This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
One User:Christopher Connor has been making what he believes are "valuable" contributions to this article on Somalis in the UK. In reality, he has been making highly POV, one-sided distortions of various sources; edits that have the net effect, intended or otherwise, of making this particular immigrant community look as bad (and thus as undesirable) as possible. For instance, he insists on cherry-picking a quote from the Times that reads that they "are probably the poorest and most disadvantaged ethnic community in the country, a people whose disaffected young are all too easily recruited by gangs or, worse, Islamic extremists" -- completely ignoring the fact that this other article he himself cites elsewhere and that was published the same day on the same website as that other Times article clearly indicates that "although the jihadi link is real, the numbers travelling to train, fight and die in Somalia are believed to be small compared with the thousands in Afghanistan and Pakistan." If one peruses the Pakistani British article, for example, one does not see any undue weight on any purported terrorist connections, although, per the aforementioned source, it's even more of an issue in that community than in the young Somali one that this particular editor has elected to target. This editor has also added statistics on the unemployment rate in the Somali community (which tends to be rather high) but quite conveniently never bothered explaining why the figures are as high as they are, although the same source he uses for his figures provides numerous clear, logical explanations to that end (e.g. asylum seekers have greater difficulty accessing jobs; entrepreneurship, though higher amongst immigrants, is difficult to quantify, etc.). He has also added yet another unqualified, unexplained phrase to the effect that Somalis "suffer from employment, education, substance abuse, and crime issues", which he predictably sourced to an opinion piece. Per WP:RS, "there is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." The most ironic part, though, is that that entire opinion piece attributes whatever early struggles the Somali community might be going through -- and appear to be slowly but surely overcoming -- to failure on the part of the British government in assisting the immigrants into integrating more successfully ("the process of integration and finding a voice for their community is slow and is happening in spite of government efforts and not because of them"). It doesn't put the blame on the community itself, as Connor's out-of-context edits make it out to seem. The author even provides one case study demonstrating remarkable and rapid turnarounds in educational achievements when the government actually does get involved in the community, which is yet another thing that this seldom-used Wikipedia account has neglected to mention. Another line of Connor's edits reads that Somali immigrants "have a highly fractured community, paralleling that of their homeland, and many Somalis have failed to integrate successfully into British society". This is an almost farcically gross generalization of the situation almost half a decade ago (when that article was initially published and the community was brand new), not now. It's also, predictably by now, a complete distortion of the article, which explains, among other things, that although the unemployment rate may be high, the Somali immigrants that found themselves without a job included "a high proportion of skilled professionals who have not been able to find work in their field in the UK" and that a big part of the educational struggles came down to language barriers ("In Liverpool, Mr Ali has found Somali children unofficially excluded from lessons, sitting alone in the corridor, because teachers had effectively given up trying to communicate"). Like the aforecited opinion piece, this article also attributes the growing pains of the Somali immigrant community in the UK largely to inattention on the part of local authorities. Lastly, the editor has indicated that "Somali gangs are involved in the illegal-drugs trade, and often use extreme violence", a statement which he sourced to this article. As with his previous claims, he never bothers providing clarification on the issue, although the article itself again clearly does. In fact, when I attempted to cite the solutions the source itself provides -- i.e. that the violence has now increasingly given way to community youth forums, women's groups and neighborhood watch efforts that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime -- he reverted my improvements with the rather absurd explanation that I "edit Somali-related articles more-or-less exclusively". Last I checked, Wikipedia actually encourages editors to edit material they are knowledgeable about, not discourages it. In my case, that would be Somali issues. In the username above's case, it is unclear since he logs into his account only a few times a year. All in all, the editor above has attempted to offer sensationalistic, cherry-picked "facts" about the Somali immigrant community in the UK without bothering to explain why the figures are the way they are or what has or is being done to improve the situation -- even going as far as ignoring explanations provided in the exact same source that he got his figures from to begin with. It's a bit like reading that a woman shot a man in the leg (which, by itself, sounds harsh), but without learning that she shot him in the first place because he was attempting to rape her. WP:NOR is very clear about the importance of context: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context... Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". And actual context is what I have attempted to provide in place of the editor above's fairly obvious POV. Middayexpress ( talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I mean two paragraphs in British Pakistanis. The women's groups and such are described as 'fragile shoots', meaning they are easy to break and are just beginning to grow. Compare with gangs, which are very numerous and well-established. From this, I infer that the gangs 'increasingly' giving way to groups is an exagerration, and that 'initial' gang-activity is a lie, when Somali gangs are numerous and active right now. I compared employment rates with White British to show that employment rates are only controversial if they're low (not that anybody is claiming that other people are denying that Somali employment rates are low). As far as I know, self-employment is also classed as employment, but Somali employment rates are still low.
Anyway, you haven't addressed most of the points I raised such as the lack of coverage of their 'issues' and that other immigrant groups facing the same problems but faring better. If you look through all the sources they all say: CRIME, UNEMPLOYMENT, TERRORISM, POVERTY, LOW EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT, ISLAMIC TERRORISM. You're claiming I'm attacking you, when all I said was that I didn't think you had great expertise or that this great expertise was being clouded by emotional attachment. Hardly something to get upset about.
Inactivity is also more or less the same as unemployment. 75% are economically inactive. Is this satisfactory? The Daily Mail article gave the comparison between groups. Christopher Connor ( talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
Why are you wasting your time patronising me with references to policies? Especially when you're claims about them are largely spurious. Saying I am going off-topic shows you either can't or won't engage with what I saying. I am discussing the content of the article only insofar as it is relevant to the article. I'm saying what's in the article does not reflect real life or the sources (e.g. gangs and women's groups). I was using caps lock to emphasis whatever the sources seem to be saying (things that are missing in the article). Everything I have said about the community can be cited to many sources. Would you like to to provide multiple reliable sources concerning issues of housing, disadvantage, crime, poverty etc. instead of being blind? Are you now claiming that the community doesn't have a problem with gangs or terrorism? Because I can find many sources that say the exact opposite. Employment rates, crime issues, poverty, discrination etc. seen to appear in other ethnic group articles - and these have less of a problem with them. Thanks to my involvement, the article is now quite big, though it is lacking vital information. Instead you choose to describe in excruciating detail the operations of a Somali company and the industry its in. Christopher Connor ( talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have explained in excruciating detail about this gangs issue. Your sentence is 'While initially troubles with adolescent gangs began to emerge, they have now increasingly given way to community youth forums that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime.' They gangs are not 'initial' or 'beginning to emerge', they are well-established and have been for a while. You have one source (and only one) that says that groups are beginning in the community. The same source says 'London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence'. Also
Which suggests that gangs are becoming more prominent, not less, which contradicts your claim. Aside from the fact that the article doesn't suggest quite what you're saying. You have a well-established gang culture and 'fragile shoots' counter-groups beginning to form. Yet from this you conclude that gangs are 'increasingly' giving way to youth and women's group. You have a large body of evidence and one other bit which doesn't really contradict the main bit and you claim that 'yes it does!' and disregard the main bit.
"London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence. There are encouraging signs however that a community characterised by its tribal structure, distrust of authority and sense of alienation is beginning to tire of its reputation and realise that it can empower itself to improve its situation.
Youth forums are working with the police and women’s groups are emerging from a male-dominated culture to make their voices heard. A Somali woman recently joined the Metropolitan Police and witnesses from within the community played a part in solving a murder in South London.
These fragile shoots are being nurtured by the police and other agencies who recognise that the problems of crime and violence from within a difficult-to-reach community have gone unchecked for too long."
For terrorism,
Anyway, I am too good to fight you over the article about these matters so not going to waste my time forcing the issue. Open to the possibility that I am wrong. That's why I haven't bothered including any 'controversial' material. Also remember that 'sweeping things under the carpet' is never good. Christopher Connor ( talk) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at page 28 of Communities. [12] It says 'However, many respondents highlighted problems with ethnic data collection under the Census categories, which means that Somalis are subsumed under the black African or Other black category'. Which is more or less what I wrote in the article. This also means they get 'lumped' with other groups without being recognised as distinct. Christopher Connor ( talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the UK Census relies on self-completion, [2] the composition of the other ethnic group category is not fixed. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics of the 220,000 people in England and Wales who ticked the other ethnic group box in the 2001 Census reveals that 53 per cent were born in the Far East, 10 per cent in the UK, 10 per cent in the Middle East, and 7 per cent in Africa. [3] People could write in an ethnic group under the 'other' heading. 26 per cent did not specify an ethnicity, but of the remainder, 23 per cent wrote Filipino, 21 per cent Japanese, 11 per cent Vietnamese, 11 per cent Arab, 6 per cent Middle Eastern and 4 per cent North African. [3]
So what did the Somalis in the Census write? That they were Other? And they put down 'Somali'? They should if they were unhappy with the current situation. Christopher Connor ( talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Census makers (and other people) would expect to classify them as Other Black. Of course, since they can choose what they like, they might as well choose Korean, and say 'it's our decision'. All I was saying was that they were forced to choose Other Black by the Census and that probably some did. Christopher Connor ( talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You really don't get it. I don't give a damn whether I consider them black, arab, or even inanimate objects. All I was saying was that they get lumped with Black by other people (which may be problematic for them). Which is why they wanted to create a new category. You seem to be exceptionally sensitive to these issues. Any particular reason for that? Christopher Connor ( talk) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All I said was that 'they are subsumed under the ' Other Black' category amongst Black British' (yes, it wasn't very clear at all), not that Christopher Connor was doing the subsuming. Can you explain why the Communities document says exactly that. You seem to jump at every little edit I make and attack it ceaselessly. You have such a confrontational attitude that you have tagged me as the 'enemy' and everything I do is seen through those eyes. Whereas I am calm and see you not as the opponent, but someone I just have to patiently contend with. . Christopher Connor ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ermm, on the side the city of Birmingham is named as a city with a big somali community, but on the passage someone keeps removing eveyrhing abotu Birmingham.
Here's a fact Birmingham has the highest Somali community in the UK only London boroughs of Newham, Camden & Woolwich can match.
So maybe you want to stop being jealuos of Birmingham beautiful multi-culture.
racist jelaous cunts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.124.125 ( talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently tried to make some improvements to the article, which were reverted. I'll go through the issues in turn, explaining why I think my edits should stand.
I plan to reinstate my edits unless a proper argument for their removal is put forward here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."
"This unusually low figure is indicative of the fact that the majority of Somalis in the UK will not have come here through labour migration channels, but rather because they are fleeing violence and persecution in Somalia, and of the relative newness of the Somali community, which we discuss further later in this report. Given that a large proportion of Somalis in the UK are likely to be refugees, this low employment rate may reflect the difficulties such groups have in accessing employment once they have gained refugee status"
"The suggestion from some previous research, that people use khat more in this country than in Somalia because they are unemployed was not supported by the data from this study. Firstly, there was no evidence that people in this sample were using khat more in England and secondly, a smaller proportion of those who were unemployed compared with those in employment reported using khat."
"The overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use."
"Like alcohol, qat is neither intrinsically bad nor intrinsically good – it all depends on how people use it... Warsi's arguments about the social ills of qat abuse could be applied just as easily to alcohol, say, or betting shops."
I'm moving these comments on employment to their own section to make navigation easier. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels."
"Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners."
In case it's not clear from the above, my case for using the ONS figures rather than the IPPR ones is that they're more recent (2008 versus 2005/06), they use the official definition for the employment and unemployment rates, and they are published by the UK's national statistical authority rather than a think tank (albeit a respected one). Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels."
"Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners."
We need a source that says that the film director Mo Ali is considered Somali, as this claim is made in this article. A reference was added recently, but it states he was born in Saudi Arabia and I can't find any mention of him being Somali in it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The sentence about Somali councillors being elected in 2010 is sourced with election results. While these sources verify that those people metioned in the article did get elected, it says nothing about them actually being Somali. We therefore need sources that establish this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the part of this edit that concerned secondary migration from the Netherlands. An academic journal article is more reliable than a Washington Times editorial when it comes to this subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The employment section needs restoring to a previous version; the current edits removed mention of ONS data and kept in more favourable information. Sentences like The low employment rate is also a reflection of the newness of the Somali community in the UK and the fact that most Somali immigrants did not come through labor migration channels but rather in search of asylum; data suggests asylum seekers in general appear to have more difficulty accessing employment and likely did not have the right to work while their claim was/is being processed are not attributed correctly and presented as fact. The new version is vastly less balanced and contains more POV than the previous content. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Middayexpress, can I ask why you removed the Bloch source? I know there's another reference for that statement but having two never harms, especially since Alice Bloch is an academic expert in the field of human migration. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed indicates that to attributes. Firstly because it avoids implying fact (which we can't do in this case) but is actually, too my mind, makes a much stronger link between the figures and the possibly cause. I felt that the wording of the sentences that were changed were a) too wordy (and were hard to parse right) and b) only made a weak link (when the report implies a strong link to the causes). I feel this wording is much more neutral and a lot less negative about somali's --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just editing the statistics on Somalis in Bristol as the source being used was a blog, and some Google searching revealed that vastly differing estimates are available for all of the cities we list in the article. Sometimes the article reflects this, but sometimes it just seems to pick one estimate of many. Does anyone have any suggestions for ways forward on this? Sticking to a single source that covers a number of cities (or several) and attributing all of the city statistics to it (/them) might be an idea? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this?
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Ethnic Somalis (2003–2007 estimates) [4] | "Somali community" (ICAR estimates, 2006) [7] |
---|---|---|---|
Greater London | 33,838 | 70,000 | |
Ealing | 3,045 | 11,000–15,000 | |
Tower Hamlets | 1,353 | 10,000–15,000 | |
Islington | 1,226 | 2,500–4,000 | |
Sheffield | 1,306 | 3,000–5,000 | 10,000 |
Manchester | 1,225 | 5,000–6,000 | |
Leicester | 872 | 10,000–15,000 | 15,000 |
Birmingham | 819 | 3,000–4,000 | 35,000 |
Cardiff | 788 | 10,000 | |
Liverpool | 678 | 3,000–5,000 |
Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this for the headings?
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Ethnic Somalis (2003–2007 estimates collated by CLG) [4] | "Somali community" (2006 estimates by ICAR) [7] |
---|
Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Somali-born and British citizens (2003–2007 estimates collated by CLG) [4] | Somali-born and British citizens (2006 estimates by ICAR) [7] |
---|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
communities
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Born abroad
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I generally agree with Middayexpress's edits to the khat section that I added to the article. I just wanted to raise a couple of issues though. The text now reads "Within Somali culture especially, khat chewing has a long history as a social custom that traditionally brings people together to relax and to encourage conversation". However, a reference used later in the same paragraph states that "opinion is unanimous that khat use is part of the Somali tradition, with long historical roots. This chapter argues that this is a misreading of history and that khat has only gained popularity among Somali users in recent decades. The problems associated with khat use are therefore not simply reducible to the pharmacological properties of the drug, but need to take into account a new cultural context of its use within the UK". I suggest that we should perhaps take account of this alternative view in the text.
Secondly, the text that I originally added to the article included a quote from that same source ("In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture"). That's now been removed but I wonder if we should add it again as it does a good job of establishing how divided people are on this issue. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted most of Middayexpress's edits for these reasons:
Basically, the edits greatly degrade the article in all areas of article writing. Please make use of the talk page to discuss edits in future instead of ceaselessly reverting. I have kept a few however where appropriate. Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"She explained that while there is not a lack of research on the Somali community, the existing research needed to be pulled together into a report that reflects the ‘state of knowledge’ and takes stock of the current situation. This is the aim of this report."
The link works fine for me too. Regardless of whether one can access it online, the item exists as a print source so removing it because it "failed verification" is patent nonsense and yet again an abuse of policy. It only fails verification if you actually check the source and finds that it doesn't comply with what it is supporting. Misusing policy seems to be a habit of yours. The rp method (see Template:Rp) is for "referring to specific pages within a cited source many times in the same article". People can have each page number as a separate ref (the most common) or use this method to limit the number of refs. Certainly it is not a "little-used, idiosyncratic formatting style". If you were unfamiliar with this style, then why would you remove it when you had no idea what it was refering to? Would you not, for example, seek to find more information about this or at least defer tampering with until you were more knowledgeable? How is colonisation an inappropriate word, when it appears in many of the sources? If you dispute the use of "colonisation" and related forms, then how about:
The UK has historically been close to Somalia, through its involvement with the British Somaliland protectorate. This link has given rise to a long tradition of Somali migration.
The exact wording anyhow was lifted from the Identities source. Nobody is refering to the current entity Somaliland and nobody has linked to it. You claim I have added the Dissanayake BBC source. This is untrue as I have not added this in recent days. Please carefully check your statements before making them. The bit regarding the first immigrants was not taken from the Identities source, and neither (I think) has it been used as a source for that statement. That statement has been supported by a print source (now longer used) and the Harris and BBC ref (which itself references Harris). (Sometimes this is used to show that some source has been cited by other sources. Since you appear to be disputing bits of the Harris source, is this not appropriate for this sentence?) That sentence is only somewhat similar to the Identities source (which mentions 20th century as opposed to 19th century) and obviously was not taken from that source. Again, check your statements so that others don't have to clean up after you.
Christopher Connor ( talk) 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is talking about Somaliland? You keep misrepresenting other people's positions and this needs to stop. The word colonial is used to describe the relationship between the UK and British Somaliland, not that British Somaliland is better described as a colony as opposed to a protectorate. Nobody has said this so stop implying people have. Your comments are only tangentially related to what I am saying. See my most recent edits and above.
The first Somali immigrants were seamen and merchants who settled in port cities in the late 19th century, mainly in Cardiff, Liverpool and London.
whereas the Identities source goes
In the early 20th century, seamen from the cities and rural areas of Somaliland migrated to the UK to work and live in the dockland areas of London, Cardiff, and Liverpool
Evidently they are quite a way off "almost verbatim"; indeed they refer to different centuries. Of course, whether they are almost verbatim or not is not all that relevant here: the important point here is that your claim is false (like many others).
You have failed to address many of my concerns above (in my earlier post). I could go on but it seems to be a waste of time. Your tendentious behaviour is starting to grate. Also, don't simply wholesale revert other people's edits. Do manually reverts and only remove those bits you are disagreeing with. Christopher Connor ( talk) 06:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This section seriously needs to be trimmed. Detailed pricing information for a product and other such is not relevant here. (See WP:DUE if one desparately needs a policy.) Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Liban Abdi is described in the sports section as a Sheffield Unitted player on loan to Ferencváros. His move to Ferencváros seems to have been made permanent now though. See the Liban Abdi page and this newspaper article. Shall we reword the text or remove him from the article altogether? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As I see it we are missing material on at least these topics:
and other bits in the other topics (e.g. more history of Somalia may be relevant). Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This source might be useful for a community organisations section. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder which style we are going to use? I prefer to have separate citations for each page (or page range) for the publication (if more than one page is used) and create a new section for these sources (e.g. == Sources ==). Christopher Connor ( talk) 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
In the sources section, some of the references have two PDF icons. I would remove the {{PDFlink}} templates to fix this, but they are serving a useful purpose by informing readers about large files. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This article indicates all somalis are muslim. I am a non-muslim somali, so where do i fit in? I am an apostate agnostic, but i know a few other irreligious somalis, so i am not an isolated case. So have we left the fold of being Somalis? Are we outcasts from the community or what? I also know that a lot of Somalis are simply cultural muslims aren't they? Also, many non-muslims (like myself) are afraid to be open about our apostasy or non-belief because of fear of stigmatization or persecution.
There has never been a census on religion in somalia, so its pure guesswork on this article. Maybe we could change it to predominately muslim or something else, or even leave that blank. I dont like it how wikipedia seems to label your spiritual beliefs for you; I've noticed the same problem on other ethnic articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.30.166 ( talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Can we change the title to British Somalis. I mean, you don't see other wikipedia pages with the title "Nigerians living in the United Kingdom".
2. Can we have images of British Somalis? Other pages have 3 or 4 images of an ethnic group living in the UK. Surely images of Mo Farah, Rageh Omaar, Mo Ali and Aar Maanta can be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazancourt ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so plase bare my lack of understanding of how things work. Anyway, just want to know. Is there any chance the images can be placed above the population in that little blue box on the right handside of the corner? As oppose to say way down the page as it is now. For example if I go to the british pakistani page, you immediately see british pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.235.165 ( talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
One User:Christopher Connor has been making what he believes are "valuable" contributions to this article on Somalis in the UK. In reality, he has been making highly POV, one-sided distortions of various sources; edits that have the net effect, intended or otherwise, of making this particular immigrant community look as bad (and thus as undesirable) as possible. For instance, he insists on cherry-picking a quote from the Times that reads that they "are probably the poorest and most disadvantaged ethnic community in the country, a people whose disaffected young are all too easily recruited by gangs or, worse, Islamic extremists" -- completely ignoring the fact that this other article he himself cites elsewhere and that was published the same day on the same website as that other Times article clearly indicates that "although the jihadi link is real, the numbers travelling to train, fight and die in Somalia are believed to be small compared with the thousands in Afghanistan and Pakistan." If one peruses the Pakistani British article, for example, one does not see any undue weight on any purported terrorist connections, although, per the aforementioned source, it's even more of an issue in that community than in the young Somali one that this particular editor has elected to target. This editor has also added statistics on the unemployment rate in the Somali community (which tends to be rather high) but quite conveniently never bothered explaining why the figures are as high as they are, although the same source he uses for his figures provides numerous clear, logical explanations to that end (e.g. asylum seekers have greater difficulty accessing jobs; entrepreneurship, though higher amongst immigrants, is difficult to quantify, etc.). He has also added yet another unqualified, unexplained phrase to the effect that Somalis "suffer from employment, education, substance abuse, and crime issues", which he predictably sourced to an opinion piece. Per WP:RS, "there is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." The most ironic part, though, is that that entire opinion piece attributes whatever early struggles the Somali community might be going through -- and appear to be slowly but surely overcoming -- to failure on the part of the British government in assisting the immigrants into integrating more successfully ("the process of integration and finding a voice for their community is slow and is happening in spite of government efforts and not because of them"). It doesn't put the blame on the community itself, as Connor's out-of-context edits make it out to seem. The author even provides one case study demonstrating remarkable and rapid turnarounds in educational achievements when the government actually does get involved in the community, which is yet another thing that this seldom-used Wikipedia account has neglected to mention. Another line of Connor's edits reads that Somali immigrants "have a highly fractured community, paralleling that of their homeland, and many Somalis have failed to integrate successfully into British society". This is an almost farcically gross generalization of the situation almost half a decade ago (when that article was initially published and the community was brand new), not now. It's also, predictably by now, a complete distortion of the article, which explains, among other things, that although the unemployment rate may be high, the Somali immigrants that found themselves without a job included "a high proportion of skilled professionals who have not been able to find work in their field in the UK" and that a big part of the educational struggles came down to language barriers ("In Liverpool, Mr Ali has found Somali children unofficially excluded from lessons, sitting alone in the corridor, because teachers had effectively given up trying to communicate"). Like the aforecited opinion piece, this article also attributes the growing pains of the Somali immigrant community in the UK largely to inattention on the part of local authorities. Lastly, the editor has indicated that "Somali gangs are involved in the illegal-drugs trade, and often use extreme violence", a statement which he sourced to this article. As with his previous claims, he never bothers providing clarification on the issue, although the article itself again clearly does. In fact, when I attempted to cite the solutions the source itself provides -- i.e. that the violence has now increasingly given way to community youth forums, women's groups and neighborhood watch efforts that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime -- he reverted my improvements with the rather absurd explanation that I "edit Somali-related articles more-or-less exclusively". Last I checked, Wikipedia actually encourages editors to edit material they are knowledgeable about, not discourages it. In my case, that would be Somali issues. In the username above's case, it is unclear since he logs into his account only a few times a year. All in all, the editor above has attempted to offer sensationalistic, cherry-picked "facts" about the Somali immigrant community in the UK without bothering to explain why the figures are the way they are or what has or is being done to improve the situation -- even going as far as ignoring explanations provided in the exact same source that he got his figures from to begin with. It's a bit like reading that a woman shot a man in the leg (which, by itself, sounds harsh), but without learning that she shot him in the first place because he was attempting to rape her. WP:NOR is very clear about the importance of context: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context... Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". And actual context is what I have attempted to provide in place of the editor above's fairly obvious POV. Middayexpress ( talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I mean two paragraphs in British Pakistanis. The women's groups and such are described as 'fragile shoots', meaning they are easy to break and are just beginning to grow. Compare with gangs, which are very numerous and well-established. From this, I infer that the gangs 'increasingly' giving way to groups is an exagerration, and that 'initial' gang-activity is a lie, when Somali gangs are numerous and active right now. I compared employment rates with White British to show that employment rates are only controversial if they're low (not that anybody is claiming that other people are denying that Somali employment rates are low). As far as I know, self-employment is also classed as employment, but Somali employment rates are still low.
Anyway, you haven't addressed most of the points I raised such as the lack of coverage of their 'issues' and that other immigrant groups facing the same problems but faring better. If you look through all the sources they all say: CRIME, UNEMPLOYMENT, TERRORISM, POVERTY, LOW EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT, ISLAMIC TERRORISM. You're claiming I'm attacking you, when all I said was that I didn't think you had great expertise or that this great expertise was being clouded by emotional attachment. Hardly something to get upset about.
Inactivity is also more or less the same as unemployment. 75% are economically inactive. Is this satisfactory? The Daily Mail article gave the comparison between groups. Christopher Connor ( talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
Why are you wasting your time patronising me with references to policies? Especially when you're claims about them are largely spurious. Saying I am going off-topic shows you either can't or won't engage with what I saying. I am discussing the content of the article only insofar as it is relevant to the article. I'm saying what's in the article does not reflect real life or the sources (e.g. gangs and women's groups). I was using caps lock to emphasis whatever the sources seem to be saying (things that are missing in the article). Everything I have said about the community can be cited to many sources. Would you like to to provide multiple reliable sources concerning issues of housing, disadvantage, crime, poverty etc. instead of being blind? Are you now claiming that the community doesn't have a problem with gangs or terrorism? Because I can find many sources that say the exact opposite. Employment rates, crime issues, poverty, discrination etc. seen to appear in other ethnic group articles - and these have less of a problem with them. Thanks to my involvement, the article is now quite big, though it is lacking vital information. Instead you choose to describe in excruciating detail the operations of a Somali company and the industry its in. Christopher Connor ( talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have explained in excruciating detail about this gangs issue. Your sentence is 'While initially troubles with adolescent gangs began to emerge, they have now increasingly given way to community youth forums that work closely with law enforcement to deter crime.' They gangs are not 'initial' or 'beginning to emerge', they are well-established and have been for a while. You have one source (and only one) that says that groups are beginning in the community. The same source says 'London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence'. Also
Which suggests that gangs are becoming more prominent, not less, which contradicts your claim. Aside from the fact that the article doesn't suggest quite what you're saying. You have a well-established gang culture and 'fragile shoots' counter-groups beginning to form. Yet from this you conclude that gangs are 'increasingly' giving way to youth and women's group. You have a large body of evidence and one other bit which doesn't really contradict the main bit and you claim that 'yes it does!' and disregard the main bit.
"London’s Somali gangs are many in number, contemptuous of the police and prolific in crime and violence. There are encouraging signs however that a community characterised by its tribal structure, distrust of authority and sense of alienation is beginning to tire of its reputation and realise that it can empower itself to improve its situation.
Youth forums are working with the police and women’s groups are emerging from a male-dominated culture to make their voices heard. A Somali woman recently joined the Metropolitan Police and witnesses from within the community played a part in solving a murder in South London.
These fragile shoots are being nurtured by the police and other agencies who recognise that the problems of crime and violence from within a difficult-to-reach community have gone unchecked for too long."
For terrorism,
Anyway, I am too good to fight you over the article about these matters so not going to waste my time forcing the issue. Open to the possibility that I am wrong. That's why I haven't bothered including any 'controversial' material. Also remember that 'sweeping things under the carpet' is never good. Christopher Connor ( talk) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at page 28 of Communities. [12] It says 'However, many respondents highlighted problems with ethnic data collection under the Census categories, which means that Somalis are subsumed under the black African or Other black category'. Which is more or less what I wrote in the article. This also means they get 'lumped' with other groups without being recognised as distinct. Christopher Connor ( talk) 09:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the UK Census relies on self-completion, [2] the composition of the other ethnic group category is not fixed. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics of the 220,000 people in England and Wales who ticked the other ethnic group box in the 2001 Census reveals that 53 per cent were born in the Far East, 10 per cent in the UK, 10 per cent in the Middle East, and 7 per cent in Africa. [3] People could write in an ethnic group under the 'other' heading. 26 per cent did not specify an ethnicity, but of the remainder, 23 per cent wrote Filipino, 21 per cent Japanese, 11 per cent Vietnamese, 11 per cent Arab, 6 per cent Middle Eastern and 4 per cent North African. [3]
So what did the Somalis in the Census write? That they were Other? And they put down 'Somali'? They should if they were unhappy with the current situation. Christopher Connor ( talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Census makers (and other people) would expect to classify them as Other Black. Of course, since they can choose what they like, they might as well choose Korean, and say 'it's our decision'. All I was saying was that they were forced to choose Other Black by the Census and that probably some did. Christopher Connor ( talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You really don't get it. I don't give a damn whether I consider them black, arab, or even inanimate objects. All I was saying was that they get lumped with Black by other people (which may be problematic for them). Which is why they wanted to create a new category. You seem to be exceptionally sensitive to these issues. Any particular reason for that? Christopher Connor ( talk) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All I said was that 'they are subsumed under the ' Other Black' category amongst Black British' (yes, it wasn't very clear at all), not that Christopher Connor was doing the subsuming. Can you explain why the Communities document says exactly that. You seem to jump at every little edit I make and attack it ceaselessly. You have such a confrontational attitude that you have tagged me as the 'enemy' and everything I do is seen through those eyes. Whereas I am calm and see you not as the opponent, but someone I just have to patiently contend with. . Christopher Connor ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ermm, on the side the city of Birmingham is named as a city with a big somali community, but on the passage someone keeps removing eveyrhing abotu Birmingham.
Here's a fact Birmingham has the highest Somali community in the UK only London boroughs of Newham, Camden & Woolwich can match.
So maybe you want to stop being jealuos of Birmingham beautiful multi-culture.
racist jelaous cunts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.124.125 ( talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently tried to make some improvements to the article, which were reverted. I'll go through the issues in turn, explaining why I think my edits should stand.
I plan to reinstate my edits unless a proper argument for their removal is put forward here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."
"This unusually low figure is indicative of the fact that the majority of Somalis in the UK will not have come here through labour migration channels, but rather because they are fleeing violence and persecution in Somalia, and of the relative newness of the Somali community, which we discuss further later in this report. Given that a large proportion of Somalis in the UK are likely to be refugees, this low employment rate may reflect the difficulties such groups have in accessing employment once they have gained refugee status"
"The suggestion from some previous research, that people use khat more in this country than in Somalia because they are unemployed was not supported by the data from this study. Firstly, there was no evidence that people in this sample were using khat more in England and secondly, a smaller proportion of those who were unemployed compared with those in employment reported using khat."
"The overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use."
"Like alcohol, qat is neither intrinsically bad nor intrinsically good – it all depends on how people use it... Warsi's arguments about the social ills of qat abuse could be applied just as easily to alcohol, say, or betting shops."
I'm moving these comments on employment to their own section to make navigation easier. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels."
"Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners."
In case it's not clear from the above, my case for using the ONS figures rather than the IPPR ones is that they're more recent (2008 versus 2005/06), they use the official definition for the employment and unemployment rates, and they are published by the UK's national statistical authority rather than a think tank (albeit a respected one). Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The stock of the working age migrant population can be estimated using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data. This is referred to as the ‘household population’ as it is a survey of private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation and therefore excludes most types of communal establishments, such as hotels and hostels."
"Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show economic activity rates of our country-of-birth groups, ranked by different categories. Both tables exclude full-time students and people not of working age, to avoid the data being skewed by propensity to be in education or by pensioners."
We need a source that says that the film director Mo Ali is considered Somali, as this claim is made in this article. A reference was added recently, but it states he was born in Saudi Arabia and I can't find any mention of him being Somali in it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The sentence about Somali councillors being elected in 2010 is sourced with election results. While these sources verify that those people metioned in the article did get elected, it says nothing about them actually being Somali. We therefore need sources that establish this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the part of this edit that concerned secondary migration from the Netherlands. An academic journal article is more reliable than a Washington Times editorial when it comes to this subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The employment section needs restoring to a previous version; the current edits removed mention of ONS data and kept in more favourable information. Sentences like The low employment rate is also a reflection of the newness of the Somali community in the UK and the fact that most Somali immigrants did not come through labor migration channels but rather in search of asylum; data suggests asylum seekers in general appear to have more difficulty accessing employment and likely did not have the right to work while their claim was/is being processed are not attributed correctly and presented as fact. The new version is vastly less balanced and contains more POV than the previous content. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Middayexpress, can I ask why you removed the Bloch source? I know there's another reference for that statement but having two never harms, especially since Alice Bloch is an academic expert in the field of human migration. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed indicates that to attributes. Firstly because it avoids implying fact (which we can't do in this case) but is actually, too my mind, makes a much stronger link between the figures and the possibly cause. I felt that the wording of the sentences that were changed were a) too wordy (and were hard to parse right) and b) only made a weak link (when the report implies a strong link to the causes). I feel this wording is much more neutral and a lot less negative about somali's --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just editing the statistics on Somalis in Bristol as the source being used was a blog, and some Google searching revealed that vastly differing estimates are available for all of the cities we list in the article. Sometimes the article reflects this, but sometimes it just seems to pick one estimate of many. Does anyone have any suggestions for ways forward on this? Sticking to a single source that covers a number of cities (or several) and attributing all of the city statistics to it (/them) might be an idea? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this?
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Ethnic Somalis (2003–2007 estimates) [4] | "Somali community" (ICAR estimates, 2006) [7] |
---|---|---|---|
Greater London | 33,838 | 70,000 | |
Ealing | 3,045 | 11,000–15,000 | |
Tower Hamlets | 1,353 | 10,000–15,000 | |
Islington | 1,226 | 2,500–4,000 | |
Sheffield | 1,306 | 3,000–5,000 | 10,000 |
Manchester | 1,225 | 5,000–6,000 | |
Leicester | 872 | 10,000–15,000 | 15,000 |
Birmingham | 819 | 3,000–4,000 | 35,000 |
Cardiff | 788 | 10,000 | |
Liverpool | 678 | 3,000–5,000 |
Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this for the headings?
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Ethnic Somalis (2003–2007 estimates collated by CLG) [4] | "Somali community" (2006 estimates by ICAR) [7] |
---|
Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Location | Somali-born population (2001 Census) [4] [5] [6] | Somali-born and British citizens (2003–2007 estimates collated by CLG) [4] | Somali-born and British citizens (2006 estimates by ICAR) [7] |
---|
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
communities
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Born abroad
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I generally agree with Middayexpress's edits to the khat section that I added to the article. I just wanted to raise a couple of issues though. The text now reads "Within Somali culture especially, khat chewing has a long history as a social custom that traditionally brings people together to relax and to encourage conversation". However, a reference used later in the same paragraph states that "opinion is unanimous that khat use is part of the Somali tradition, with long historical roots. This chapter argues that this is a misreading of history and that khat has only gained popularity among Somali users in recent decades. The problems associated with khat use are therefore not simply reducible to the pharmacological properties of the drug, but need to take into account a new cultural context of its use within the UK". I suggest that we should perhaps take account of this alternative view in the text.
Secondly, the text that I originally added to the article included a quote from that same source ("In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture"). That's now been removed but I wonder if we should add it again as it does a good job of establishing how divided people are on this issue. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted most of Middayexpress's edits for these reasons:
Basically, the edits greatly degrade the article in all areas of article writing. Please make use of the talk page to discuss edits in future instead of ceaselessly reverting. I have kept a few however where appropriate. Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"She explained that while there is not a lack of research on the Somali community, the existing research needed to be pulled together into a report that reflects the ‘state of knowledge’ and takes stock of the current situation. This is the aim of this report."
The link works fine for me too. Regardless of whether one can access it online, the item exists as a print source so removing it because it "failed verification" is patent nonsense and yet again an abuse of policy. It only fails verification if you actually check the source and finds that it doesn't comply with what it is supporting. Misusing policy seems to be a habit of yours. The rp method (see Template:Rp) is for "referring to specific pages within a cited source many times in the same article". People can have each page number as a separate ref (the most common) or use this method to limit the number of refs. Certainly it is not a "little-used, idiosyncratic formatting style". If you were unfamiliar with this style, then why would you remove it when you had no idea what it was refering to? Would you not, for example, seek to find more information about this or at least defer tampering with until you were more knowledgeable? How is colonisation an inappropriate word, when it appears in many of the sources? If you dispute the use of "colonisation" and related forms, then how about:
The UK has historically been close to Somalia, through its involvement with the British Somaliland protectorate. This link has given rise to a long tradition of Somali migration.
The exact wording anyhow was lifted from the Identities source. Nobody is refering to the current entity Somaliland and nobody has linked to it. You claim I have added the Dissanayake BBC source. This is untrue as I have not added this in recent days. Please carefully check your statements before making them. The bit regarding the first immigrants was not taken from the Identities source, and neither (I think) has it been used as a source for that statement. That statement has been supported by a print source (now longer used) and the Harris and BBC ref (which itself references Harris). (Sometimes this is used to show that some source has been cited by other sources. Since you appear to be disputing bits of the Harris source, is this not appropriate for this sentence?) That sentence is only somewhat similar to the Identities source (which mentions 20th century as opposed to 19th century) and obviously was not taken from that source. Again, check your statements so that others don't have to clean up after you.
Christopher Connor ( talk) 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is talking about Somaliland? You keep misrepresenting other people's positions and this needs to stop. The word colonial is used to describe the relationship between the UK and British Somaliland, not that British Somaliland is better described as a colony as opposed to a protectorate. Nobody has said this so stop implying people have. Your comments are only tangentially related to what I am saying. See my most recent edits and above.
The first Somali immigrants were seamen and merchants who settled in port cities in the late 19th century, mainly in Cardiff, Liverpool and London.
whereas the Identities source goes
In the early 20th century, seamen from the cities and rural areas of Somaliland migrated to the UK to work and live in the dockland areas of London, Cardiff, and Liverpool
Evidently they are quite a way off "almost verbatim"; indeed they refer to different centuries. Of course, whether they are almost verbatim or not is not all that relevant here: the important point here is that your claim is false (like many others).
You have failed to address many of my concerns above (in my earlier post). I could go on but it seems to be a waste of time. Your tendentious behaviour is starting to grate. Also, don't simply wholesale revert other people's edits. Do manually reverts and only remove those bits you are disagreeing with. Christopher Connor ( talk) 06:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This section seriously needs to be trimmed. Detailed pricing information for a product and other such is not relevant here. (See WP:DUE if one desparately needs a policy.) Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Liban Abdi is described in the sports section as a Sheffield Unitted player on loan to Ferencváros. His move to Ferencváros seems to have been made permanent now though. See the Liban Abdi page and this newspaper article. Shall we reword the text or remove him from the article altogether? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As I see it we are missing material on at least these topics:
and other bits in the other topics (e.g. more history of Somalia may be relevant). Christopher Connor ( talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This source might be useful for a community organisations section. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder which style we are going to use? I prefer to have separate citations for each page (or page range) for the publication (if more than one page is used) and create a new section for these sources (e.g. == Sources ==). Christopher Connor ( talk) 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
In the sources section, some of the references have two PDF icons. I would remove the {{PDFlink}} templates to fix this, but they are serving a useful purpose by informing readers about large files. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This article indicates all somalis are muslim. I am a non-muslim somali, so where do i fit in? I am an apostate agnostic, but i know a few other irreligious somalis, so i am not an isolated case. So have we left the fold of being Somalis? Are we outcasts from the community or what? I also know that a lot of Somalis are simply cultural muslims aren't they? Also, many non-muslims (like myself) are afraid to be open about our apostasy or non-belief because of fear of stigmatization or persecution.
There has never been a census on religion in somalia, so its pure guesswork on this article. Maybe we could change it to predominately muslim or something else, or even leave that blank. I dont like it how wikipedia seems to label your spiritual beliefs for you; I've noticed the same problem on other ethnic articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.30.166 ( talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Can we change the title to British Somalis. I mean, you don't see other wikipedia pages with the title "Nigerians living in the United Kingdom".
2. Can we have images of British Somalis? Other pages have 3 or 4 images of an ethnic group living in the UK. Surely images of Mo Farah, Rageh Omaar, Mo Ali and Aar Maanta can be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazancourt ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so plase bare my lack of understanding of how things work. Anyway, just want to know. Is there any chance the images can be placed above the population in that little blue box on the right handside of the corner? As oppose to say way down the page as it is now. For example if I go to the british pakistani page, you immediately see british pakistanis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.235.165 ( talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)