This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opposition to immigration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"higher levels of education lead to a more positive reported attitude toward immigrants" is simply wrong if you look at the article, since it implies a causality. But the source doens't neccessarily imply that higher levels of education cause a more positive reported attitude, but instead that people with higher education places people in situations where they suffer less from the negative consequences of immigration, therefore they have a more positive attitude towards immigrants. The quote from the noted source that proves it is the following: "We find that higher levels of education place individuals in occupations that are less exposed to the negative effects of migration, although not in sectors/occupations where the share of migrants is necessarily smaller, suggesting that migrants and low-educated natives may be complementary rather than substitutes in the labour market.". I'm changing the text slightly to a more neutral POV. (31.03.2016, 17:09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 ( talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Chock full of weasel words, POV, and severely lacking in citations. The entire article should either be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.209.239 ( talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alcides ( talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I Agree!
- This is an absolutely horrible article. Mass immigration to Europe is slowly resulting in the destruction of the European peoples - they are becoming minorities in their own homelands and eventually will cease to exist. 40,000 years of history gone. As this is the most significant migration of people in human history, transforming Europe into another brown continent, and this article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.80.195 ( talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this article would be a good example of how incredibly inaccurate Wikipedia can be. I removed two paragraphs about immigration and crime that were full of misinformation, but this whole article should really be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.75.146 ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
#negativeperson101
Both this article and the Nativism (politics) article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The Argument and Counter-argument section seems biased because it mainly applies to immigration in the United States. It would be one thing if it were put in a counter US argument, but it's in the main article here. What about Europe or Asia? They are far more powerful as a whole compared to the USA. The general argument and counter-argument section needs to also be inclusive of Europe and Asia. Why is everything on Wikipedia America-centred? 206.113.132.130 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
allrite good job: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubO777 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Alcides ( talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Missing citations and precisions.
I do not see any reason to have a counter opinion part in this entry. 82.128.132.130 ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need to have a counter opinion party in this entry. Another entry can be made for proponents of immigration, but this part comes across as defensive, dismissive and not particularly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.207.16 ( talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I don't see why the counter arguments are written as "proponents cite" while "opponents say" for the arguments. this is written like a POV debunk. though such naive writing can be seen in many articles. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel this should be revisited. If you look at the pages for counter opinions, each of them has a "criticisms" section associated with them. It seems strange to go to lengths to show both sides on an argument on one set of pages, but leave other pages only showing one side. Ultimately there should be some consistency in the editing policy, so we either need to come down on one side or another and then edit appropriately. Remove all of the counter opinions from articles, or allow counter opinions on all articles? 020JLC ( talk) 19:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
"the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. Due to a lack of cheap labor, industries would be forced to raise prices, which may put an economic burden on the public. Some industries would be forced to relocate overseas."
I'm removing all the scare quotes, except those surrounding "steal jobs" since it is a colloquial expression.
indeed , this is weasel terminology , where do they steal job? why is immigration a viable sure counter to outsourcing? why should immigrants work for less or stay ? who benefits from the cheap labour and who looses? does subsidizing the cheap labour costs the same anyway? 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) also note that your removal was restored by someone .. such cases 79.176.49.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Opposition to immigration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ssb":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.-- Sum ( talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made referance with regard to the Japan section. While their has been an increase of racism toward foreigners in Japan including a push for new immigration control there also has been a push for more immigration due to the aging population and faultering economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"Maintaining an original ethnic structure, government, and overall citizenship, is the base argument of all opposition to immigration."
Totally neutral, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 ( talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Racism is the belief that some races are more worth or capable than others and that the human kind is divided into such higher and lower races. Opposition to immigration in Europe don't have such charactreistics and has more to do with wanting the land of their forfathers to belong to their children, and this is right and moraly higher than to say otherwise because their forfathers want to give it to them and it is their blood and sweat that has made it, the fear of the consequenses of immigration in national and personal manners (racism toward them, cooperation of groups etc.), economics and lose of welfair trough the disruption of peace and trough crime. I am an European and have never heard any racist remarcs from parties that don't want immigration. But I do have to say that the people who are pro immigration tend to value their etnich European population less than others, and is therefore closer to having a racist ideology.
I do therefore think that we should romove the term nationalist and racism in general from this article. And exchange them fore more netral terms. Rather than use the propaganda apartus of different people who want some end. This reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8639097.stm, does even not come close to a quality reference and does not say much of what he have written. I think we should remove it. Olehal09 ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You have expressed your opinion on immigration several times now, but that is irrelevant to content creation here, so be careful not to violate our talk page guidelines by using this page as a soapbox for your opinions. Most people who have done what you have been doing would have already been blocked, so don't do it anymore. We are interested in what sources say.
The dispute above is regarding your proposal to remove properly sourced content which doesn't even mention racism (by word), here it is:
Our statement is a short and accurate statement about what the source says. We don't mention whether the BNP is racist, or if that is their motivation. We just state their opposition, and that's what the source says. I don't see any problem.
What is your objection to that source? -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably. But it is the use of the word 'environmental' that concerns me. There must be a better word for concerns involving logistics, infrastructure, land use, etc. That the word 'environmental' has been linked to the article environmentalism only points out the inappropriateness. "I'm sorry Mr. Chinaman, but the needs of the rosy-footed, golden-winged Appalachian hover bunny means we can't accept you! (Har-har!)" Really? Can we find another word that doesn't have current inappropriately wide-ranging associations? As it is, it's like using 'air-breathing' instead of 'human'. Oooo, that'd be something PETA would like. Shenme ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The list of arguments in opposition to immigration all are titled "fear of". Given the negative connotations that the word "fear" has, this is an example of this article having a non-neutral POV. I will change these headings to more neutral terms that reflect their beliefs about immigration, not how their beliefs are perceived by certain outside observers. 73.20.33.105 ( talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about opposition to immigration, references to support statements on disease as a 'fear' need to reference that opposition not just be general medical statements that disease can be transferred by travellers of any type. The next was OR and read as if such opposition was based on medical facts which is not acceptable ---- Snowded TALK 08:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Text keeps getting re-added that cites an article in the "Medical Journal of Zambia", an article in the "International Journal of Science and Research" by MA students, and other rubbish publications as evidence that highly skilled emigration hurts the sending countries. The notion of a "brain drain" is a myth in the econ literature, as substantiated by three experts on migration and development, and literally dozens of studies (if you want more, I can add them). Please remove this fringe BS, it's doing a disservice to Wikipedia and misleading readers. It's fine to say "some opponents claim that emigration harms the sending countries" (true) but not to state as fact that emigration does harm the sending countries (false).
This is not the only content in this Wikipedia article that cites bottom-of-the-barrel sources. The article is a mess for the most part. I encourage editors to seriously sift through the content here and fix these problems. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
So User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my changes saying "there is absolutely no reason why this article should randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany, UNDUE. i removed the fringe brain drain text (garbage publications) out of sync with all quality research on the topic."
I strongly contest this revert and wish to restore it, because:
I'd be ok with leaving the info on the "Dillingham Commission" up even though I'd consider it a relatively random point of historic reference of which there are many.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Text citing this source needs to be reworded: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/economic-and-cultural-drivers-of-immigrant-support-worldwide/02BBCF09B063FCD0C252B6D78E748DE8. Ping Diannaa see this edit, perhaps you can remove the offending versions? AadaamS ( talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/; https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/07/canadian-attitudes-towards-immigration-hardening-poll-suggests.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a Template:Unbalanced dated September 2019 - there does not seem to be a discussion dated September 2019. What are the outstanding issues? A Thousand Words ( talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Certainly in the UK 73% believe the UK is over populated. How has this, perhaps the most important motivation for anti-immigration sentiment, been left out?
Even when there is no housing problem people often hate the idea of expansion of cities, new building of sky scrapers and change.
Should this article use the terms 'blacks' or 'gypsies', I understand that it is accurate to the time, but in this modern era, shouldnt we be using words like 'african american' and 'romani' Headisoff ( talk) 01:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
In the opening opposition to immigration is classified as a political ideology. However, I don't see a source on this page that explicitly states as such. Opposition to immigration appears more of a political position to me, rather than a political ideology. Can anyone provide a reliable WP:SYNTH complying source that explicitly calls it one of these two? Helper201 ( talk) 10:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opposition to immigration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"higher levels of education lead to a more positive reported attitude toward immigrants" is simply wrong if you look at the article, since it implies a causality. But the source doens't neccessarily imply that higher levels of education cause a more positive reported attitude, but instead that people with higher education places people in situations where they suffer less from the negative consequences of immigration, therefore they have a more positive attitude towards immigrants. The quote from the noted source that proves it is the following: "We find that higher levels of education place individuals in occupations that are less exposed to the negative effects of migration, although not in sectors/occupations where the share of migrants is necessarily smaller, suggesting that migrants and low-educated natives may be complementary rather than substitutes in the labour market.". I'm changing the text slightly to a more neutral POV. (31.03.2016, 17:09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 ( talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Chock full of weasel words, POV, and severely lacking in citations. The entire article should either be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.209.239 ( talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alcides ( talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I Agree!
- This is an absolutely horrible article. Mass immigration to Europe is slowly resulting in the destruction of the European peoples - they are becoming minorities in their own homelands and eventually will cease to exist. 40,000 years of history gone. As this is the most significant migration of people in human history, transforming Europe into another brown continent, and this article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.80.195 ( talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this article would be a good example of how incredibly inaccurate Wikipedia can be. I removed two paragraphs about immigration and crime that were full of misinformation, but this whole article should really be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.75.146 ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
#negativeperson101
Both this article and the Nativism (politics) article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The Argument and Counter-argument section seems biased because it mainly applies to immigration in the United States. It would be one thing if it were put in a counter US argument, but it's in the main article here. What about Europe or Asia? They are far more powerful as a whole compared to the USA. The general argument and counter-argument section needs to also be inclusive of Europe and Asia. Why is everything on Wikipedia America-centred? 206.113.132.130 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
allrite good job: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubO777 ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Alcides ( talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Missing citations and precisions.
I do not see any reason to have a counter opinion part in this entry. 82.128.132.130 ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need to have a counter opinion party in this entry. Another entry can be made for proponents of immigration, but this part comes across as defensive, dismissive and not particularly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.207.16 ( talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I don't see why the counter arguments are written as "proponents cite" while "opponents say" for the arguments. this is written like a POV debunk. though such naive writing can be seen in many articles. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel this should be revisited. If you look at the pages for counter opinions, each of them has a "criticisms" section associated with them. It seems strange to go to lengths to show both sides on an argument on one set of pages, but leave other pages only showing one side. Ultimately there should be some consistency in the editing policy, so we either need to come down on one side or another and then edit appropriately. Remove all of the counter opinions from articles, or allow counter opinions on all articles? 020JLC ( talk) 19:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
"the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. Due to a lack of cheap labor, industries would be forced to raise prices, which may put an economic burden on the public. Some industries would be forced to relocate overseas."
I'm removing all the scare quotes, except those surrounding "steal jobs" since it is a colloquial expression.
indeed , this is weasel terminology , where do they steal job? why is immigration a viable sure counter to outsourcing? why should immigrants work for less or stay ? who benefits from the cheap labour and who looses? does subsidizing the cheap labour costs the same anyway? 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) also note that your removal was restored by someone .. such cases 79.176.49.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Opposition to immigration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ssb":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.-- Sum ( talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made referance with regard to the Japan section. While their has been an increase of racism toward foreigners in Japan including a push for new immigration control there also has been a push for more immigration due to the aging population and faultering economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"Maintaining an original ethnic structure, government, and overall citizenship, is the base argument of all opposition to immigration."
Totally neutral, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 ( talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Racism is the belief that some races are more worth or capable than others and that the human kind is divided into such higher and lower races. Opposition to immigration in Europe don't have such charactreistics and has more to do with wanting the land of their forfathers to belong to their children, and this is right and moraly higher than to say otherwise because their forfathers want to give it to them and it is their blood and sweat that has made it, the fear of the consequenses of immigration in national and personal manners (racism toward them, cooperation of groups etc.), economics and lose of welfair trough the disruption of peace and trough crime. I am an European and have never heard any racist remarcs from parties that don't want immigration. But I do have to say that the people who are pro immigration tend to value their etnich European population less than others, and is therefore closer to having a racist ideology.
I do therefore think that we should romove the term nationalist and racism in general from this article. And exchange them fore more netral terms. Rather than use the propaganda apartus of different people who want some end. This reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8639097.stm, does even not come close to a quality reference and does not say much of what he have written. I think we should remove it. Olehal09 ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You have expressed your opinion on immigration several times now, but that is irrelevant to content creation here, so be careful not to violate our talk page guidelines by using this page as a soapbox for your opinions. Most people who have done what you have been doing would have already been blocked, so don't do it anymore. We are interested in what sources say.
The dispute above is regarding your proposal to remove properly sourced content which doesn't even mention racism (by word), here it is:
Our statement is a short and accurate statement about what the source says. We don't mention whether the BNP is racist, or if that is their motivation. We just state their opposition, and that's what the source says. I don't see any problem.
What is your objection to that source? -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably. But it is the use of the word 'environmental' that concerns me. There must be a better word for concerns involving logistics, infrastructure, land use, etc. That the word 'environmental' has been linked to the article environmentalism only points out the inappropriateness. "I'm sorry Mr. Chinaman, but the needs of the rosy-footed, golden-winged Appalachian hover bunny means we can't accept you! (Har-har!)" Really? Can we find another word that doesn't have current inappropriately wide-ranging associations? As it is, it's like using 'air-breathing' instead of 'human'. Oooo, that'd be something PETA would like. Shenme ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The list of arguments in opposition to immigration all are titled "fear of". Given the negative connotations that the word "fear" has, this is an example of this article having a non-neutral POV. I will change these headings to more neutral terms that reflect their beliefs about immigration, not how their beliefs are perceived by certain outside observers. 73.20.33.105 ( talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about opposition to immigration, references to support statements on disease as a 'fear' need to reference that opposition not just be general medical statements that disease can be transferred by travellers of any type. The next was OR and read as if such opposition was based on medical facts which is not acceptable ---- Snowded TALK 08:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Text keeps getting re-added that cites an article in the "Medical Journal of Zambia", an article in the "International Journal of Science and Research" by MA students, and other rubbish publications as evidence that highly skilled emigration hurts the sending countries. The notion of a "brain drain" is a myth in the econ literature, as substantiated by three experts on migration and development, and literally dozens of studies (if you want more, I can add them). Please remove this fringe BS, it's doing a disservice to Wikipedia and misleading readers. It's fine to say "some opponents claim that emigration harms the sending countries" (true) but not to state as fact that emigration does harm the sending countries (false).
This is not the only content in this Wikipedia article that cites bottom-of-the-barrel sources. The article is a mess for the most part. I encourage editors to seriously sift through the content here and fix these problems. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
So User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my changes saying "there is absolutely no reason why this article should randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany, UNDUE. i removed the fringe brain drain text (garbage publications) out of sync with all quality research on the topic."
I strongly contest this revert and wish to restore it, because:
I'd be ok with leaving the info on the "Dillingham Commission" up even though I'd consider it a relatively random point of historic reference of which there are many.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Text citing this source needs to be reworded: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/economic-and-cultural-drivers-of-immigrant-support-worldwide/02BBCF09B063FCD0C252B6D78E748DE8. Ping Diannaa see this edit, perhaps you can remove the offending versions? AadaamS ( talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/; https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/07/canadian-attitudes-towards-immigration-hardening-poll-suggests.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a Template:Unbalanced dated September 2019 - there does not seem to be a discussion dated September 2019. What are the outstanding issues? A Thousand Words ( talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Certainly in the UK 73% believe the UK is over populated. How has this, perhaps the most important motivation for anti-immigration sentiment, been left out?
Even when there is no housing problem people often hate the idea of expansion of cities, new building of sky scrapers and change.
Should this article use the terms 'blacks' or 'gypsies', I understand that it is accurate to the time, but in this modern era, shouldnt we be using words like 'african american' and 'romani' Headisoff ( talk) 01:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
In the opening opposition to immigration is classified as a political ideology. However, I don't see a source on this page that explicitly states as such. Opposition to immigration appears more of a political position to me, rather than a political ideology. Can anyone provide a reliable WP:SYNTH complying source that explicitly calls it one of these two? Helper201 ( talk) 10:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)