This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Resident is a very big difference to citizen. The opinion is thus not valid, since the immigrant's culture/family is still responsible for the development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:BDA:C701:8C72:A0EA:BED2:4651 ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no differention to political persecution and thus need to flee over many countries. Also migration and political persecutees are intermixed, which does not make alot sense. Migration is clearly the subset of refugees and thus the title should be changed.
There is no differention to political persecution and thus need to flee over many countries. Also migration and political persecutees are intermixed, which does not make alot sense. Migration is clearly the superset of refugees and thus the title should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:BDA:C701:8C72:A0EA:BED2:4651 ( talk) 09:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
On most if not all other wikipdia articles the criticism section is placed near the end, is there any reason why this should be an exceptional case? As it is right now it makes the entire article reek of bias. 78.30.21.221 ( talk) 10:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The article's title is problematic and the various sections rely heavily on an (unpublished) Master's dissertation, without proper academic referencing. I agree that there is bias throughout this article, and the scientific basis of its claims are very weak.
The title is used by RSes. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40931369 Let us keep it. Zezen ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This just reads like a personal essay and probably should be deleted. What do other people think?
Jasper0333 ( talk)
Delete as synth. Cinadon 36 11:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve. There are low quality articles that are poorly written and contain errors in Wikipedia. However, this shouldn't be a reason to delete them, because, they can always be improved and redacted to sweep away its flaws. Besides, there are academic articles and books that prove subject's notability (e.g. Weapons of Mass Migration by M. Greenhill). Best regards.-- John the Janitor ( talk) 12:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Pretty difficult to improve the article, needs total reconstruction. There are structural issues. The article seems like a presentation, aiming to convince audience. Cinadon 36 13:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand I am thrilled to notice that a high quality source exists and gives us the potential to write a good article. Kelly Greenhill Cinadon 36 13:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the article is salvageable with major changes. At the moment, it's about two concepts: (1) political leaders engineering "migrant crises" to extract economic or geopolitical concessions from other countries and (2) politicians "using" the presence of refugees by whipping up fear for political gain.
I don't think these two concepts are natural fits to be combined into a single article. I do think there's a case for having a dedicated article on the first concept, although maybe under a more descriptive name like Weaponized migration. There are plenty of historical and contemporary examples and sources that cover it. The second concept is already to a large extent covered by a range of articles, especially right-wing populism, but also opposition to immigration, criticism of multiculturalism, nativism, and several others. There might be a case for having a dedicated article on it, but I'm skeptical because there's not a lot of coverage on this form of "weaponization" other than in the context of garden-variety nativist politicians.
Anyway, how would people feel about narrowing the focus of this article on the more literal weaponization of immigrants and refugees? Examples are Belarus' trafficking operation in Eastern Europe ( Belarus–European Union border crisis) and Erdogan's occasional threats to "unleash" Syrian refugees on Europe. Again, I would suggest changing the title, although we can leave that discussion for when the article is in better shape. Tserton ( talk) 13:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Resident is a very big difference to citizen. The opinion is thus not valid, since the immigrant's culture/family is still responsible for the development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:BDA:C701:8C72:A0EA:BED2:4651 ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no differention to political persecution and thus need to flee over many countries. Also migration and political persecutees are intermixed, which does not make alot sense. Migration is clearly the subset of refugees and thus the title should be changed.
There is no differention to political persecution and thus need to flee over many countries. Also migration and political persecutees are intermixed, which does not make alot sense. Migration is clearly the superset of refugees and thus the title should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ED:BDA:C701:8C72:A0EA:BED2:4651 ( talk) 09:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
On most if not all other wikipdia articles the criticism section is placed near the end, is there any reason why this should be an exceptional case? As it is right now it makes the entire article reek of bias. 78.30.21.221 ( talk) 10:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The article's title is problematic and the various sections rely heavily on an (unpublished) Master's dissertation, without proper academic referencing. I agree that there is bias throughout this article, and the scientific basis of its claims are very weak.
The title is used by RSes. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40931369 Let us keep it. Zezen ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This just reads like a personal essay and probably should be deleted. What do other people think?
Jasper0333 ( talk)
Delete as synth. Cinadon 36 11:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep and improve. There are low quality articles that are poorly written and contain errors in Wikipedia. However, this shouldn't be a reason to delete them, because, they can always be improved and redacted to sweep away its flaws. Besides, there are academic articles and books that prove subject's notability (e.g. Weapons of Mass Migration by M. Greenhill). Best regards.-- John the Janitor ( talk) 12:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Pretty difficult to improve the article, needs total reconstruction. There are structural issues. The article seems like a presentation, aiming to convince audience. Cinadon 36 13:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand I am thrilled to notice that a high quality source exists and gives us the potential to write a good article. Kelly Greenhill Cinadon 36 13:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the article is salvageable with major changes. At the moment, it's about two concepts: (1) political leaders engineering "migrant crises" to extract economic or geopolitical concessions from other countries and (2) politicians "using" the presence of refugees by whipping up fear for political gain.
I don't think these two concepts are natural fits to be combined into a single article. I do think there's a case for having a dedicated article on the first concept, although maybe under a more descriptive name like Weaponized migration. There are plenty of historical and contemporary examples and sources that cover it. The second concept is already to a large extent covered by a range of articles, especially right-wing populism, but also opposition to immigration, criticism of multiculturalism, nativism, and several others. There might be a case for having a dedicated article on it, but I'm skeptical because there's not a lot of coverage on this form of "weaponization" other than in the context of garden-variety nativist politicians.
Anyway, how would people feel about narrowing the focus of this article on the more literal weaponization of immigrants and refugees? Examples are Belarus' trafficking operation in Eastern Europe ( Belarus–European Union border crisis) and Erdogan's occasional threats to "unleash" Syrian refugees on Europe. Again, I would suggest changing the title, although we can leave that discussion for when the article is in better shape. Tserton ( talk) 13:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)