Talk:2015 European migrant crisis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

"Exodus to Europe" move?!

What is this? The fact there wasn't agreement on whether to call it "migrant" or "refugee" doesn't necessarily justify a unilateral move to something entirely different and a word as loaded as wikt:exodus, nevermind the fact that adding "(2015-present)" is unnecessary per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA unless we have multiple of these events to describe. For some reason, I already cannot seem to be able to move the page back, but I wholeheartedly oppose the move, and would like it restored pending consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above, what kind of editor takes such an ad-hoc move without discussion? Posted request Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: you are kidding us, right? For your information, on Wikipedia, you can in fact be bold, but you should not be WP:RECKLESS, which is what you are when you single-handedly move a page that officially lacked consensus for a move. Another thing is that there is a Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, so since Spirit Ethanol reverted you and I voiced my disagreement here, you should definitely not have reverted back with that flippant edit summary. Do you really think you're the "sheriff" here? I've seen a bit too many "slightly too bold" edits coming from you lately, if I may point that out. LjL (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: You do not WP:OWN this article, please see WP:RMUM, I considered this to be a best title and moved the page to this title per WP:RMUM: "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page." I do not need your permission before making a bold edit. There are sources which call them "migrants" and there are sources that call them "refugees" and there are editors who favor one title and there are editors who favor the other. This can be the most WP:NPOV title. This also cannot be called a "European crisis". European crisis means that "a crisis happening inside Europe". This is an exodus to Europe which consists of migrants and refugees. Please do not make empty and baseless accusations that I am making reckless edits. To me, your edits can qualify as reckless as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The word exodus has biblical connotations. See Exodus, The Exodus. Perhaps rename to The Second Exodus? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put in timeline in the title and once the issue is over it can be changed to 2015-nn Exodus to Europe. The timeline in the title and then the article itself describes what exodus is that.
Guys, take off your stereotypical glasses and consider it. It's not that bad that you think. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This also cannot be called a "European crisis". European crisis means that "a crisis happening inside Europe".
Are you daft? Not only is the Schengen zone fragmenting but tens of thousands of asylum seekers and other migrants are suffering in Greece. I even read a news article that reported that many migrants from Iraq returned home from Germany, one of the two nations that have welcomed migrants the most, having found life there miserable. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My rationale for administrator request to move back

I am echoing Spirit Ethanol's request to move back to previous name after WP:BOLD move renamed it despite previous lack of consensus on any move. The new name was assigned without consensus and the word wikt:Exodus has strong connotations and is far from neutral. Additionally, the "(2015–present)" label is unnecessary per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA as there is no confusion to be had with other similar events if a more concise title were used. Despite a move back having already been requested by Spirit Ethanol, I am requesting this as a controversial move because the above section shows that the editor making the original move, SheriffIsInTown, is being somewhat combative about defending it, even to the point of reverting a bit flippantly when pointed to the lack of consensus here. LjL (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the page had to be moved back and that further moves need to be discussed first. I think that "Exodus to Europe" is not adequate, primarily because "European refugee crisis" and "European migrant crisis" are the only WP:COMMONNAMES of the subject of this article. Nykterinos (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Euroskeptic parties increase in popularity.

Euroskeptic parties have been growing in popularity since 2008. Is there any citation to support the claim that their rise has been due (at least in part) to the migrant crisis? Preferably one that's not just from some journalist getting, and not behind a paywall. Thanks Simon8699 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A point espoused by the "Leave" campaigners for Brexit was that if Turkey became a member of the EU, migrant flows from Syria would essentially be able to reach the UK (due to the perceived porous border with Turkey and assumed subsequent adoption of Turkey into the Schengen Area). Either a section or a point made about this would enhance readers' understanding of the connection between Brexit and the migrant crisis. Jdurkee (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

EU-Turkey deal

So,is Turkey real have a chance that Turkish nationals could access to Schengen passport-free zone even Turkey does not reach the EU passport-free standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There should be an updated paragraph regarding the latest developments regarding Turkey's threats to kill the deal. For example, biometric passports were just distributed in Turkey, which takes a step towards completing the requirements for visa liberalization. This isn't reflected in the article, however. Jdurkee (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian migrant quota referendum, 2016

Welcome to edit. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

American participation

I believe it deserves to be mentioned how the United States has been involved in the crisis, and how many refugees they took in (hint: it's none). Also absolutely needed is the cause, the Syrian civil war (and War in Iraq and War in Afghanistan). The leader of Raqqa is being slaughtered sliently stated that if [we] wanted the migrant crisis to stop, we should end the war in Syria. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Info about the number of refugees resettled to the USA was included in the International reactions section, but someone removed it arguing that it's not directly related to the European crisis. It may be restored (by the way, Obama increased the number of resettled refugees to 100,000 a year; only Germany accepted more refugees in the EU in 2015). Some of the motivations of refugees and migrants are explained in the Origins and motivations section; it may be expanded, but the wars in Syria, Afghanistan etc. are already mentioned. Nykterinos (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
What you (Nykterinos) are saying is of course true: the origins section does mention wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. After all, this sort of information could hardly be suppressed. But i think Prinsgezinde has a point as well, that the US government is largely culpable through its wars against various Muslim states, including Syria. However, it may well be impossible to include it in the article since it is largely absent from the narrative presented by sources that are reliable in the sense of the wikipedia. Son of eugene (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European migrant crisis. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Images and graphs in this article

Consensus reached that some images should be removed, especially those that are not very directly relevant. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are so many images and graphs in this article, affecting the layout of the page. Which ones shall any of them be retained? Removed? Also, which image and/or graph should be in the lead? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by affecting the layout of the page? There are certainly many images and graphs in the article, but I don't think they make it more difficult to read - neither on laptop, nor tablet, nor smartphone. On the contrary, I think they are informative - especially graphs and maps -, so I would keep all of them. As for the lead, this photo was chosen because it's a featured picture on Commons and en.wiki, whereas this map, albeit updated only to June 2015, is the richest in information, as it shows both the main entry routes into the EU and the number of asylum applicants per country, with their origins. It may be replaced with this map, which is updated to December 2015, but it's less informative, as it only shows the number of asylum applicants. Nykterinos (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I crossed that part out to make the rationale more neutral. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please prune and get better images. It does look like some are random snapshots rather than encyclopedic article support, or at least all these pictures of a crowd or fence that doesn't show anything in particular and are not adding to the text -- that need caption to even say what it is -- seem unhelpful and by far not the best choices. I suggest it would be better to WP norms and to the story to show the more-covered iconic photos, ones of massive crowds on road rather than all these of 20-ish standing somewhere, of drowned child that raised outcry and sinking boats rather than a few of small craft landing somewhere, of crowd swarming over large fence rather than all these images of some random chain-link or unreadable sign. The following images I think could be removed, in order of appearance.  :
  • a boat at Lesbos (no particular significance to the header or overall),
  • Hans Rosling in front of a podium at Carriers Responsibility (no significant content),
  • Migrants stopped by Macedonian police at Origins
(just a crowd, no significant content, match nothing in article text),
  • Migrants along Balkan crossing in Migrant routes (no significant content, match nothing re article text),
  • Wien Westbahnhof railway station in Austria section (same issue ...
  • Marking of a minefield in Croatia section (picture of sign, not adding much)
  • Migrants arriving in Munich (mislabeled - these are police in a train station, still no help to article)
  • Migrants waiting for their entry to Germany (crowd in the dark -- no significant content, no match to text)
  • Protesters gather outside Cologne Cathedral (crowd with flags ...)
  • Syrian refugees arrive by boat from Turkey (no particular significance to this boat or date)
  • Hungarian fence in hungary section (seriously, just a photo of chain-link fence does not add value)
  • Migrants in Hungary walking to Austria (back view of about 60 people walking)
  • Migrants arrived in Lampedusa (another crows of 20ish standing on some plain dock)
  • Rescued migrants near Malta (dozen folks in a boat... if the caption didn't say rescued you'd never know)
  • The Melilla border fence (another picture of chain-link fencing)
  • Border crossing between Russia and Norway (another picture of a sign ...)
  • Concert "Voices for Refugees" (not related to article text and not significant to topic)
  • Royal Navy ship HMS Enterprise (is part of text, but seeing stock photo seems removable)
  • The European Parliament (is part of text, but seeing stock photo seems removable)
  • The Knot, a monument (not part of text, doesn't help understanding)
  • Refugees strike in front of the Budapest Keleti (not part of text, no particular significance)
  • 'Syrian Refugees Welcome' rally in Vienna (not part of text, not particularly significant to topic)
  • Anti-immigration rally in Prague (it's 'anti-refugee', and not much significance or impact to topic)
  • Pro-immigration rally in Prague ('pro-refugee', still not significant or impact to topic)
  • Migrants in Budapest railway station (20ish folks look like camping out on floor near escalator...)
  • Rescued migrants are brought to southern Italian (nothing in text, not significant to topic)
  • Japanese-born Czech politician, Tomio Okamura (not very important to topic)
As a sidebar, please be careful to just follow the cites as some of these use the word refugees where the source used migrants or vice-versa. Functionally correct or not, convey what the cite is giving. I think it tends to be migrant for West Africa and refugee from Syria, but use whatever the source says. Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you think, Nykterinos, about this intriguing idea? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I would obviously be happy if someone cared to "get better images" to replace the existing ones - until then, I think we'd better use the ones which are available on Commons rather than removing almost all of them (by the way, it wasn't me who added any of the photos mentioned above, so I think there was a wider consensus to use them). Anyway, some of those photos could indeed be removed, feel free to do it on a case-by-case basis. I would leave those which show migrants even if they are not huge crowds; I would definitely leave the one in the lead, which is a featured picture perfectly showing the way in which most refugees and migrants arrived in the EU in 2015 (it was even used by the Economist on the cover of a report about the EU's crises); I would leave Rosling's video (it's a video, not an image) explaining the EU's directives on carrier's responsibility, etc. Nykterinos (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Nykterinos - photos should at least be in the right section e.g. something labeled Greece is misplaced in 'Origins' section, which would do better with something like Syrian Civil War map. Markbassett (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I endorse a lot said by Markbassett above, photographs of barbed wire fencing are the same the world over, it might as well be the railway line near my house. Do 'background' images add anything, I was thinking of map of Schengen area, photo of European Parliament etc, which do not relate directly to the article and which are on the relevant pages. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal - There's waaaaaaay to many images on there and it makes Commons redundant at this point - I would say the graphs and images need to be cut down as so far there's 45 images (and that's without the "Image:" search!), 10-20 would be sufficent and I'm not fussed what gets removed - Cover your eyes and just smack delete. –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which images and graphs to remove?

I already removed images of border fences that has no migrants in them. I also removed a monument that symbolizes a summit about migration rather than struggle of migrants. I could not remove pictures of migrants yet. Now that consensus from previous discussion agrees that there are still too many files in the article, we can discuss types of images. What about an image of protestors reacting to New Year's Eve rape in Germany? I don't think it adds anything to the article. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias

I think that the paragraph about Italian reactions is inaccurate and defamatory. Mafia Capitale scandal was caused by a restricted number of corrupted local politicians, businessmen and criminals, whereas thousands of migrants/refugees have been rescued and assisted by Italian Coast Guard. In Europe Italy and Greece are the most exposed countries to both the economic crisis and the migrant crisis. In addition Pope Francis is an authority of Vatican City. You should add more information.Cats' photos (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Migrant attacks

I'm surprised that there is minimal mention of the numerous terrorist attacks along with chaos and disorder that has been caused by the migrant flow into Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.44.248 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to draw a correlation between the migrants and an explicit increase in attacks. While there certainly are attacks done by migrants in Europe, I'd argue those for the large part are the exception. This is a subjective issue that, if included, would detract from the neutral stance this article requires. Jdurkee (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There are statistics from various governments. The German BKA statistic shows an increase from 77,298 felonies involving migrants in 2013 to 289,753 felonies in 2017. This is an increase by 274.85%. DerElektriker (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed content

I've removed some sourcing that was recently added, "The Right Scoop" and another site, "The Political Insider". Both were written by someone called "SOOPERMEXICAN" and I'm not sure if this was a sneaky way of trying to insert this into the website. Either way, it doesn't look like it'd be considered a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Migrant casualties

I think we need a bit more on deaths and other mistreatment migrants suffer en route to the EU (and even within the EU). There are some good RS out there: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This should probably be linked to criticisms of the "pull" factor of the welcoming refugee policy in Western Europe, above all in Germany, as seen here: [5] and [6]. I'd take care of it, but I haven't the time right now. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Migrant Health

The topic of migrant health could be added to this article in order to provide more information on the standpoint of overall health affairs in correlation to the migrant crisis.Skanj (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The article probably needs to be updated.

The German pushed quota system which would see enforced settlement of Middle Eastern and African populations to European countries was rejected and is now no longer valid, mostly due to efforts of Visegrad Group(Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary). Last month EU itself admitted that the quota system won't be enacted.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It probably wouldnt have worked anyway. Refugees originally accepted by the Czech Republic left for Germany [7], as did those accepted by Lithuania.[8] Alexpl (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Update the first image

The image is accurate for January to June 2015. Considering how dynamic the refugee crisis is, it's likely outdated and should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.177.228 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European migrant crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Related article List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe

Hello everyone, a sort of related article, List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe, has only three entries from August 2015 and has not been updated since. I'm asking here whether anyone could have a look at it and help update it maybe? It's got other problems and I sort of think it may be a possible deletion candidate if it is not updated. Thanks for looking at it, and also thanks for anyone who helps improve it.  Seagull123  Φ  23:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Split

This 17k+ word article has >500 footnotes. That's too big. I'd love to see some thought about splitting this into a reasonably-sized summary article that is fairly stable with drill-downs into articles about specific situations that are more volatile. Feedback encouraged! Lfstevens (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No article protection???

As an IP editor, I cannot f***ing believe this article is open to IP editors! The abuses are ongoing, and flagrant.184.145.42.19 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What abuses?--Nowa (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@184.145.42.19: It's really not as bad as some other articles on my watchlist. In any case, anyone (you) can open a request for article protection. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The last ip edit to be reverted is from December 26 and it wasn't rampant vandalism in that case either, just a lack of oversight of WP:NPOV (if you don't count the recent good faith edit reverted for lack of consensus). Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wording of page

I am concerned about the wording of the title of this article. A migrant is someone who willingly moves to another country for a better life e.g. better economic prospects. A refugee is someone who has no choice but to flee their country because their life is at risk and they are being persecuted. A refugee is not a migrant and a migrant is not a refugee. The two words have got conflated in recent times, but in principle remain entirely different concepts. I have seen that the page "European refugee crisis" redirects to this one. Should there not be a separate page for "European refugee crisis", because this one is not suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kats987124 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a wiki encyclopedia. Not a SJW politically correct soap box. 151.225.204.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The crowds include both migrants and refugees from various countries. Their lack of documentation makes establishing their point of origin and their motivation difficult. Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kats987124: There have been a few discussions already about the name of the article regarding "refugee" and "migrant". See: Current title (1 september 2015), Migrants and refugees, Requested move 19 March 2016, Wording of page. See there for some of the reasons why the article currently is called European migrant crisis. In regards about splitting the page, see this page about splitting articles.  Seagull123  Φ  17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is full of right wing propaganda. i deleted/changed some things like "most are economic migrants" (which is bullshit)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.63.215 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Going forward with editing, has a decision been made regarding using "migrant" vs "refugee"?gmousalimas (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Islamic state agents among refugees

The sentence and a small number of hostile agents including Islamic State militants has been removed three times, the first without explanation, the second claimed it was a rumor, though the source does not say that, and the third claims WP:UNDUE, though the Reuters story received ample coverage (Deutsch Welle, Business Insider, Telegraph, etc). If that isn't enough, the same claim that Reuters reported in February has been made again by German authorities later that year at different moments, being picked up by The Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc. I'm undoing the removal one more time, since I believe there is due weight for its inclusion. Perhaps more sources should be included? Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

While this might be factually correct, putting it in the first paragraph like this exaggerates its relevancy and gives the article an anti-immigration slant. Of course all sorts of people were "hiding" among the refugees, and it is obvious that the author wants to emphasis the IS operatives in order to give fuel to the anti-immigration side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.238.36 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is still not NPOV. The subject of this article is the migrant crisis, not IS terrorism or whether the migrants have valid reasons for asylum or not. Sourced or not, things like this should be discussed further down in separate sections. I can see the case for reducing European immigration, but I don't want encyclopaedia articles to read like opinion pieces. The last sentence of the opening paragraph is no more on-topic than it would be to mention in the first paragraph on the Great Britain article that the country in question is home to many terrorists and illegal aliens, or to mention in the first paragraph of the Holocaust article that several of the people killed in the Nazi camps were pedophiles, wife-beaters and murderers. PSjolund (talk) 12:51 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Holocaust claim of yours in wrong - the Holocaust was primarily about trying to wipe out the Jewish people; if some of the Jews happenned to be "pedophiles, wife-beaters and murderers" (which statisticly is quite likely, since millions of Jews were murdered), this was irrelevant in context. On the other hand, a significant part of the current European migration crisis is the inability to filter out the terrorists; their presence is a significant part of the problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Numbers outdated, wrong citizenship problem

According to research in the year 2016, 40% of Moroccans who came via Greece pretended to be syrian. Pretending a wrong citizenship was not an exception.[9][10] In 2015 also many people from Morocco (10.258), Algera (13.883) applied for Asylum in Germany, not regarding those pretending wrong citizenship.[11] This article does not mention this, numbers mentioned in the article can be considered as outdated or questionable. - Haaklich (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A new statistics report from the United Nations Refugee Agency

According to a new UNHCR statistics report, less than 3% of the immigrants currently arriving in Europe are actual refugees.

This is extremely important and relevant new information, and should be cited somewhere within this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4442910/Less-3-migrants-reached-Italy-refugees.html

https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/53271

David A (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As of February 2017 Daily Mail ceased to be considered a reliable source for the English Wikipedia. The reason for this is exactly the sort of misinformed conjecture you posted here - the article which you point to cites UNHCR as saying that only 2.65% of those who arrived in Italy were actually granted asylum there. The UNHCR never said that this is the number of "actual refugees", it did say that 40% of arrivals are in "need of international protection", and they also mentioned that half of all those who arrived in Italy never requested asylum in the first place, probably because they moved onto other countries within the Schengen area like Germany or Sweden (Italy is not the preferred destination for the vast majority of migrants/refugees). This all means that the percentage of granted asylums for those who requested it is actually over 5%, and that there is a number of possible explanations for this - Italian bureaucracy, lack of housing capacity, political pressures, etc. - which may or may not have anything to do with whether they are "actual refugees". InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The article anyway is about those reaching Italy, cannot be applied in the same manner to all routes including Greece and Balkans or Spain. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Legality of those coming

The article states that the refugees came illegally, but the UN source used in the lead only hints at the economic migrants coming in an illegal manner as they are bound to a nation's law for travelling to it. It states that refugees are entitled to international protection, but doesn't seem to make it clear whether the way they arrived is illegal. In such case I had to change the lead until there was clarification.

Reliable sources preferably from the UN need to be used about what should be defined illegal. It is established that economic migrants came in an illegal manner.But does the same apply to those from conflict-ridden countries? I think answer to these questions are needed:

  • Is it under international statues legal for people from war-torn countries to flee to any country per international statues even if they already may be in a "safe country"?
  • Based on that, this may sound stupid but are they allowed to choose in which country they want to live temporarily?
  • Does the migrant crisis include people directly fleeing from war-torn countries directly to European nations. If yes, then is it still legal?
  • If there is something illegal, then what it is. What kind of travel is legal or illegal for those from war-torn countries?

Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 'legality' is irrelevant to refugees. Economic migrants should be seperated textually. Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A few new relevant articles

I need help with evaluating which of the following information that should be inserted into the article, and would appreciate help with incorporating it in an academically appropriate manner:

10000 immigrants arrive in Italy every week, and mostly want to go to northern Europe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/italy-calls-european-countries-take-migrant-ships-country-struggles/

The EU admits that extremely few of the immigrants to Europe have been actual refugees, and are rather there for economic reasons:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/819670/Migrant-crisis-EU-admits-hardly-any-people-arriving-Italy-refugees-deportations/

Germany admits that most of the immigrants almost completely lack education and work skills:

https://amp.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

Europol reports that the Islamic State is radicalising Muslim immigrants into jihadists:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/islamic-state-changing-terror-tactics-to-maintain-threat-in-europe

David A (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • WP:RFC is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. What is the dispute here? —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    No dispute yet. I just thought that the subject is important, and need help with unbiased outside evaluations. David A (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    Please look at how it appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (permalink) and consider trimming it down in accordance with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have now written a brief explanation at the top. David A (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    With this effect. It's even longer than it was. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    Well, this is a rather brief and concise segment. I do not understand why it is supposed to be so difficult to evaluate. David A (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you please rephrase the RfC as a question? What exactly should respondents comment on? GregorB (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have now attempted to do so. David A (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've only read the Europol link and it says nothing about refugees or migrants. It mentions "returning foreign fighters" which refers to European citizens who had joined ISIS. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Okay. I would appreciate if you could check through the others as well. David A (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm boldy closing this RfC. Please review the guidance at WP:RfC carefully, and consider viewing some examples before opening future requests. RfCs are a process for asking for broader community input in order to resolve particular disputes, and not for broad requests for general assistance. Consider posting instead on WP:WikiProject European Union, similar WikiProjects that may be interested, using Template:Help me, or utilizing Wikipedia:Help desk. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    Okay. David A (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Did William Rees Mogg predict the European migration crisis in 1993?

Can someone verify if William Ress Mogg predicted the European migrant crisis in 1993? Somewhere in one of his books he laid out the argument for African migration into Europe. It could be the book that is "The Great Reckoning" from 1993. Can someone verify this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.9.102 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A new study about German media

A new study, assembling evidence from thousands of articles published in German media about the immigration crisis in 2015, has found that it largely systematically lied about the situation and published pure propaganda:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims David A (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Immigrant crime statistics

Since there has been a lot of public discussion about immigrant crime, it is probably appropriate to discuss it in this article but it must be balanced. In particular we need to remember that original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply [my emphasis] a conclusion not stated by the sources. I have a number of concrete concerns regarding the information on Germany, in particular the recently added graph:

BKA Attempted and committed sexual offences by immigrants in Germany 2012-2016[1]
  1. The caption reads "BKA Attempted and committed sexual offences by immigrants in Germany 2012-2016". This might give the incorrect impression that the graph is taken from the publication by the German Federal Criminal Police Office. The figures do indeed seem to have been taken (selectively) from that publication. However, the graph presented by the German authorities also shows the figures for the same offences where no immigrant suspects were involved (showing, for instance, that in 2012, immigrants were involved in only 1.8% of cases but that this increased to 9.1% in 2016).
  2. The cited publication reports that the most frequent (suspected) offence by asylum seekers and refugees is theft, mainly shoplifting,[2] but we present a graph on sexual offences. This may not be intended to convey the message "Immigrants are raping your wives and children", but that is likely to be the inference made by some people. The news coverage (sex sells) and public concern may justify more encyclopedic coverage of sexual offences than would otherwise be the case, but we must be careful not to misrepresent the tenor of the report by selecting only the more salacious elements and ignoring the points that are highlighted.
  3. Our article ignores the overall assessment presented at the end of the cited report, which states:
  • "Festzustellen ist, dass der weit überwiegende Teil der seit Anfang des Jahres 2015 nach Deutschland gekommenen Zuwanderer weiterhin keine Strafta¬ten begeht."[3]
Quick translation:
  • "It continues to be the case that the overwhelming majority of immigrants that came to Germany since the beginning of 2015 do not commit any offences."

The BKA report also has information about the immigrants broken down by age and sex. --Boson (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung - Bundeslagebild 2016. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt. May 2017. pp. 15–19.
  2. ^ Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung - Bundeslagebild 2016. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt. May 2017. p. 20.
  3. ^ Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung - Bundeslagebild 2016. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt. May 2017. p. 42.
  1. The numbers presented by BKA on page 15 show, that sexual assaults not involving immigrants are on a slight downward trend whereas when immigrant cases are added, the overall trend is reversed to slightly up.
  2. Yes, we could mention the most prevalent & over-represented crimes in a summary in this article. More detail could be given in the main article Immigration and crime in Germany.
  3. Such an overall conclusion is not useful for an encyclopedia. What if a geographer were to conclude, in the article about Canada, that "most of earth's land surface is overwhelmingly not covered by Canada". Such conclusions are entering the realm of absurdity because they are neither informative nor balanced. A useful qualitative statement should at the very least mention prevalence (such as "twentieth", a "hundredth" or "thousandth"), a trend and also causes.
Have a good weekend! Regards, AadaamS (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Do post-migration activities belong here at all?

Reflecting on this a bit more, I am inclined to think that the last three paragraphs of the Germany sub-section (and the image about the sexual assault protests in Cologne) do not belong in this article at all. This sub-section on Germany is part of the sub-section "Migrant routes, development and responses in individual countries". For the other countries, the information seems largely limited to the migration itself and government responses to it, not including the life of the immigrants afterwards. --Boson (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The effects on host countries is covered by the word development in the title of the subsection and migration hasn't finished until the migrants have assimilated into the destination country. Of course the sections on other countries could be expanded too. Of course the Cologne sexual assaults belong in this article as many of the perpetrators were migrants who not yet had citizenship of Germany - i.e. they were still in the process of migrating. AadaamS (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources for the phenonmenon, it makes little sense for enwp to refuse to write about it for reasons of "scope". Or shall we have a new section in this article? AadaamS (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no question of enwp refusing to write about it, as you put it. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should write about everything in every article. The high-level article must cover all countries and all aspects. And whether we are talking about summarizing other Wikipedia article or relevant official reports, we need to maintain balance and avoid selecting the more sensational issues. Accounts of crimes by or against immigrants in Germany naturally belong in the relevant article, Immigration and crime in Germany, which, as a more detailed article covering the intersection of the topics immigration, crime, and Germany, is better able to provide the necessary context with due weight for all the aspects selected by the title. Including detailed information (e.g. sexual offences by immigrants in Germany) may appear to work if we include only sexual offences and only Germany, but that risks giving undue weight to the sensational and recent, so I would be inclined to restrict the information on crime in individual countries to little more than a link to the relevant article (e.g. Immigration and crime in Germany), perhaps with a very brief summary of the overall assessment. The BKA article does seem to do a reasonable job of providing the necessary context and giving the necessary weight to different topics. This is done, for instance, by providing an overall assessment. --Boson (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There are, of course, things that Wikipedia should not write about, such as trivial local news. Wikipedia is not a news feed; nor is it a collection of statistics without context. I would suggest we remove and stop adding items of local news that mention migrants or refugees. I am thinking of isolated items like:
  • 4 workers at an asylum centre apparently contracted TB from an infected refugee
  • some asylum seekers were attacked by some youths with fireworks
  • one municipality created gender-segregated housing for unaccompanied minors
--Boson (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
* Here is a better source from Folkhälsomyndigheten (Public Health Agency of Sweden) which makes the connection between the migration wave and the rise in the cases of TBC in Sweden. The connection is made in the text and the number of cases is available in this graph. Ergo, a nationwide falling trend in TBC cases reverted by immigration is hardly local news. The second bullet point was hardly local news either, the nazi attack was reported in national media. They were not "some youths", they are part of the nazi organisation Nordisk Ungdom according to the source. It does not serve enwp to trivialise nazi violence by characterising them as some random youths.AadaamS (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The tuberculosis example seems to illustrate – to a greater or lesser extent –several potential problems. Here I was talking about the journalistic content that probably doesn't belong in English Wikipedia at all, such as the mention of four cases of tuberculosis in a single hostel. It's not a question of whether the incident is "notable" in the sense of being reported by national media but whether it is encyclopedic. The article currently states:

  • "In August 2016 four workers at asylum centres for refugee children were reported to have been infected by tuberculosis and health services reported a marked increase in tuberculosis infections due to the crisis."

An increase in the number of tuberculosis cases due to increased immigration may be valid encyclopedic content (though I'm not sure it is best in this section of this article), but I think the mention of the four cases is journalistic, used to provide "human interest" (i.e. identification of Swedish readers with the Swedish victims) and therefore not encyclopedic. --Boson (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As regards context and selection: My Swedish is not that good, but the new source seems to be about tuberculosis in general (in Sweden) and mentions as a matter of fact that cases have decreased in 2016 (compared with 2015) as might be expected because of the decrease in asylum-seekers and the fact that most cases of tuberculosis are found in people recently arrived from other countries. So yes, it does establish a connection between the migrant crisis and tuberculosis, but this is somewhat selective. The additional context provided by the report is that cases per 100,000 have dropped from over 300 in 1940 to less than 10 for the last few decades. As I understand it, the "migrant crisis" began in 2015; in 2014, there were 7.1 cases per 100,000; in 2015, this increased to 8.5 and in 2016 it decreased to 7.3. So we need to choose what context to provide and what statistics to select. At the moment, we have

  • "In 2015 an increase of 22% on the previous year was noted, this was largely attributed to an increased inflow of migrants over that year. 90% of people infected with tuberculosis were born abroad."

--Boson (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European migrant crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Future of the Crisis

I think that the last section of the article should avoid general speculation such as "soon headed towards the next stage of illegal immigration". Also the reference to the talks in Paris in 2017 should be explained further and discuss the policies proposed at the conference. Summerbales (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Summerbales

Eurosceptic parties

This section could add more information about other Eurosceptic parties in countries such as Austria, Hungary and Germany. It could also elaborate on the increasing number of anti immigration platforms in Europe in response to the migrant crisis. Summerbales (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Summerbales

Missing Citations

The third and fourth paragraph in the introduction are missing citations/sources. Summerbales (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Summerbales

Absence of References/Citations

Paragraphs 4 and 5 in the introduction do not have any references or citations indicating where the information was received. The paragraphs discuss three different operations and some of their details, yet fail to cite where the information regarding the operations came from. Kylepangan (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The section of the page labelled "Deaths and Incidences" contains no references or citations. The information provided seems very broad and there is no concrete facts or evidence of the causes of death that are discussed. Kylepangan (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing/Plagiarism Issues

The section of the page title "Spain," contains some text that directly quotes the article without any quotation marks. This section of the page should be revised and paraphrased instead of being copied and pasted. The text copied and pasted is in regards to citation 322, the citing of the article, "Europe: Migrants Crisis Reaches Spain." Kylepangan (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

European migrant crisis editing help needed

Hello

I might get topic banned soon, so I would greatly appreciate if somebody could please evaluate, possibly reword, and if it is deemed appropriate add the following references to this page. Thank you.

Europol reports that the Islamic State is radicalising Muslim immigrants into jihadists:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/islamic-state-changing-terror-tactics-to-maintain-threat-in-europe

A new study, assembling evidence from thousands of articles published in German media about the immigration crisis in 2015, has found that it largely systematically lied about the situation and published propaganda:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims

The German government has created very extreme laws of censorship for social media such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Accounts that break the rules have to immediately be shut down, or the companies will have to pay 50 million Euros in fines:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-23/germany-full-censorship-now-official

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/30/with-new-law-germany-tells-social-media-companies-to-erase-hate-or-face-fines-up-to-57-million/

David A (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

no No action Not a legitimate COI edit request.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European migrant crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I proposed merging European migrant crisis (Finland) here recently with the following reasoning: I see no need for a separate article on Finland with this issue since all the timeline-ish data gathered could be more feasibly converted into prose on the main article's Migrant routes, development and responses in individual countries subheading as has been done with other countries. Manelolo (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose No reason why we can't have both this article focusing on Finland, and the article on Europe as a whole.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European migrant crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European migrant crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Including 'Refugee Perspective'

The article does not present any "refugee perspective" but rather everything is shown through the lens of the EU and its surrounding politics. Some things that might be worth including are the scenarios faced by refugees while migrating to Europe. For example, detailing the path to asylum would be a worthy topic in this article. The article already takes into account several of the "most common routes" but the details are lacking. I do not think that each route needs to be explained in full detail but I do think that the general route to safety that these migrants face would be a good way to include a refugee perspective. In doing so, there rises an opportunity to address the obstacles that are otherwise glossed over in this article; such as crime, violence, persecution, and health among others. Ajs426 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is titled EUROPEAN MIGRANT crisis. i. e. it is about the current ongoing increased influx of immigrants. Start an Arabian/South Asian/African emigration article, there u can present migrant perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.246.81 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, Ajs426, and this is just one of many articles where NPOV is being more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Deb (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename: European migrant crisis (2015–)

Propose renaming vague title per info in text: European migrant crisis (2015–).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title, and no consensus to move to any other particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

European migrant crisis → Immigration to Europe in the 21st century – The use of the word "crisis" in an article title is already non-neutral, and I would suggest such a word should only be used historically of a situation with a defined beginning, middle and end (e.g. Suez Crisis, which nowadays in the UK is simply referred to as "Suez", although that's clearly not a suitable article title). It's clear that the contributors to this article don't even agree on when the current "crisis" began (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_18#Category:Crimes_related_to_the_European_migrant_crisis and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_8#Category:Crimes_related_to_the_European_migrant_crisis). Although the creation of a separate article in addition to the existing Immigration to Europe article is justified because of the sheer volume of material, the connection with historical patterns of migration needs to be made clearer. The present title is inappropriate and ambiguous: some would say there is a crisis in intra-European migration but this is not covered by the article (which, frankly, is an invitation to edit in a non-NPOV manner). Even User:E.M.Gregory, who created the category Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis recognises that it is problematic. Other articles will be affected by this change and I volunteer to clean them up accordingly if this proposed move is accepted. Deb (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Note that in the Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis discussion, 3 editors have suggested moving this page to European migrant crisis (2015–), a name supported by the article and by the COMMON use of Migrant crisis, European migrant crisis to describe a new, mass migrant movement that began in 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support a move to European migrant crisis (2015–).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I recommend you made a formal request then, so that it gets onto the "Requested moves" page. For me, part of the point of the renaming is that the so-called "crisis" did not begin in 2015, but had been going on for many years. Deb (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This article describes the crisis that started 2015, and it is made clear in the first sentence. Most sources also call it that way, so this is the correct title. There is also no need for an addition, as this is the most common use of the term.--Greywin (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The article says the crisis started in 2015 because that is what a contributor chose to write. The cited source actually suggests 2014, and even that is synthesis. Deb (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose, it is clear that immigration in Europe turned into a huge human and political problem (a 'crisis') in 2015, which makes "21st century" unnecessary broad. Having said that, there is probably room for another article about immigration to Europe for a longer period of time (also including the years after 2015). For this article however, I would support a move to European migrant crisis (2015) but not to European migrant crisis (2015–) since after 2015 it has become just one of many ongoing political problems and it no longer has the character of a crisis. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There is already an article called Immigration to Europe but it is too long to include all this material, otherwise I would have proposed incorporating this. Deb (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, European migrant crisis (2015) is clearly preferable to European migrant crisis (2015–) as figures show that an exceptional wave of migrants to Europe was only the case in 2015, and that the situation after that came back pretty much to what it was before. Events in the article seem to focus on 2015. Alternatively, I suggest 2015 European migrant crisis, which seems more in line with naming conventions. Place Clichy (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is clearly a crisis, as stated by various sources, whether it's media, NGOs or governments. - Darwinek (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how it is commonly referred to. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this specific rename as too vague - it is clear that the article relates not to immigration in general, or in historic terms, but to a specific phenomenon and the accompanying 'fallout'. Perhaps the title can be improved, but the present title is the nearest thing to an accurate COMMONNAME that I can think of. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Is that a joke?Ernio48 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree that "crisis" is "non-neutral". The "European migrant crisis" commonly refers to the increased level of immigration to Europe since 2015. Note also that "in the 21st century" is misleading, as the article is only about events that have been ongoing since 2015. Moving to European migrant crisis (2015–) or maybe European migrant crisis (2015) could be good idea for clarity. SBareSSomErMig (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the current name is indeed not fully neutral, it does conform to what sources call it, and apparently has no real alternative; "Immigration to Europe in the 21st century" is too generic. GregorB (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refs for 'Islamic State' section

It appears this section once did have refs, but they vanished with Ajs246's edit on April 14 2018. Can someone verify and re-add them? 84.245.26.53 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Death statistics for 2016 and 2017

Hi. I am missing this info. The article contains death/disappearance statistics for previous years, but not for 2016 and 2017. RhinoMind (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What about the history of migration?

Is this truly a migrant crisis? The channels of the migration have existed prior to this time period. These migrants were usually temporary migrants sought out from the European countries in question. People would temporarily migrate from Africa to work in Europe then return home following, this would be cyclic in nature. The idea of the European migrant crisis that began in 2015 does not really address the historical aspects and origins of the migration routes. (Particularly with France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luhhhlissa (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of first time asylum applicants[126]

Cited source 126 doesn't back up the statistics of section: Number of first time asylum applicants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.168.52 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Source incomplete for chart

"Mediterranean sea arrivals to Greece and Italy from January 2015 to September 2016, according to UNHCR data"

The referred NHCR data is only till the end of 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C1:B749:9800:B1DC:396E:B3F2:94B2 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Article about relate topic to corrects: Draft:Initiatives to counter migrant smuggling on the Central Mediterranean Sea 2013-2018. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Germany: False "scandal" - explain or remove?

It has by now turned out that the "scandal" being referred to in the German section (regarding the asylum office in Braunschweig) was a big media show and didn't really happen in that way. The media is under heavy fire for that now. Some sources (in German): http://www.message-online.com/vom-politik-zum-presseskandal/ and https://taz.de/Vermeintliche-Fehler-in-Bremen/!5586346/ . Should we add this new info or rather completely remove that paragraph since it now basically provides no more value to the article? Nordostsüdwest (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reactions by Native Citizens

I recently made some edits to include more information regarding the reactions of native citizens to immigration of Muslims into Europe. Going forward, I recommend including some updated events on the matter. Why aren't there already a lot of coverage on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebae306 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you were misrepresenting sources (like the Independent article about the number of deaths in the Mediterranean, where you wrote "The UN Refugee Agency found that since 2014 at least 18,900 Muslim individuals died while attempting to cross Mediterranean Sea" which is not what the source says – you know, "migrant" is not equivalent to "Muslim", right?), and you were giving a lot of information about reactions and statistics about the Muslim population in Europe, that has nothing to do with the scope of this article, which is about the migrant crisis. Also, what does exactly "reactions by native citizens" mean? Like, there are hundreds of millions of "native" Europeans, are we going to list the reactions of every single one of them? Even in that section you focus on the "reactions" (namely, some incidents) involving native Europeans and Muslims, but again, the article is not about Muslims in Europe, it's about the migrant crisis. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_European_migrant_crisis/Archive_2&oldid=1164982631"