of UK Arabs in its Appendix 6. For Somalia-born individuals, that figure is 99,484, which is over twice the 45,475 total of the Somali write-in responses for "African", "Other ethnic group", "White", "Mixed/multiple ethnic group" and "Asian/Asian British". The Somalia-born total is also the largest among the UK Arab countries. Since most emigrants from Somalia are ethnic Somalis, this suggests that the majority of the remaining 54,009 respondents selected the "Arab" entry. This would in turn mean that Somalis represent the largest fraction of the 240,545 total respondents who ticked "Arab"; and that's not even counting those from other parts of Greater Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although we've already reported the figure for England and Wales (101,370 - 99,484 is for England) in the article. Also, don't forget that not everyone who considers themselves ethnically Somali will have been born in Somalia, so it's difficult to compare the figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Somali is an ethnicity, it's something you're born into. Though, half or any other type may have this question. And yes there are Somalis that have come from Greater Somalia as well. AcidSnow (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one could be born into Somali ethnicity in Somalia, or in the UK, or somewhere else. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. There are many that move from Sweden, the Netherlands, etc to the UK and bring their Dutch/Swede/etc. born children with them. AcidSnow (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The good (related) news is that the Annual Population Survey is being reweighted this year in light of the census results, so that will at least give us an up-to-date estimate of the total Somali-born population of the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is on UK residents with Somali ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It already includes country-of-birth statistics from the census and the Annual Population Survey. These reweighted figures would just be an update to those. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes AcidSnow, that is what I meant. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)