Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom

Welfare figures

I added the following text, which was cut out by Middayexpress as "undue":

"By 2013, 39 per cent of Somali households were claiming income support, and 40 per cent were claiming child benefit - both percentages higher than for any other ethnic minority within the UK. [Citation: Goodhart, David. The British Dream. Atlantic Books, 2013: p.230]

The comment against the edit which removed this text also said "welfare already discussed in proper context". Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I can't find such a section - or does Middayexpress mean "Employment"? In which case I can't see the figures I provided, or any equivalent to those figures. Please clarify a) should I be looking at another section of the article for this? b) if not, is there a good reason why I shouldn't include those figures with the citation?

(btw quite understand about the removal of the detail provided by a single anecdote.) Alfietucker (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The high intake of welfare is a function of the fact that most Somali immigrants in the UK are asylum seekers. It's not for the alarmist reasons that book insinuates. According to the Warwickshire Police Force and a report by ELWa, asylum seekers are not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency/UKBA) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed. This is explained further down the page, in its proper context. Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've again removed that Goodhart book. It is not on the Somali community specifically. Its statistics are also unsupported. Worse, going by its cited figures for the number of economically active Somalis, they appear to be outright false. Per the Office of National Statistics which actually collects this data, in the three months to June 2008, 31.4 percent of Somali men and 84.2 percent of Somali women were economically inactive. That's almost 70% of Somali men that are economically active, not the 30% figure which that book misleadingly claims. Huge difference, and says a lot about the reliability of the work as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, but at least accept that the paraphrase I had to remove from "Employment" (and have removed again) of the BBC article was misleading. I can understand someone misread what the BBC wrote - "including a high proportion of skilled professionals who have not been able to find work in their field in the UK" and so paraphrased it as "This includes skilled professionals who, while constituting a high proportion of Somali immigrants, have not all been able to find work in their field". But that paraphrase is flatly contradicted by the 3 per cent figure given by the Institute for Public Policy Research, cited in the "Education" section above. Alfietucker (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a contradiction because many of the qualifications that Somali professionals have obtained while in Somalia are not recognized in the UK. This leaves the not unusual situation of a doctor turned taxi driver, simply because his or her qualifications and experience are no longer recognized. Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not clear in the article as it stands, and if it's going to be said there it needs to be supported by a reliable citation to that effect. But I'm sure you know that already. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not meaning to be difficult, but the citation given did not substantiate the claim. I've removed the relevant sentence, but left the citation as it serves well for the previous sentence. Alfietucker (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a tab toward the bottom labeled "Full text". Once that it is clicked, it is explained that "the refugees who arrived in London during 1980s and 90s were often wealthy and educated, but found it difficult to find work here comparable to the work they had left behind" [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that and read that passage. But it doesn't say that they couldn't get work because their qualifications were not recognized (it could have been language problem, scarcity of suitable posts, lack of suitable experience compared to other candidates, etc.). What's needed is a citation that specifically says their qualifications were not recognized. Using the citation we had to claim this is WP:OR at best. Sorry. Alfietucker (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in part due to language. But also to the authorities for whatever reason choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many highly qualified asylum seekers [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right to infer this from the Guardian article, but even using this as a citation would be WP:OR since it nowhere mentions Somalis. As it is, AFAIK, the only reliable published citation in this article (relevant to this issue) that passes Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is the 3 per cent figure given by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Alfietucker (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an old figure and obviously doesn't take into consideration the qualifications of many Somali professionals: "An estimated 1,500 refugee teachers live in England, but many are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work. Sir Robert Dowling, headteacher of George Dixon International School in Birmingham, said his newest recruit, a science teacher, was a Somali refugee he had met at the school gates. His most recent job had been as a fork lift truck driver" [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then this is anecdotal. If we allow this, presumably an earlier edit you removed based on "a personal anecdote from one man" can equally be allowed since it is published in a reputable source. So either we allow both, or we need a more substantive citation based on some research to do with highly qualified Somalis in the UK. Alfietucker (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just found this, for instance, which suggests the problem for many Somalis is language (rather than HE qualifications). I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything about failure to recognize qualifications, or anything else of interest. Alfietucker (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've found a citation which seems to support that sentence (it may merit a more careful reading but a quick look over seems to suggest it does). I've reinstated that sentence and given it that citation. That's it, I'm calling it a day now. Alfietucker (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The main statement that many teachers "are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work" isn't an anecdote. At any rate, the assertion that only 3% of Somalis in 2005 had higher education qualifications is at odds with an earlier 2003 study by the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council in which 12% of the total sampled refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees, while around 20% of the sampled Somali refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees. Despite this, "among the Somalis interviewed, only a quarter of those with a professional background had found similar jobs in London[...] They were four times more likely to be working in semi-skilled or manual labour jobs than would be expected given their education and employment experience[...] There were similar proportions of people working in semi-skilled jobs across all the communities interviewed." This is pretty old, but it supports CARE's aforementioned assertion that the authorities for whatever reason are choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many refugee and asylum seeker professionals [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful of assuming that because someone has a qualification and they fail to get a job suitable for that qualification that means it has "not been recognized". One only has to see the fate of many graduates in this country, who don't immediately find suitable work, to realize that often the issue is relevant job experience, and that is often measured by references. I may be wrong here, but I imagine (for instance) that it's rare that immigrant Somalis would be able to provide referees from their former employers back in Somalia. In other words, there are probably other issues which prevent apparently well-qualified Somalis from getting work, which are not to do with their original qualification. I'm only spelling this out to present the grounds on which a less sympathetic editor may claim it's WP:OR to draw the inference you did from the BBC article you last instated as a citation. That's why I've shunted this a bit, and given the relevant sentence the Harris document as a citation (the link of which, btw, was "dead" but I've now fixed). All best, Alfietucker (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's indicated as well in the link above: ""There is a barrier for many refugees in terms of their qualifications," Ms Jones [of the London Development Agency] told the London Assembly. "They may have qualifications which are not recognised in this country and then find themselves having to effectively start again. "On the one hand we have got skills shortages in London and on the other hand we have a group of people with skills. With a little support they could be in work"" [5]. According to the AETLLSC, "not being able to get overseas qualifications recognised" is also one of the main barriers to employment [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Somali Education

Middayexpress - sorry, but you appear to have overlooked a rather crucial point about the survey carried out by Africa Education Trust: that is, it was based on the interviews of a *total* of 356 interviews, "refugees and asylum seekers living in Barnet, Enfield, Haringey or Waltham Forest", of which just 23 per cent were Somalis. Therefore the figures you blithely quote as representing the entire Somali community in fact only represents some 83 or 84 individuals - hardly representative of a community which numbers tens of thousands. We must be clear in presenting this in the article: not to do so, but to present the figures as if representative of the entire Somali group in the UK is inescapably WP:OR. Alfietucker (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Most surveys include limited samples. That's how they work since obviously not every last immigrant can be sampled. On the other hand, the IIPR paper did not sample any Somalis for their educational background. It just gives two figures but doesn't indicate which surveys if any those numbers were drawn from in the first place. The Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council paper, by the way, applies to Somali UK immigrants in general:

Large numbers of the Somali community live in Tottenham, Colindale, Edmonton and Edgware. In general the Somali community are highly educated. Approximately half had completed secondary education and a further fifth of those interviewed had completed university. Most Somalis had attended education or training courses in the UK and over half had done a course at FE or HE level. Most Somali women had accessed education or training in the UK. The vast majority of Somalis have English skills of intermediate level or above. Over half of the Somali community have worked in the UK. 20% of Somalis had worked in professional employment in Somalia. Many of these people had worked as engineers or teachers. Only 4% had found professional employment in the UK. Half had worked in semi-skilled or manual jobs in the UK compared to 13% in Somalia.

The foregoing is on page 23, in the section aptly titled Summary of each community [7] Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"On the other hand, the IIPR paper did not sample any Somalis for their educational background. It just gives two figures but doesn't indicate which surveys if any those numbers were drawn from in the first place". Presuming you mean IPPR, that's not true. The IPPR report in question is their Beyond Black and White. It uses Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04. However, the figures that were previously cited do not refer to all Somalis in the UK, rather than just those who had arrived in the previous ten years. The relevant quote is: "Education levels among the new Somali-born immigrants are the lowest of the countries compared, with the highest proportion of people having no qualifications (50.1 per cent) and the lowest proportion of those having a higher qualification (2.8 per cent)". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The educational levels of Somalis over a decade ago are outdated and do not reflect the current situation. The 2013 IPPR paper on the educational attainment of Somali students gives a 33% GCSE figure, but it concedes that its data is not robust. I've therefore replaced it with a 2014 La Sainte Union School study, which notes the actual latest GCSE figures for 2010-2012. Additionally, the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's detailed 2009 study on Somali students indicates that their attainment is rising and is directly related to relative command of English ("the evidence is that once Somali children reach a competent level of English, they forge ahead in their learning and can reach the highest standards" [8]). Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Which 2013 IPPR report is this? The one discussed above is from 2005. Anyway, there's no reason to remove mention of it. If there is more data now available, that can be added to the article - it doesn't have to replace what is already there. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've now added the IPPR and other material you deleted back in, while keeping your additions. I have to say though, the La Sainte Union School is just one school. Isn't it WP: UNDUE to be even reporting what this source says, when the topic is Somalis in the UK as a whole? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the data refer to one borough, not just that one school. Still, I think we need to be careful - what applies in Camden might be different elsewhere (or might not, but it would be better to rely on national sources where possible). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That editorial is not a reliable source [9]. Neither is the data from over a decade ago; that does not reflect the current situation. Also, the IPPR itself concedes in its paper that its data is not robust. The actual scholastic performance of Somali pupils is covered in detail in the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's 2009 study on Somali students in the UK. Additionally, the La Sainte Union School paper isn't for that one school, but rather for Camden as a whole. It notes specific GCSE results in keeping with what the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates. At any rate, per WP:BRD, changes of that magnitude first require discussion then consensus. WikiProject Africa regular AcidSnow already thanked me for my edit, so that's a start. If additional input is needed, I'll ask if it would be alright for me to alert the Somalinet forum members of this discussion. There are several thousand of them, so their expertise in this area should be helpful. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Economist isn't a reliable source now? That's news to me. You're also replacing much more than just that, including national-level research by educationalists (e.g. [10]), with data from just two London boroughs, Lambeth and Camden. That's odd if you ask me, but I'm happy to wait for others to give their views. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, data being old doesn't make it not a reliable source. Why can't the historical situation of Somalis be included in the article, if it is clearly identified which time period the data is from? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and can you provide a link for the claim that "the IPPR itself concedes in its paper that its data is not robust"? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that that specific Economist editorial was unreliable, not the news organization as a whole. This is because it is an editorial (which aren't reliable sources on living persons per WP:BLP), doesn't name its source for the GCSE figures (its numbers may have been drawn from a 2013 IPPR study [11]), and there are other factual inaccuracies as well [12]. The 2005 IPPR is a decade old and does not reflect the current situation. Additionally, the 2010 Strand paper is unrepresentative because its Somali sample is small (98 pupils), and the coding it uses is different from that used by the Local Authorities that actually tabulated the total number of Somali students in Table 4 (~33,979 students). Similarly, several of Rutter's suggested main factors for underachievement, particularly her claim that UK-born pupils of Somali heritage do not achieve better exam results than Somali-born children, are not borne out by the comparative data. As the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit notes, higher attainment among the Somali students is in fact directly related to English language proficiency ("Somali pupils' performance at KS2 increases at the stage of proficiency in English increases. Bilingual Somali speakers who were fully fluent in English were more likely to gain level 4+ than pupils who only spoke English" [13]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We now seem to be on the same page - or somewhat more, at least. On the editorial, I take your point, but does BLP apply here, per WP:BLPGROUP? On the 2005 IPPR report, I don't see that it being old discounts it. Sure, we shouldn't suggest that it necessarily represents the current situation, but the article isn't just about the current situation, is it? I would have thought there was space for historical material. On the Rutter point, her argument might not apply in the specific case of Lambeth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't apply elsewhere. She's not saying that her argument applies to each and every local area. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob. WP:BLP "applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages[...] such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies". BLPGROUP instead applies to "material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons. That said, how some pupils may or may not have performed a decade ago has no bearing on and should not be used against those of today, who are necessarily not the same students. The Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit also uses a series of case studies at various schools to represent the Somali student community as a whole. As such, it is not comparable with Rutter's dated speculations. Middayexpress (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP also states "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group". I wouldn't say that Somalis in the UK are a small group in this sense. Anyway, I've asked for opinions on the BLP noticeboard on that. The Lambeth study might well be representative of Somali pupils in Lambeth or perhaps even London as a whole, but what is to say it is representative of Somali pupils in, say, Cardiff? I think we need to draw on more sources that give a national picture (which is not to say we can't use the Lambeth source too).

Also, the IPPR data is not about pupils. It's about the education levels of Somalis in the Labour Force Survey. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the main aims of the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit study was to "discover factors which contribute to the success of Somali heritage pupils" in the United Kingdom and "to explore strategies used by schools to raise achievement of Somali heritage pupil". It did this "using a case study approach, [where] 7 primary and 2 secondary schools with high number of Somali pupils were selected". The 2005 IPPR data also pertains to over a decade ago, not now. It is therefore unrepresentative vis-a-vis the present per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. BLPGROUP applies to companies, coporations, etc.. For WP:BLP not to apply here, we'd have to be dealing with non-living persons or entities, which obviously isn't the situation ("Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page[...] People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise"). Middayexpress (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can help as I have just glanced this info. But if something is 10 years old, it obviously has problems in stat terms in the context of this article. I guess you could state the period in which it was accurate and that would fix that problem. It is also true no stats are inclusive of everyone, and sampling error is pretty common. I dont think I can add more than this as I have not monitored the issues heavily enough to offer more.--Inayity (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I'm not suggesting that the IPPR source is representative of the present. I'm suggesting that it be discussed in the past tense, as per Inayity's suggestion above. May I suggest the following wording?

"In the mid 2000s, research showed completed education within the Somali community to be low. For instance, in 2005 the Institute for Public Policy Research published analysis of Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04, and found that, of Somali-born immigrants who had arrived between 1990 and 2004 (who made up 761 of 812 Somali-born people in the sample), 50.1 per cent had no qualification and 2.8 per cent had higher qualifications". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Inayity wrote that such outdated data is statistically problematic. It is also contradicted by the contemporaneous Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, which indicates that: "In general the Somali community are highly educated. Approximately half had completed secondary education and a further fifth of those interviewed had completed university. Most Somalis had attended education or training courses in the UK and over half had done a course at FE or HE level. Most Somali women had accessed education or training in the UK." At any rate, WP:SCHOLARSHIP discourages outdated or controversial material ("some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field[...] try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That report is only making reference to London and is based on a smaller sample size, though. Moreover, there's a difference between scholarly material being outdated (e.g. claiming the earth is flat) and it being about a previous time period. I still haven't seen a good reason why this article can only include material on the present situation of Somalis in the UK, and not give a historical picture. Actually, I did include the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report in my edits alongside the IPPR one, but you removed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report's summary of each community on page 23 actually pertains to Somalis in the UK as a whole. The report directly contradicts the other contemporaneous paper's claims, and both are in any event outdated per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They'd be outdated if we were using them to describe the current situation. What's wrong with using them to describe the situation a decade ago? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we're dealing with actual people here and their purported qualifications. WP:SCHOLARSHIP also applies to such outdated, conflicting material in general; it's stated right there. Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how I understand that policy. As far as I understand, scholarly material is outdated when it is proven to be false, not when it simply refers to a past time period. Also, I'm yet to be convinced that BLP applies here. Anyway, let's wait for outside opinions since we're having difficulty agreeing on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated means its old and doesn't reflect the present situation. A decade worth of new arrivals will do that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, the article shouldn't discuss the history of Somali migration to the UK. As long as it's clear that the statistics are historical, I don't understand the problem. The article needn't only be about "the present situation". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information. Information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it. It requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current. We cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. I would actually go further and say that even if more recent information is available, it is still acceptable to include older data (as long as the more recent data is cited too), because it might be of historical interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, depending on context that could be the case. Especially if what is being described is a demographic progression or similarly.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, outdated means it has been superceded by more recent data. The stats weren't even necessarily accurate a decade ago. Another contemporaneous (not contemporary) example: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that the experience of other Muslim groups – particularly recent migrants like the Kosovars, Somalis and Afghans – is often not dissimilar, though Muslims of Indian (and East African) origin tend to have a higher socio-economic profile and higher levels of educational achievement" [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think statistical evidence can ever be superceded by anecdotal evidence. Though anecdotal evidence can supplement, critique and nuance statistical evidence. In this particular case I don't see exactly the relevance of the passage you quote?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, nor do I, particularly since the quote is about children, whereas the IPPR data is about the education levels of the Somali-born population of the UK as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just found data on the qualifications of Somali-born working-age adults in London in the 2001 census (table 5 here). It shows that the Somali-born group had the lowest percentage of people with higher level qualifications of all groups. That broadly fits with the picture suggested by the IPPR analysis of the Labour Force Survey. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, though; nor is it consistent with that small sample 2010 study (the one that asserted that Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first generation immigrant parents). The anecdotal evidence, though admittedly not statistical, likewise suggests otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but they had very small sample sizes compared to the number of people completing the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's also a good decade older than one of the other papers. Middayexpress (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. As stated many times above, I don't want to present it as current. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. WP:SCHOLARSHIP clearly discourages outdated material, which has just been defined as material that has been superceded by more recent information. In this instance, superceded by a good decade. Middayexpress (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have not shown that it has been superseded at all, sinc eyou havent presented any comparable data of a newer date.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see the thread below on the newer 2010 Strand study that Larry first linked to. The contradictory material is in it on page 141. Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also see my comments on why that data is not comparable to the IPPR data. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And please see my note below on the contemporaneous study exclusively on these qualifications, which is indeed not comparable with the IPPR's interpreted data [15]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were what it meant, we would have to delete the data in the table on asylum applications for the years before 2013, because it's been superseded by more recent information. We don't do that, because it's of interest to understand the historical situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion. This dispute isn't a great candidate for a third opinion, which is meant for disagreements where only two editors have participated. But since I've already read through everything, I'll give my two cents. Relying on 2001 census data isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean we should uncritically accept the 2002 study, which is just as dated and only studied Somali migrants in four boroughs in North London. If we want to mention it, we must (1) mention its year as we would do for any data, (2) describe its geographic limitations, (3) avoid it dominating the section like it does now, and (4) present it as subordinate, not equivalent, to the 2001 census data.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I asked for a third opinion inappropriately. Actually, User:Maunus contributed after I requested a third opinion, but I see that there were actually a couple of other contributors before then (although the vast majority of the discussion has been between me and Middayexpress). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the 2005 IPPR study, which is based on the Labour Force Survey? That's the biggest sample-size study we have for the whole country, as the census data is only for London. Also, any thoughts on use of the Economist article? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, no worries! If I had noticed that Maunus posted after the request was made, I wouldn't have even mentioned it. The IPPR report seems like a very strong source, and the Economist article also seems useful. Both seem stronger than the 2002 study, although it may still make sense to include a few points from that one in the proper context—I can't access the full text so I can't say for sure.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusion is my fault, I actually came here because I saw it ad WP:3O I just didnt remove it from the listing since I thought more participation would be better still.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Neil, the 2005 IPPR report is contradicted by a newer 2010 study that Larry himself linked to. The Economist editorial he links to above likewise does not identify from where it culled its purported nationwide education figure. By contrast, the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no such nationwide statistics are in fact available, nor is the size of the student population indeed even known [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I check what source the 2010 one is, Middayexpress? There's quite a few sources being discussed here and I can't remember which one that is just by the year. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the small sample Strand study I mentioned above and to which you responded that the census, though a good decade older, had way more respondents. Middayexpress (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue there is that those two sources are about different things. The 2005 IPPR analysis of the LFS presents data on the proportion of Somalis in the UK who have each level of qualification, from none up to higher degree level, as does the London census source. The 2010 Strand study is about the GSCE results of Somali pupils in British schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual passage from the Strand study that I'm alluding to is the one that indicates that the sampled Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first-generation parents. That, like the 2002 Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, indeed directly contradicts the 2005 IPPR paper's claims. Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a contradiction. Just because Somali parents are better educated than some other groups, doesn't mean that Somalis as a whole have a high level of education. Firstly, not all Somalis are parents, and secondly it might be the case that the groups they're being compared to also have low levels of qualifications. If you want to provide a page number, I could look at the passage in more detail? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on page 141. And yes, it obviously is a contradiction because the 2005 IPPR paper claimed they had the lowest education levels among immigrants. Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPPR study says that Somalis had the lowest level of qualifications amongst immigrants who had arrived in the past 10 years, not amongst all immigrants, so it's not a contradiction. The lower-qualified amongst the other groups may well have been in the UK longer. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2005 IPPR paper claims that the education levels among the new Somali-born immigrants were the lowest of the countries compared. That is indeed a direct contradiction since the 2010 paper indicates that the sampled Somali parents tended to be better educated than the other sampled first-generation parents, including both the recent and more established immigrants. Middayexpress (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the Somalis who were surveyed in the 2010 paper aren't all newly arrived according to the definition that the IPPR study employs. The IPPR study indicates that longer established Somali immigrants have higher levels of qualifications. Also, not all Somalis are parents, and the 2010 paper is discussing parents only on p. 141. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What definition does the 2005 IPPR study employ for its "newly arrived"? It appears to allude to new Somali-born immigrants and adult qualifications like the 2010 report. Middayexpress (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's people who arrived from Somalia between 1990 and 2004. I've just realised that the 2010 source isn't actually talking about Somali parents, but Somali parents of current school pupils. That's an even smaller subset, which further explains the discrepancy with the IPPR figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition of "newly arrived" doesn't sound much different from that of the 2010 report. At any rate, like the contemporaneous Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report, a 2002 study by Goldsmith's College similarly indicates high levels of educational qualifications for Somali immigrants during the period. The study exclusively aimed to obtain a profile of the professional capacity of Somali nationals living in the UK. In conjunction with 26 Somali community organizations, the researchers interviewed respondents in seven different cities across Britain, and found that: "59% had a qualification from the Somali region, and 9.5% from outside Britain or the Somali regions. 11.5% had a degree or higher degree from the Somali regions compared to 3.5% from beyond Britain and the Somali regions. Since being in Britain, 14% had gained a degree and 12.5% were studying for a degree." The study also notes that "despite considerable skills and experience brought to Britain through previous employment, 'occupational downgrading' and 'segregation' was prevalent amongst respondents". It seems that this lack of recognition of prior qualifications gained in the Somali region may be why the 2005 IPPR's educational qualification figures are lower. The study concludes that: "the research found that the respondents were highly skilled and educated, often having achieved a large amount of employment experience" [17]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that different, no, but it is looking at the whole of the UK unlike the Africa Education Trust report, and includes a much larger set of Somalis than just parents of current schoolchildren, which is what the 2010 report focuses on. The Goldsmiths report sounds interesting. We could include data from that alongside the LFS data from the IPPR report. I'll have a read. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the Goldsmiths report (which was in part commissioned by the IOM), the IPPR paper isn't exclusively on Somali qualifications, nor were community organizations involved in its formulation. It's apparently just the authors interpreting other, already published data. Middayexpress (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2005 report contains IPPR's original analysis of raw Labour Force Survey data, which isn't published as such. It's available to download as a dataset, but then it needs to be analysed using statistical software to produce the kind of analysis that IPPR did. It's worth noting that the LFS is the largest household survey undertaken in the UK, is used to generate official government employment and unemployment data, etc. It's conducted to Eurostat standards and is generally a very highly regarded source of data. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is what I just wrote. The IPPR authors published their own original interpretation of other, already published data. They're not simply relaying government figures. Middayexpress (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not already published in any form that can be understood by a human without the use of statistical analysis tools. The dataset is just a massive file full of coding. In order to produce the kind of statistics that the IPPR did, they have to analyse that primary raw data, which is a skilled job and requires, amongst other things, the analyst to weight the data to make it representative, decide on the definitions that will be used, etc. The government hasn't published the figures that the IPPR have. They made the dataset available, which enabled the calculation of the figures, but they didn't publish the findings on the qualifications of Somalis. This guide will give you some idea of the work involved in calculating these figures. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate this with an example, I doubt very much that the British government publishes statistics on the average number of children that Austrian-born people living in Liverpool have. However, by downloading a LFS dataset and doing some analysis using Stata, I could generate those statistics. That doesn't mean that I'm interpreting already published data. I would be analyzing primary data collected by the government but not published in that form. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But regardless of that side issue, the fact remains that the Labour Force Survey is pretty much the best nationally representative survey that exists in the UK, which is why it is used for so much social scientific research. Analysis produced using it is a very good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress, if one of your objections to use of the 2005 IPPR source is that it's old, can I ask why you yourself replaced it in the article with an even older source, from 2002? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That was of course from before when I was aware of what WP:SCHOLARSHIP actually indicates on scholarly material that is "outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field". Hence, why I later replaced both with newer data. At any rate, the IPPR is not relaying government figures; it is indeed producing its own analysis based on publicly available raw data. You could probably do the same with that raw data, but that wouldn't make either of your interpretations necessarily accurate. By contrast, the Goldsmith researchers directly profiled Somali respondents, so there was no interpretation required on their part. Additionally, their study is exclusively on the professional qualifications of Somali nationals; that was its sole purpose. It was also facilitated by many Somali community organizations, and in part commissioned by the International Organization for Migration [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think our understanding of how the IPPR produced the analysis is now on the same page. Sure, they could have conducted the analysis inaccurately, but is there any evidence that they did? Has their methodology been criticised in other, reliable sources, for instance? There are potentials for inaccuracy in the Goldsmiths source too - for example sampling bias (e.g. the fact that community organisations facilitated it might mean that those Somalis with close ties to those organisations were selected to be part of the sample over other Somalis not known to the organisations). At least the LFS is statistically representative. That said, there is no reason why we can't use both the IPPR and Goldsmiths studies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Labour Force Survey didn't actually produce those figures; the IPPR authors did based on their own analysis of the Labour Force Survey's raw data. How broad the Labour Force Survey's sample is thus doesn't make the IPPR's analysis any less of a methodologically obscure interpretation. On the other hand, the Goldsmiths report directly profiled actual Somali respondents. It also notes therein several measures that the researchers put in place specifically to avoid any sampling bias. I don't think either paper should be used, as they are over a decade old and don't reflect the current situation and they are in competition with each other. I just linked to the Goldsmiths paper to show you that even at that time, the IPPR paper's interpreted figures were not necessarily accurate at all. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the same as all research using the LFS. The data is made available to researchers who then analyse it and publish the results. There were many actual Somali respondents in the LFS sample. Can you explain in what way the IPPR analysis is "methodologically obscure"? You seem to be suggesting that there are faults with their analysis, but haven't actually specified what these faults are. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the sources coming to alternative conclusions, I quote WP:VERIFY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that the IPPR itself already explained the discrepancy between its own earlier Labour Force Survey-derived tabulations and the actual, higher educational qualifications of its Somali immigrants. It has to do with the LFS' own questions. From the IPPR:

"The LFS includes questions on qualifications based on equivalent National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) levels, but using these variables to assess the qualification levels of immigrants is problematic since, due to difficulties assessing the UK equivalent of overseas qualifications, foreign qualifications tend to be characterised under a general ‘other qualifications’ heading. As Manacorda et al (2006) note, when native-born respondents report holding ‘other qualifications’, this is generally indicative of very low-level qualifications, whereas when immigrants’ qualifications are classified in this group they are often of a much higher level. This results in the qualification levels of immigrants being under-estimated. In order to avoid this problem, we have used the measure preferred by Dustmann et al (2007): the average age at which each of our groups left full-time education."

The IPPR itself thus instead now uses, and recommends using, the age when the immigrants completed full-time education as a more accurate indication of their general educational levels. It indicates this on its Table 5.4; for Somalia nationals, that age is 17.5. This, then, would be the actual measure to go by [19]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although the IPPR study doesn't report a high proportion of Somalis reporting "other qualifications". Many answered the LFS question with "no qualifications". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right, it doesn't. The IPPR indicates that foreign qualifications tend to be characterised on the LFS under a general 'other qualifications' heading. And it's this 'other qualifications' heading that is subsequently misinterpreted because for native-born residents, holding 'other qualifications" usually means that they hold very lower-level qualifications. This is then wrongly assumed for foreigners as well (especially those with unrecognized degrees), the end result being that they are registered as having no qualifications. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that doesn't really prove to be a problem here, because the IPPR analysis isn't reporting many Somalis in that "other" group. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good find. I'm not sure we can imply that that explains the discrepancy (I think stating that in the article would be OR, because there are other possible explanations), and average age of leaving education is measuring something different from the percentage of a group who has each level of qualifications, but I'd support using that source in the article. Given your previous objection to "outdated" sources and that it's from 2007, would you object to that? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is from the IPPR's 2007 report i.e. published after its 2005 paper. Maunus wrote that "outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information[...] information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it[...] it requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current[...] we cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current." That is precisely what has just been demonstrated. The IPPR itself indicates that using the LFS' National Vocational Qualification levels -- as it previously did in its 2005 paper -- is problematic, as doing so underestimates the immigrants' actual qualifications, which "are often of a much higher level". Consequently, the IPPR has abandoned its own earlier methodology for the age when the immigrants completed full-time education. This would thus be the actual measure to go by. Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that it supersedes it as such, as it's a different measure (an average versus a percentage breakdown of qualifications). One could leave school education at 18 with no qualifications in theory, I suppose. The "are often of a much higher level" point applies to the "other qualifications" category, but that's not what I was proposing we include - it was the proportion who answered that they had no qualifications. I'm also a bit baffled that you were claiming that 2005 was too old but that 2007 is OK. Nevertheless, I agree that this is worth adding to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

2007 is old as well, but Maunus wrote that such material is still relevant if it hasn't been superceded by anything. This is apparently why you insisted on that 89.3% figure from 2001 for the number of Muslim adherents. At any rate, the IPPR's 2005 methodology is indeed different from its more recent 2007 methodology, and specifically because it scrapped that earlier methodology due to its inaccuracy for a newer one. It's written right there, so I'm not sure what's difficult to understand. Ergo, the IPPR's age when the immigrants completed full-time education would be the actual measure to go by. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you want to use the 2007 figures. I just don't understand why you thought a 2005 source had been superseded days ago, when you've only just found this 2007 source that you say supersedes it. But anyway, we don't need to agree on that I suppose. Do you want to add it to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me who indicates that the IPPR's 2007 methodology supercedes its own, earlier 2005 methodology; it's the IPPR itself. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: I think I've found some data on GCSE results that you might like. It's from 2012, covers the whole of England (sadly not the whole UK) and is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I'm just reading the article now. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Kindly link to it. I'd like to have a look at it and see if it's official and consistent with the Tower Hamlets local authority's GCSE scores. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how you'd assess that "consistency". It's an average for the whole country, so it probably won't be the same as Tower Hamlets. Anyway, here it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Who calculated the average and what is it, if I may ask? Middayexpress (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the author works for our friends at the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit, as it happens (I've only just noticed that!). I'm not sure yet whether he has calculated the average himself or whether he's just reporting an average from the government statistics - I'm still reading it. Either way though, the source is pretty much the best there is. As WP:RS says: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". As we've established, there's no complete ethnicity data for GCSE results available, because not all local authorities use the detailed ethnicity codes, but the article takes an alternative approach. It uses home language instead of ethnicity, which is apparently recorded by all schools in England. Of course, we'd have to note that it's based on language, not ethnicity (or country of birth, etc.). Does that sound OK to you? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed her name; she is indeed with the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit. The paper's methodology sounds interesting. I'd like if possible to read it first. I think I may be able to access a copy by tomorrow, so we'll discuss it then. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

His, I think. ;-) Here's another useful source. I should have done more searching on Google Scholar before! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Middayexpress (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to draft something to add to the article here on the talk page tomorrow, depending on how busy I am, to get feedback before hopefully being able to improve that education section. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What again was the GCSE in that 2014 LRSU paper? Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the journal article? I hope you agree that we should be selecting the source on how reliable it is, not whether we like the figure it provides or not! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two different topics being discussed here: the level of education held by Somalis in the UK (this is what the debate about the 2005 IPPR source relates to) and the performance of Somali pupils in British schools. Now that we're making some progress with the discussion, let's separate these two things out with subheadings. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Level of education of Somali population in the UK

There are two IPPR studies based on analysis of the Labour Force Survey that give us data on this. One, from 2005, looks at the proportion of Somali-born people who have each level of qualification (subject to caveats about the difficulties of classifying foreign qualifications) and the other, from 2007, gives an average education leaving age. I think we have everyone's agreement to use the latter one in this article. Middayexpress objects to use of the first one, but perhaps we can park that issue for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not me who indicates that the IPPR's 2007 methodology supercedes its own, earlier 2005 methodology; it's the IPPR itself, as shown above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they note some caveats about their previous figures. However, they clearly still think the qualifications breakdown is of value, because they return to using it in subsequent research such as this from 2008. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, please post a quote or screenshot from that closed access paper demonstrating this. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I will do, but my copy is at work, so it will have to wait until next week. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BURDEN says nothing about me having to provide a quote or screenshot, but that the burden "is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Anyway, I'm happy to go above and beyond. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good, because that verifiability policy indeed stipulates this ("When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy"). Please oblige. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, except I haven't actually proposed a piece of text based on that source yet. I will do when I have it to hand though, and will happily provide you with quotes to support it as you see fit. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Somali pupils

Right, I said I'd come up with some suggested text for the article based on the new source that I found. Here goes:

No reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom. Central government does not collect educational attainment data for specific migrant groups. Individual schools and local authorities can collect data using extended ethnicity codes, which provide a higher level of detail than the standard classification used in the UK. However, this is not the case in all local authority areas, including some ethnically diverse ones. As Rutter states, "It should be noted that the central government is extremely reticent to carry out a national analysis of educational outcomes by extended ethnicity codes, and spending cuts mean that fewer local authorities are now undertaking such analysis". However, Demie adopts an alternative approach to understanding the educational attainment of minority groups. He notes that while nationwide data by ethnicity is not available, since 2007 local authorities have been required by government to collect data on the main language spoken in the home of pupils, where that language is not English. He presents data from the National Pupil Database on pupils in schools in England who completed their GCSEs in the summer of 2012. Amongst the 2,748 pupils categorised as Black African whose home language was recorded as Somali, 47 per cent achieved five or more GCSEs including in maths and English at grades A* to C. This compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils and an overall average for pupils in England of 59 per cent.

References

There's more information in that source that we could usefully use as background material for the article, but I thought I'd stick to the above for now. We can expand the section further if there is agreement on adding this text. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I have no issue with the above text, I think it is suitable to be addedNograviti (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Larry, I've not managed to access all citations. The second half of the paragraph reads very well, however, I think there should be much less commentary on the trials and tribulations of data supply which currently occupies the first half of the paragraph, particularly as well because it distracts the reader from getting to the meat of the paragragh. It would be enough to say there are problems and limitations reported by commentators on accessing nationally-based data but useful (or sound) data based on 'pupil database returns' which are standardised across LA's is available. I do think there is more valuable information on the rise of achievement of the Somali community over the last 10 years or so and on barriers to achievement refered to in reference 1 which could be included in the section, particularly as by far the substantial majority of Somali's live in London where the study was undertaken. Tmol42 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tmol42. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this be the totality of the section. I agree that we should make use of the material on London as well. That's already in the article, hence why I was focusing on this part for now, but we need to think about how they fit together as I've used some material already in the article in the passage above. I sort of agree about the data supply discussion, but also feel that it is necessary to explain why the data is about language groups rather than ethnic groups per se. Any suggestions on how that could be explained more briefly would be gratefully received. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The passage could certainly be condensed to focus on the main figures. Also I think we are all in agreement here that the intention is not portray Somali academic attainment in the UK negatively, but merely provide accurate national figures and show improvements in average attainment where possible.Nograviti (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to show how things have changed over time. Middayexpress has been opposed to using historical statistics (which are obviously required if we want to demonstrate trends over time) if there are more recent figures available, but perhaps he will reconsider? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence starting "As Rutter states..." could be shunted to a footnote? That would help us get to the data more quickly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what WP:SCHOLARSHIP indicates. On this point, Maunus wrote that "outdated means that it has been superceded by more recent information[...] information about 2001 is not automatically outdated and as long as it is the most recent and it is specified that it is from that date it is not problematic to use it[...] it requires a reliable source to state that the numbers for 2001 are no longer current[...] we cannot simply dismiss it because we assume them no longer to be current." Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying that you agree we can use old figures to compare with newer ones to demonstrate how Somali pupils' performance has improved, or that you don't think we should do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying the same thing as the post above from 23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you not just answer my question? Do you think we should show how Somali pupils' performance has improved over time or not? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did answer that: Maunus wrote that such material is still relevant if it hasn't been superceded by anything. This is apparently why you insisted on that 89.3% figure from 2001 for the number of Muslim adherents. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't specifically address whether new and old data can be compared. Anyway, they obviously can be, as is pointed out by another editor below, so it's fine to demonstrate how the performance of Somali pupils has improved over time. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, the paragraph above is unsatisfactory. First, that no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom should be sourced to an official governmental body; in this instance, to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit ("No reliable national Somali data is available or collected by DCSF" [20]). Second, Rutter's discussion of various ethnicity codes is not on why there are no reliable nationwide statistics available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils, but instead "about integration". As such, it is irrelevant here. Lastly, Demie does not use a racial approach in his paper, but rather a linguistic one. What he writes is that "Somali and Lingala speakers tend to have very low attainment compared to other groups", and provides a 47% GCSE for Somali students. In his more comprehensive 2008 paper exclusively on Somali students, he likewise distinguishes the Somali pupils from the "Black African" students. Demie explains that [21]:

"The issue of Somali underachievement is complicated by the problem with categorisation of ‘Somali’ which is broadly defined nationally as African. As a result of the lack of data there were various limitations in past research into Somali underachievement in British schools. The absence of national comparative data which identifies patterns of children of Somali origins, places serious constraints on effecting targeting policy and practice developments at national and local level. However, recently a number of London Local Authorities with high Somali school populations began monitoring and collecting data which has provided an interesting example in research evidence."

The Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit assertion above on Somali pupils should therefore instead be noted in place of the Rutter synthesis. Attempted racial categorization is also inappropriate for this population, as the IPPR explains: "Ethnic categories such as ‘black African’ fail to capture the differences between those born in countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kenya and Somalia[...] Comparing ethnic groups with country-of-birth groups is also problematic because some countries’ populations may contain multiple ethnic groups" [22]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it quite difficult to follow your argument there. You say that the point about no nationwide figures being available should be sourced to the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit. If you read the references, you'll see that that's exactly what I've done (although it isn't a requirement of WP:RS that the source be government). The point about the "Black African" category failing to differentiate between Somalis, Nigerians, etc. is exactly why he focuses it down to Somali speakers. How many Nigerians speak Somali at home? Rutter's statement is not irrelevant; it's an explanation of why national statistics by ethnicity aren't available. There is no "attempted racial categorization"; Demie uses a linguistic categorization, as you yourself point out. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, In respone to your request @15:56 above my condensed version below. Agree a note of the context could be relegated to a footnote.

Although no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom ^[1][2] some schools and local authorities collect data using extended ethnicity codes. Additionally, since 2007 local authorities have been required by government to collect data on the main language spoken in the home of pupils, where that language is not English as part of the National Pupil Database. In the summer of 2012, of the 2,748 pupils categorised as Black African whose home language was recorded as Somali, 47 per cent achieved five or more GCSEs including in maths and English at grades A* to C. This compares to 58 per cent of all Black African pupils and an overall average for pupils in England of 59 per cent.^[5]

Btw I have failed to understand what is meant in all the chat coming back to you since then. is it just me or is me that finds it all totally opaque or worse?Tmol42 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy with that version. I think Midday needs to try to express his objections to using these figures more succinctly, because I don't understand the reply above either. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, that no reliable nationwide statistics are available on the educational attainment of ethnically Somali pupils in the United Kingdom should be sourced to an official governmental body, as it's the government that gathers this data. The Lambeth Research Statistics Unit explains that no such data is collected by the DCSF, so it should be sourced to it. Further, Rutter writes that local authorities in England analyse data using broad ethnic categories, but they can also use extended ethnicity codes. In reality, this data processing varies greatly between local authorities (e.g. Camden [23]). Her explanation as to why there is a dearth of nationwide stats on Somali students is also inconsistent with the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit's official explanation (shown above). The official governmental explanation is therefore more reliable here. Additionally, there is indeed attempted racial categorization in that draft paragraph above. Demie however does not structure his paper in this way; he instead uses a linguistic scheme. That aside of his is also from his 2008 report exclusively on Somali students, where he distinguishes his Somali students from his "Black African" pupils. It's not from his 2014 paper as you appear to assume [24]. At any rate, this discussion could use some actual Somali participants; I'll see to that shortly. I'll also write Demie later on today and link him to the page. His insight would certainly be valuable, given his position as probably the authority on Somali student attainment. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be great to get Demie's input, but I wonder how Wikipedia would treat his response. If it's by e-mail, I presume that can't be used as a source as it won't be published. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Argh! It is sourced to Lambeth. See reference 1! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the education section only on London. Somalis live in other place to.

"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)

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)

Islam & nationality

The ~89% figure for Muslim adherents is inaccurate, as many Somalis were undercounted [25]. 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" [26]. "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 [27]. 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 [28]. 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% [29]. 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)

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)