Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cuisine section

I'm thinking of putting a cuisine section with an image. Has anyone got any objection to it? The food the British Somalis eat in the UK is pretty much similiar, if not exactly the same as they would eat in Somalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazancourt (talk • contribs) 09:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be talking specifically about Somalis in the UK, and the sources need to be reliable. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

I have removed these sections for now.

The Anglo-Somali Society is an international friendship society whose objective is to foster friendship and understanding between the Somali-speaking world and the English-speaking world, as well as seek to develop cultural and social relations between them. The organization was founded in 1962 to promote better ties between Somalia and the United Kingdom. The society maintains its own journal, which it publishes twice a year, and contributes to charities working in various cities in Somalia. Its members include people from all walks of life and professions.

There is a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots of Muslims living in modern Britain. The BBC documentary The Tower was filmed as the July 7th terrorist attacks shook London. Episodes 5 and 7 focused on a Somali family, led by unemployed parents, and contrasted the lifestyle with a British Pakistani couple, who held highly paid jobs in Canary Wharf, as they lived adjacent to one another in East London. The documentary showed the British Pakistani couple, Saima and Usman respectively employed as a Dentist and Investment Banker, basking in their £1 million apartment as the Somali father, Shakor a former drug dealer, wiped condensation from his window (in gaze of the Pakistani couples riverside apartment) and shrieked "I will one day buy my daughter the biggest doll in the world". The documentary showed a stark difference in education, income and living standards between an experienced Asian Muslim community and a newly arrived African Muslim community living in Britain.

The material from the Abdullah book appear to be about Somalis generally. Unless its specifically about Somalis in the UK, it would be irrelevant or OR to include it. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

References

The Tower

I've removed this again, because the sources don't seem to mention that they are Somalis. It's also just one documentary on a few individuals so probably isn't important or relevant enough to include here. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Housing, unemployment & asylum seekers

I just noticed two rather significant omissions in the housing and unemployment sections, factors which in large part help explain the patterns one sees in these areas. First, most of the Somali immigrants qualify for social housing since they have either refugee status, settled status or UK or EEA citizenship. Social housing for asylum seekers is also allocated by the UK Border Agency (UKBA), and expires after an asylum claim has been processed. Second, according to the Warwickshire Police Force and ELWa, asylum seekers are not legally allowed to work for payment since the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) (now the UK Border Agency) administers their monetary benefits while their claim is being processed. I have therefore adjusted the text to include these important factors. Middayexpress (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection to the above. Why though do we need to mention the obvious fact that numerically they account for a small amount of social-housing tenants? Numbering 100,000 it would be impossible for them to take up the majority of social housing. The same source also gives their exact numbers and the numbers of the UK-born social tenants. It would be more enlightening to include that too. Regarding family sizes, while it's mentioned already, it's useful to give more precise demographic info. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It would indeed perhaps be more enlightening to cite the total number of social tenants in both communities. The source itself does, after it indicates that the Somali community is not particularly large and its constituents who are in social housing represent a numerically small number: "However, these groups are numerically small in relation to the total of social tenants in the UK. The overall size of the Somalia-born population is small - an estimated 92,200 persons in Quarter Three of 2007, of which 72,800 were social tenants, compared with 8.4 million UK-born social tenants".

I also don't have any objection to mentioning the specific family size. But here too the source adds the explanation that "Family size among foreign-born populations is higher than the UK-born population. Proportionally more households have three or more children, and the Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Somalia-born population have the highest proportion of families with five or more children. For example, some 10.8 per cent of Somalia-born households have five or more children, compared with just 0.3 per cent of the UK born population. These groups are overwhelmingly housed in the rental sector, in social housing or in private rental accommodation, as many of those with larger families and lower incomes may be unable to afford to purchase suitable property." That said, I've adjusted the text to accommodate this. Middayexpress (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue & unrepresentative

An editor has added the following soapboxing section on Somalis' "relationship to Black British Communities":

Many young Somalis in Britain identify with the 'a wider black culture'. However, there is also evidence that the group, with regard to other Black British people has 'remained largely separate'. Mohamed, N (2012) regards this sense of difference as being predominantly religious, with other black groups (from West Africa and the Caribbean) having strong Christian traditions. However, Fryer, P (1984) notes that some early 20th-century Somali residents did self-identify as black. Fryer quotes extensively from the 1928 autobiography of Ibrahim Ismaa'il, a Somali seaman and poet, who notes that 'Shortly after our arrival, the black people in Cardiff were attacked by crowds of white people… So we went to the Somali boarding house of Haadzi 'Aali and there we waited, ready for an attack, as we expected that a crowd of white people might break in at any moment'. Commenting on resistance to 'colonialism and racism' in the UK, Adi, H claims that the 'first black member' of the Communist Party of Great Britain was the leader of Cardiff's Somali Youth League "Mohamed Tuallah Mohamed'. However, Sabra Mohammed, speaking to the Guardian in 2012, reported that identification with other black communities in the UK was a matter of constant discussion ""We always have that debate; are Somalians black?" She acknowledged that a similar, informal, debate about Somali identity existed in wider UK society claiming that some whites 'attacked' Somalis, for being black, whilst some blacks rejected Somalis.

Besides being WP:UNDUE, the paragraph attempts to associate Somalis with the Black British community, largely through unrepresentative assertions and anecdotes. The term "Black British" typically refers to descendants of West Africans in the New World (the Caribbean mainly), and sometimes also to other Black immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Nigerian British people [3]. It does not typically refer to relative newcomers such as Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians from the other side of the continent, who in general have a quite different ancestral, biological and cultural background (e.g. [4]). The reality is, few Somalis self-identify racially as "black" (c.f. [5]). This in turn is due to the distinct genetic history of the Afro-Asiatic communities in the Horn region (e.g. [6], [7]), as well as their differing traditions of descent (c.f. 1, 2). Mitton and Aspinall (2010), a British study specifically on the subject, thus notes that "this arises because those from Somalia may consider themselves to be Arab-African rather than Black African because of their religion and physical features" [8]. The editor has also added the Category:Black British, a category that is specifically reserved for Afro-Caribbeans and related communities per this community discussion on the since deleted Category:British people of Black African descent. It was concluded that Somalis in the UK and other similar groups would instead be classified under the general Category:British people of African descent. Middayexpress (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Middayexpress I think it would have been better if you had attempted WP:Discussion and improve it if you can FIRST, instead of just randomly deleting the sentire ection "Relationship to Black British Communities" [9]. I very precisely included specific and highly reliable academic citations for the material I added, using highly-reputable sources like 'The Guardian' [10], 'Staying Power: The history of Black People in Britian' [11] and 'The Oxford Companion to Black British History'.[12] which are, by far, the most authoritative sources. Your ideas about Black British identity, which you have been attempting to force upon Wikipedia are verging on WP:FRINGE 'racial' theories. My edit had nothing to do with 'genetics' or 'skin colour', or 'traditions of descent'. It was about how various parties in Britain (not in the Horn of Africa) think of the relationship of British Somalis to UK black social identities. Furthermore, your recent habit of following me around wikipedia, deleting my sourced edits, coupled with your attempt to completely erase the Category:Black British writers, simply because the British writers Rageh Omaar[13] and Nadifa Mohamed[14] self-identified as 'black' in public documents, might be construed as WP:WIKIHOUNDING (as well as a form of ethnic-cleansing). This is especially true, given that, in the past 24 hours, I have twice been forced to warn you about potential WP:EDITWARRING. I understand that you have a strong interest in Somali history, which is good. But, you are not very well acquainted with Black British history, in which Somalis have played a long-term role - and in which I am very highly-qualified. I am going to restore the perfectly reasonable section, in which various well-known writers and British Somali commentators discuss the relationship of British Somalis to the well-recognised social identity 'Black British'. Disruption of my well-sourced, highly relevant, mainstream edits will only bring Wikipedia into disrepute – and, given your immense contribution to the site, I know you don't want that. Ackees (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, those are all pages I contribute to as part of WikiProject Somalia. You may be an expert on your Black British community, but certainly not on Somalis. Somalis in the main do not self-identify as "Black British". The academic, British source on this very subject linked to above makes this abundantly clear. On the other hand, the links you included are neither "highly reliable" nor academic; particularly the opinion piece from one author Nadifa Mohamed on which your entire contention that Somalis in the UK "identify with the 'a wider black culture'" is based. Per WP:RSOPINION, opinion pieces are never used as sources on living people. Similarly, the Fryer book does not assert that "some early 20th-century Somali residents did self-identify as black"; this is original research [15]. Further, the assertion that the "'first black member' of the Communist Party of Great Britain was the leader of Cardiff's Somali Youth League "Mohamed Tuallah Mohamed'" and Ibrahim Ismaa'il's autobiographical testimony of the 1928 street riots are allusions to a time period when the term "Black" in Britain was used in a political manner to identify all non-white minorities. It is not used in the same way as the newer term "Black British" like your paragraph implies [16] (a term which is mainly restricted to Afro-Caribbeans and their West African kin [17]).

"Early twentieth-century Britain, indeed, offers compelling evidence of how racial differences were constructed and assigned meaning, and of how these meanings changed. In Britain as in the colonies, the epithet "black," or the more polite "coloured," described Africans and West Indians, South Asians and Arabs[...] while the terms "Arab" and "Somali" were applied with similar imprecision to Sudanese, Adenese, Somalis, Yemenis, Zanzibaris, and Egyptians. This diverse population shared neither physiognomy nor culture they were united by a political and historical relationship of colonial subordination. Thus "Black" was a political label rather than a physical description: the boundary between Black and white was not drawn on the basis of physical appearance, but on relations of power, changing over time and continually contested."

Lastly, the anecdotal assertion that one Sabra Mohamed "claimed that some whites 'attacked' Somalis, for being black, whilst some blacks rejected Somalis" is completely original research and pov. There's no mention of "whites" "attack[ing]" Somalis, or "some blacks" rejecting Somalis. Enough with the soapboxing. I've contacted the other main contributor to this page, a British fellow who oversees most of the British-related articles. He should be along shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Aspinall and Mitton (whom you mistakenly cite) clearly identifies Somali people in the UK as 'Black African' - firstly, by including them in their study of 'Black African' people in the UK, and secondly by using phrases such as "Somalis Tend to live in household with OTHER Black Africans."[[18] (my emphasis). Their observation that some Somalis 'may' or 'may not' identify as black is indeed the subject of the section you erroneously deleted. In fact, I might cite them when I re-instate the edit. London and Rodgers, whom you also cite [19] have nothing at all to say about Somalis in Britain - so are irrelevant. Fryer, one of the leading historians on the subject, included Somalis in his book 'The History of black people in Britain' because he is writing about Somalis who identified, and were identified as 'black' - (which is obvious, isn't it). The Somali British journalist, Sabra, Mohammed[20] did state, 'We get ...attacked because we are black' In that phrase, she self-identified - herself and her community ('we' - Somali British people), not only as black but as a community that resists (by exposure in 'The Guardian') white racial attacks (obviously implicit - if you knew anything at all about the realities of Somali life in the UK). Finally, you cite, in your defence, the 'moving here' glossary,[21] which, in its definition of 'black' directly opposes your case. "Black British refers broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain." Did you even read it? I suppose, I should thank you for being even-handed enough making that available to us. You do not WP:OWN this, or any other Somali related page. Your WP:FRINGE theories on 'racial' pseudo-science, 'genetics', and 'skin colour' are likely to cause great offence to readers from all social identity groups. One more unjustified revert to my well-sourced edit and I will report you for WP:EDITWARRING.Ackees (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When a user reverts your edit, the next step in the WP:BRD cycle is discussion and consensus. It is not re-inserting that contentious material, much less berating that user for following protocol. This is because, per WP:BURDEN, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". WP:BLP is in turn very clear that "contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That would apply here. With that said, that powerpoint presentation is not the study I referred and linked to. The actual study is a 23 page academic paper and contains paragraphs and footnotes. It looks like this. The authors state that although for the purposes of their analysis they have processed Somalis that marked 'Other' as "Black African", they realize that Somalis may actually consider themselves Arab African instead of Black African due to their religious background and physical appearance ("The exception is Somalis reporting their ethnicity as 'Other', which we assumed to be Black African for our analysis, even though they might not self-define that way. This arises because those from Somalia may consider themselves to be Arab-African rather than Black African because of their religion and physical features" [22]). This contradicts the gist of your argument that most Somalis consider themselves to be "Black British". Further, as I also explained and quoted, the term "Black" historically in Britain was used to identify all non-white minorities. Fryers consequently explains in his historical review that "Somalis and Arabs in Liverpool, though untouched by the violence, declared their solidarity with the rest of the black community" [23]. Additionally, the Sabra Mohamed woman in the guardian link does not state anywhere that "white racists" attacked Somalis. She actually doesn't identify any specific population and seems to be speaking in a general way. Yet you somehow concluded from this that it is implicit that it must have been "white racists" and "white racial attacks". Fyi, WP:VER instructs that "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". What Sabra does actually state is that Somalis are attacked because they are Muslim and "black". She qualifies that further with the statement that "We always have that debate; are Somalians black?" That's multiple Somalis apparently questioning the appropriateness of the "black" label that's been foisted upon them by some. With regard to that movinghere link [24], what it states in its full context is that "in the Migration Histories gallery, Black British refers to British descendants of first generation Caribbean migrants[...] where necessary Black British refers broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain, for instance, 'the relationship between Black British people and the police'." In other words, "Black British" as a synonym for people in Britain from both the Caribbean and Africa is an ancillary application of the term; it is not the predominant one. In its primary usage, the term refers to peoples of Afro-Caribbean descent, like I wrote. At any rate, I'm confident that this will all be sorted out once the other editor returns. Middayexpress (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'disputed neutrality' box will have to go, I'm afraid, as the sources are all WP:RELIABLE and the writing balanced and neutral. There is no 'gist' about 'most' Somalis. I have simply reported what the sources say without embellishment. The fundamental problem with you citing the Aspinal study to disprove that Somalis are black – is that they included Somalis in a study entitled "Black Africans in England". If they had decided that Somalis were not black, they could have changed the title. If Somalis had not wanted to take part in a study about 'Black Africans', they could have refused to participate. Or, the authors could have stated that Somalis were not black. None of this happened. Instead, they speculate about what some Somalis 'may consider'. When Fryer says 'solidarity with the REST of the black community' (my emphasis) he is clearly indicating that not only Somali's but also Arabs identified with other black people. Or, why use the word rest? In particular, you missed out the very next sentence "A Somali spokesman was quoted as saying: 'This is as much our business as the West Africans or anyone else. If it can happen to them it can happen to us'[25] I am glad that you admit that Sabra thinks Somali's are black. Pray tell, which attackers of blacks for being black do you imagine she is referring to? And why are you using 'other words' for the 'Moving People' reference. Surely, it is a glossary, and their own words are clear enough...[26] However, I doubt many in the UK think their identity is determined by 'The Migration Histories' gallery. People in the UK usually, like Nadifa Mohamed, just decide for themselves - she says she is a 'black person', regards her father when young as a 'black child' and refers to a British Somali victim of a racist miscarriage of justice as a 'black guy'.[27]Ackees (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Somalis didn't participate in Mitton and Aspinall's study. The researchers used government datasets and drew their own conclusions; inferences which they then conceded were probably contrary to how most Somalis perceive themselves. The Somalis alluded to above that ticked 'Other' comes from one such dataset. Moreover, Fryer is using the expression "black people" in its old, political sense in Britain. That is, to denote ethnic minorities in general. This is why both Somalis and Arabs are referred to as "black people", show solidarity with the West Africans, worry that they too could be victimized next, etc. This is also why Fryer explains elsewhere that "from the early 1950's, Britain's other black community -- the hitherto tiny community of settlers from the Indian sub-continent -- also began to grow as rural workers from India and Pakistan came to work in Britain" [28]. Further, Sabra is clearly speaking figuratively when she says that Somalis are being "attacked". She obviously does not mean physically attacked, nor does she name any assailants. This is also just one 21 year old's off-hand opinion on who Somalis are. From her assertion that she and other Somalis "always have that debate", it's clear as well that it's hardly a settled matter for her. The same could be said for the Nadifa Mohamed opinion piece, which in any case is not a reliable source for edits on living people (c.f. policy quotes above). The Mitton and Aspinall academic study, however, is a reliable source. Nadifa also doesn't declare herself to be a "black person" in that Ledge link, so I'm not sure why that was added. She is speaking in that passage in general, speculative terms about the past, a time well before she was born. At any rate, I've adjusted the section per the foregoing. I've also added a similar section on the Somali relationship with the British Arab community. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I cant add any authority on this (sources, books etc). But I do have an opinion or two which might (or might not be of use). Let me first state I reject black African as an identity. Sub-Saharan African rarely is used to describe Ethiopians and Somali people in popular mainstream. Somali people historical in the UK 100% DO NOT identify with other African groups (except Ethiopians, people from N Sudan, and Eritrea, etc). I have to agree sometimes the term "black" has a very broad application (see SA for example). BUT, now this is where is gets tricky, the New generation of Somali's (UK born) are more Jamaican than the Jamaican culture they imitate. They 100% identify with Black British Culture (and Black British identity goes beyond pure African or not, most mix heritage people are as hardcore Black British as you can imagine). Oh it has more to do than just physical features, it would be culture/religion as well. Just remember many people from the Caribbean have the same features as Somalis,(See Black British from TnT) As i said i have no books to cite, but my 2 cents might help the debate.--Inayity (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Inayity for the helpful insight. I agree with most of the above. A number of Somali youngsters born in the UK, like many of their peers from other ethnic groups, do imitate/identify with Black British culture. I'd add that many also identify with generic Muslim culture. These UK-born Somalis numerically represent a small fraction of Somalis in Britain, as most of the latter are Somalia-born immigrants. Your assertion that the only African groups that Somalis in the UK have traditionally ethnically identified with is other Northeast Africans is also accurate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Many British Somalis identify themselves and each other as Black British people

An editor keeps trying to assert that Somalis, in the context of Britain, are not 'black people'. This WP:FRINGE theory is based on the pseudo-scientific opinions of the American segregationist Carlton Coon, who believed that Somalis were really 'white' people. Coon's reasons for asserting the 'whiteness' of Somalis are predictably obscure and rooted in his belief in American segregation, but in the UK, Somalis - particularly the younger generations - often identify themselves as black people. There is now a section in the article to illustrate this, including many WP:RELIABLE sources in which Somalis and non-Somalis in the UK identify themselves and each other as Black British people. Their reasons for doing this are related to Britain's unique history and demography. Hopefully WP:GOODFAITH editors will recognise this fact and help to maintain the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia.Ackees (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Those continuous allusions to this Coon felow (who isn't even mentioned in the article; a WP:TALK breach) won't do anything to change the facts enumerated above. Kenya was also a British territory; so yes, it is relevant. On the other hand, the phrase that "the authors described British Somali young people as ‘black and muslim’" is a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the relationship between Somalis and the Black British community. If I wanted to, I could do the same thing and quote the Somali UK politician in this article who asserts that "I am Somali, I am Arab, I am a Muslim". But that is just one man's self-view, not a statement on the community's self-perception, unlike Mitton and Aspinall (2010). Big difference. The relationship between Somalis and the British Arab community is also well-established. Middayexpress (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The belief that Somalis are not black people stems from acceptance of Carlton Coon's WP:FRINGE theories about a 'white race'. It is in accordance with this that, some WP:FRINGE edits try to push the WP:OR viewpoint that British Somalis are not black people at all. And yet, in a report about conditions for young Somalis in Britain, the (British Somali) authors described British Somali young people as ‘black and muslim’. And, according to the acclaimed British Somali writer, Nadifa Mohamed, many young Somalis in Britain identify with 'a wider black culture'. And, when interviewed by 'The Ledge.com', Mohamed reiterated the point, declaring herself to be 'a black person'. . Meanwhile, Fryer, P (1984) notes that early 20th-century Somali residents did self-identify as black. Fryer quotes extensively from the 1928 autobiography of Ibrahim Ismaa'il, a Somali seaman and poet, who notes that 'Shortly after our arrival, the black people in Cardiff were attacked by crowds of white people… So we went to the Somali boarding house of Haadzi 'Aali and there we waited, ready for an attack, as we expected that a crowd of white people might break in at any moment'. Commenting on resistance to 'colonialism and racism' in the UK, Adi, H claims that the 'first black member' of the Communist Party of Great Britain was the leader of Cardiff's Somali Youth League "Mohamed Tuallah Mohamed'. However, Sabra Mohammed, speaking to the Guardian in 2012, reported that Somalis were 'attacked', for being black. Aspinall and Mitton identify Somali people in the UK as 'Black African' - firstly, by including them in their study of 'Black African' people in the UK, and secondly by using phrases such as "Somalis Tend to live in household with OTHER Black Africans."[29] (my emphasis). In the 'moving here' glossary,[30] which, the WP:FRINGE edit erroneously cites, the definition of 'black' is listed thus: "Black British refers broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain." Thus, the general consensus in the UK is that Somalis are black people, from Africa – albeit with a different heritage to West Africans or people from the Caribbean. Ackees (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same disproved assertions as before. These were already addressed in detail in the posts above from 19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) and 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC). The only new bit is the claim that "belief that Somalis are not black people stems from acceptance of Carlton Coon's WP:FRINGE theories about a 'white race'". This is a patently absurd assertion, as it's Mitton and Aspinall (2010) who state that, although for the purposes of their analysis they have processed Somalis that marked 'Other' as "Black African", they realize that Somalis may actually consider themselves Arab African instead of Black African due to their religious background and physical appearance ("The exception is Somalis reporting their ethnicity as 'Other', which we assumed to be Black African for our analysis, even though they might not self-define that way. This arises because those from Somalia may consider themselves to be Arab-African rather than Black African because of their religion and physical features" [31]). You have also surpassed three reverts, by the way. Middayexpress (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If one or two Somali politicians want to think of themselves as Arabs, than they are welcome to. I can see no fundamental contradiction between being both black and Arab, anymore than there is a contradiction between being black and English or being black and American. It is only WP:FRINGE theories based on the now discredited segregationist pseudo-science of Carlton Coon and Mussolini that attempts to create rigid category barriers between people. Most thinkers today recognise that such theories are nonsense. A number of academics, writers and authorities believe and write that, in general, British Somalis are black people, as per British social conditions We need to keep the sourced WP:RELIABLE and WP:RELEVANT edits in which British Somalis identify themselves and their peers as Black British people.Ackees (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, being Arab, doesn't conflict or negate being whatever black means. In Ethiopia people are called Arab and it does not always mean what it means in the Western world. Arab simple means Speaks Arabic.Afro-Arab relations But I think it would be wrong to say MOST do this. Most Somali people is problematic and maybe we can be more specific.--Inayity (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The same could be said for Somalis as British Arabs. And it would have a lot more historical weight behind it too since all Somali genealogical traditions ultimately trace descent to Arabia (c.f. [32]). Being Arab and "Black British" in the UK are also mutually exclusive, as both are separate ethnicity categories in the UK census. The new "Arab" entry was, in fact, created in the first place to accommodate Somalis and other groups from the Arab world [33]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

When I look at Arab i do not see that helping the situation, who is an Arab is just as nebulous as Who is a Jew. As for this historical claim, Dont Fulani and Hausa people also claim their ancestry is from Arabia? Somali stands alone as an ethnic group - Ethiopians dont have one). I know in America Arabs are generally classified as White. Either way I have to admit I am not sure as it is all very complex and there is no one answer to what they are, as always identities are complex. reminds me of the Khoi Khoi being called Colored in SA. Inayity (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And just for 1 anecdotal second, anyone who lives in the UK knows without doubt Somali people are not seen as Arab. Let us get real. If you go down Edgware road they might be Muslim, but Arabs do not identify them as Arab. They certainly do not socialize with any Arabs--even in the Mosque, for one they cant speak Arabic. So we should discuss the middle ground and that should fix the issue, both worlds both realities with caveats. Inayity (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Horn African ties with Arabia are comparable with the North African ties with Arabia. Arabic is an official language in Somalia and Djibouti, and both are part of the Arab world, as with the North African countries. The social, religious and cultural links between Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans with populations in and from the Arabian peninsula are also well-established. The foregoing can likewise be said for the Egyptian and Berber communities in North Africa. All of these populations from Africa are now accommodated under the new "Arab" ethnicity category in the UK. That said, an attempt was made to reach a middle ground. Compare, for example, this tidied-up version of the disputed section with this other one. The former is clearly better written and sourced, and is more neutral. Specifics as to why this is are provided in the section above. Middayexpress (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I am from Ethiopia and can tell you we are African and not Arab (beyond a shadow of any conceivable doubt). Afro-Arab relations.Having relationships and being Arab or even part of the Arab world (politically) doesn't mean then they are more Arab! No Arab anywhere embraces them as fellow Arabs. (none - they call them Somali or Black people or Africans). Swahili people also have a relationship, they also have the ancestry--doesn't precluded them from being "black". I dont think calling people black African helps to explain the situation, I have no idea what 'black' means --is it skin color? (and no one can define it). But Somali people are just normal black people(if accepted as a valid term), they have the near identical black experience in the UK. (exclusion, racism for being Black --not Arab,). I think for Middle ground, we should then bullet point the issues, which are conflicted. I wish Ackees would return to discuss, and bullet point areas of contention. — Inayity (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Fulani speak a Niger-Congo language. They also live very far away from the Arabian peninsula and do not take pilgrimages to visit the graves of their putative ancestors in Arabia (contrast that with Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti, Maydh and Zabid District). They are also not part of the League of Arab States and are not regarded as part of the Arab community by the main Arab organizations, nor was any seperate "Arab" ethnicity category specifically created to accommodate them in the expatriate community. The inverse is the situation with the Afro-Asiatic populations in the Horn and North Africa. Most of the people in the Arab world are Arabized in varying degrees, including the Egyptians and Berbers in North Africa and many populations in the Horn (see Demographics of the Arab League). So if one singles out Horn Africans as being "not Arab" on this basis, one must do so as well for the other African members of the Arab world. The Arab League's headquarters is, after all, in Africa (Cairo). At any rate, thanks for adjusting the section. However, it is not enough for the reasons enumerated above. An opinion piece is, for example, used to make contentious assertions about living people, and the term "black" is taken completely out of context when allusions are made to the colonial period (it used to refer to all ethnic minorities in Britain). Here's a better version; please comment:

"During the colonial period in the British territory of Kenya, Somali expatriate traders led by the northern Isaaq clan fought for and achieved separate, "non-native" status from the local Black Africans. This mobilization was motivated by a number of factors, including ancestral ties with populations in the Arabian peninsula, strained relations with the local Bantu community, and a desire to secure more equitable living and working conditions.

On the British mainland, the terms "black" or "coloured" were concurrently applied to all ethnic minorities as broad political labels denoting colonial subordination. One of the earliest political exponents of this wider community was Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) member Mohamed Tuallah Mohamed, the Cardiff-based leader of the Somali Youth League, who joined the CPGB around 1923. When anti-immigrant riots broke out in Liverpool in 1948, the resident Somalis and Arabs escaped largely unscathed, but stood behind the targeted West African and Afro-Caribbean migrants.

The term "Black British" later arose in the 1980s to emphasize the political relationship between all ethnic minorities in Britain. It is now mainly used to refer to British nationals descended from first-generation Afro-Caribbean migrants, though the term is sometimes also extended on a political basis to all African or Caribbean immigrants. According to Sabra Mohamed, manager of the Nomad Somali radio station, Somalis in the UK often question the applicability of the "black" label vis-a-vis their community, with a similar debate reportedly taking place in the wider British society. Mitton and Aspinall (2010) consequently note that although Somali immigrants may at times for practical reasons be classified in this way, they may instead regard themselves as Arab-Africans rather than Black Africans due to their physical appearance and Muslim faith."

Middayexpress (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress, thanks for citing the Turton document,[34]. I had a look, and, as with your mistaken claim about 'Afro-Caribbean' appearing in the movinghere.org glossary, there is no occurrence of the phrase 'Black African'. Still, one 'obsequiously worded' telegram from the Isaq spokeman Haj Farah Omar does acknowledge he is 'sometimes considered on the same level as the Negroes of East Africa'. However, Turton claims, "For their part, the Isaq [a Somali clan] refused to be called Africans, or even Somali, if this gave the idea that they came from a part of Africa." [my emphasis] So, in fact the Isaq traders' campaign was a transparent, somewhat pathetic attempt to trick the colonial powers, in order to exploit (and evade the worst of) British racism by having themselves classified as 'Asian'. It was a similar pandering to white racism that fuelled animosity to Asians in Uganda. The Isaq demand resulted from correctly recognising that British colonial apartheid effectively reduced African people to slavery - but did not anticipate that the British empire was on the point of collapse. Indeed, so terrifying was the prospect of white colonial apartheid that Haj Farah Omar actually led a campaign against literacy (or even teaching) in Somali, in case reading their own language made Somalis look too 'African'! These understandably confusing, colonial-era tactics, fuelled by the inherent irrationality of white racism in the age of Hitler, Apartheid, Jim Crow and Mussolini, are in contrast to the more measured thoughts of the cited Somalis in the UK, like Nadifa Mohamed, or Rageh Omaar, who assert that they are Somali, African, British, Muslims, and black people, too - with links to Arabia.

Of course, apart from one athlete, the dominant mass media image of Somalis in the UK, has for two decades been relentlessly one of starving,[35] terrorist,[36] piratical,[37] rapacious,[38] war-mongering,[39] 'asylum seekers'.[40] Given this context, Somalis in the UK are well aware that asserting a black identity - like that of Barak Obama, Nelson Mandela, Mohammed Ali, Zadie Smith, Trevor Macdonald, Diane Abbott or Naomi Campbell - is not generally regarded (in the UK at least) as a sign of inherent 'inferiority'. And, given the historical ambiguity you've documented, and their extremely poor image, it's not as though other black people (or Arabs, or Muslims for that matter - who have 'image problems' of their own) have a particularly strong motive to be associated with Somalia - other than basic human empathy. So, to sum up. Yes, in the colonial era some opportunist, collaborationist Somali politicians and businessmen disavowed their own parents by rejecting a Somali, black or African identity - even preferring mother-tongue illiteracy. They weren't the first or the last of the colonised to act in a such a way – their Polish contemporaries collaborated with the German empire. However, there is also no doubt that some contemporary and historical Somalis have asserted a sense of solidarity and identity with their fellow Africans, and other black people – many of whom have recently laid down their lives to assist their troubled country.AMISOMAckees (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You clearly understand very little about Somali society, identity and dynamics. First of all, the supposed mass media image of people from Somalia (which btw is a multi-ethnic country) is irrelevant. Secondly, the Isaaq leader attempted to distance himself from the "Somali" moniker for several basic reasons. For starters, 'Somali' is a fairly recent term that was first applied to Somalis by outsiders (c.f. [41]). Somalis instead traditionally named themselves after their own respective clan ancestors. Haji Farah would thus have been from the Reer Isaaq ("Isaaq Family"). Secondly, the Isaaq clan ancestor, one Sheikh Ishaq ibn Ahmad al-Hashimi (Sheikh Isaaq), was an Arab who arrived on the northern Somali coast during the 12th-13th centuries. His tomb is in Maydh and is still a popular place of pilgrimage. This is what the Isaaq meant when they emphasized that Arabic was their spoken and written language (which, in any case, is also an Afro-Asiatic language like Somali).

As Turton explains, the whole purpose of the Somalis' agitation for "non-native" classification in the British territory of Kenya was to avoid being categorized on the same low social level as the local Bantus, whom the Somalis had strained relations with and regarded as a distinct people. The Somalis in the territory therefore went as far as to insist on being allowed to pay higher taxation like "non-natives". They also opposed the selection of the Roman/Latin script during the Somali campaign for a standard orthography for the Somali language, since some Bantu communities had already adopted the script for their own Bantu languages. The Somalis preferred instead their long-standing Wadaad's writing (Turton is actually mistaken when he indicates that Somali was "only spoken"; there were in fact several historical Somali scripts, such as Osmanya and Kaddare, in addition to the lost Somali script [42]). They were ultimately rewarded for their cumulative efforts, with a special Somali Exemption Ordinance passed in 1919 granting them limited non-native status. Further, "in a government notice of 1921 defining the term 'native', in the General Revision Ordinance of 1925 which repealed it, and in the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance of 1934, the Isaq were indeed consistently defined as non-natives." Finally, African =/= Black (not in the census either; see below). Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Many British Somalis identify themselves Black and then as Somalis

I really dont know how many of you have seen British Somalis filling some form or application forms, I have worked many years in different local authorities in British cities and whenever there is a form from Somalis, whether is for school application or housing application or any other form that has a ethnicity check list, Somalis normally tick boxes of BLACK and then OTHERS in which they write especially Somali then after. this indicates that Most Somalis identify themselves as Black British but as Black African.

I can understand were the confusion is coming from, Many Somalis used the term [Madow] [which means black in Somali language] for the other Black African when describing an Black African Person, also they used the term of [Midabka Soomaalida, or Soomaali u egyahay] which basically means [the same colour skin as Somalis, or some onel looks like Somali] when describing some one who has same similarity with Somalis.

Another fact is that since many Somalis are Muslim and associate themselves with other Muslims, especially Arabs and Pakistanis there is been local gang conflict between Somali youths and other Black British youth in Hackney, Wembley and woolwich Arsenal areas of London. Abdirisak(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I should point out that by "black" and "madow", Abdirisak has explained that he means a darker skin tone and not anything racial (c.f. [43]). I would add that we have the phenomenon of "dhaqan celis" ("return to culture"), whereby wayward, impressionable Somali youngsters are forcibly returned to Somalia by their relatives in order to get them away from "corrupting" foreign influences and back in touch with their own culture and people (c.f. [44]). With regard to the UK census, Somalis and some other "African Arabs" it seems tended to respond in no standard way in the absence of a separate Arab category. According to the ONS, the introduction of a new "Arab" ethno-linguistic entry alongside the existing "African" geographical one may confuse and/or refine the ethnic count for Somalis and other "Arab African" populations. The Somali groups and other organizations from the Arab world who lobbied for the "Arab" category's inclusion argue that it will do the latter.

"cross-tabulations of place-of-birth data and ‘race’/’ethnicity’ reveal that British Arabs (or at least foreign born British Arabs) have scattered themselves in several different categories including white, black and other; whilst those born in Britain are completely invisible in the census."

http://www.naba.org.uk/CONTENT/HOME/HDoc/EthnicProfilStudy-0503.pdf

"There is some evidence that with an ‘Arab’ tick-box, some African Arabs might be unsure whether to tick ‘Arab’ or ‘African’. Cognitive testing with Somalis in Wales showed that there was no standard way for them to answer this question with some ticking ‘African’, some writing in ‘Somali’ in the ‘Any other Black background’ write-in section and others ticking more than one box. However, it appears that this confusion may exist without a tick box. When ONS compared response options of people born in Somalia in the 2001 Census and the 2007 Census test found that one percent wrote in Arab in 2001 and one per cent ticked the Arab box in 2007."

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/the-2011-census/2011-census-questionnaire-content/question-and-content-recommendations/ethnic-group-prioritisation-tool-v1-1.pdf

"One notable change in the Census 2011 will the inclusion of an ‘Arab’ ethnicity, along with a Gypsy/Romany and an Irish Traveller ethnicity, and will be placed within the general ‘other’ where the Chinese ethnicity was positioned in the Census 2001 for England and Wales (but not Scotland)[...]

The inclusion of Arab will help refine the British Muslim picture as many Arabic speaking British citizens who are Muslim, as well as many who are not, could not find an appropriate category, and selecting from 3 or 4 near matches (including White British). The pressure to include a separate Arab ethnicity has come from different groups, including some Somali groups, and this may lead to challenges in accurately sizing citizens of Somali heritage."

http://www.policyresearch.org.uk/statistics/population/ethnicity

Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So, we are crystal clear. According to the UK government, [45] When an 'Arab' tick box is available on the census form, only ONE percent of somali-born respondents ticked 'Arab'. The other 99 percent ticked African, or wrote 'Somali' in the Other Black Background box . And the PRI asserts that "Somali respondents will have to choose between Arab as a linguistic choice and Black African as a geographical and/or racial choice. Moreover, because of such community drives to get Somalis more noticed, it is likely Somali responses under the Black section will be split between African and Other Black." So the claim that 'Arab' is the dominant Somali identity in the UK is pure WP:NPOV Ackees (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the 'African' category doesn't fall "under the Black section". It used to in the 2001 Census, but not anymore in the 2011 Census (c.f. page 16 [46]). The ONS defines the 'African' tick-box on the basis of continental geography. It thus also includes North Africa in that designation, indicating that "the African population is one of the most diverse in terms of geographic origins[...] there was no compelling case for adding a tick-box for any single sub-African group ahead of all others and space constraints meant that it would not be possible to sub-divide the ‘African’ category into smaller geographical areas, like North African or East African." This is why Somalis often select the term i.e. because Somalia is geographically located within Africa.

Secondly, you are mixing the results of two different sets of tests; the cognitive testing in Wales and the 2007 Census test. An Arab option was included in the 2007 Census test (which, by the way, the ONS describes as "not a representative survey"), and one percent of the Somali respondents selected it. This is consistent with the one percent that wrote-in 'Arab' in the 2001 Census, where there was no separate 'Arab' tick-box. Nowhere is it indicated that "the other 99 percent ticked African, or wrote 'Somali' in the Other Black Background" in this 2007 Census test. The ONS then goes on to explain that a similar response pattern was observed in all people from the Arab League (not just Somalis), despite the introduction of an 'Arab' tick-box ("data from the 2007 Census Test also confirms that suggests that the introduction of the 'Arab' tick-box appears to have had little impact on how people form Arab League states responded"). It also states that "write-in answers would not be adequate to measure Arabs" and that "in 2001 this group did not write-in consistently under the same heading and used a variety of terms to express themselves, including Arab but also national (such as ‘Moroccan’) and regional terms that may include non-Arabs." [47]

In the Wales cognitive testing, Somalis answered inconsistently, with some writing in "Somali", others ticking "African", while one user selected both "Arab" and "African". Several respondents also felt that there was a need for a separate Somali tick-box, while others felt "African" (not "Black") was sufficient [48]:

"Cognitive testing specifically with Somali respondents in Wales showed that this group answered inconsistently. Some just ticked ‘African’ whilst others wrote in Somali. One respondent ticked both the ‘African’ and ‘Arab’ tick-boxes. Some of the respondents felt that there was a need for a specific Somali tick-box[...] Some Somali respondents in testing in England also suggested that a Somali tick-box should be included. However, they did not pursue this strongly and other respondents from a Somali background felt identifying their ethnic group as ‘African’ was sufficient."

This was similar to the 2006 Scotland census test, where Somalis most frequently either wrote-in "Somalian" [sic] under "Other ethnic group" or selected "African", writing in again "Somalian" [sic]. According to the Scottish government, "few people chose to write-in ‘Black’" (c.f. [49]). Middayexpress (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article here about the 'Arab brotherhood' you are so keen to WP:NPOV promote.... But, to continue our discussion. Prior to 2011, the majority of Somalis (that is the 99% who did not write in 'Arab') ticked or wrote under the section (D) that was headlined 'Black', including the "Any other BLACK background' section. One must assume that the writers didn't use the phrase 99% because they know we can do simple arithmetic. But, perhaps it is better to simply let readers draw their own conclusion as to the numbers, particularly, as the researchers did not report how many Somalis wrote in the A, B, C, or E sections (headlined respectively ('White' 'Mixed, 'Asian' and 'Chinese or other'). The only real clear statistic is that only one percent of Somalis regarded themselves as 'Arab'. The 2011 census question here is headlined thus: Black / African / Caribbean / Black British. Underneath, are the following options... African or Caribbean or Any other Black / African / Caribbean background, write in. African, Caribbean and British are all territorial entities - black is not. So, where as 'British, African and Caribbean' are equivalent alternatives - black (which is always first in the list) is not. So, why is black there? It is as the overall heading - in the same way that Asian in the list "Asian / Asian British" is there. Of course, people who don't want to be included in the A, B, C, D groups ('D' being the one lead by 'Black') can always choose the 'E' group which includes 'Any other group'. Judging by the previous studies, we can only guess whether or not the one percent of UK census respondents born in Somalia who consider themselves to be 'Arab' will continue to tick that box. Currently, there is clearly WP:UNDUE weight given to the Arab section in the article.Ackees (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've never said anything about any "Arab brotherhood". Moving on, between 1991-2011, the majority of Somalis selected the only applicable option that was available to them, which was "African". The entry was at the time under the "Black" heading. There was no "Somali" box or "Other ethnic group" option they could have availed themselves of. From the 2006 Scotland census test responses, we know they likely would have done just that had those options been available. As of the 2011 Census, "African" is no longer under the "Black" heading, but is instead listed on par with the latter. In fact, in the Scottish version, "African" is listed first [50]. "African" is also specifically a geographical classification and includes North African areas, as per the above. Regarding the 2007 Census test, it doesn't say anything about "the other 99 percent ticked African, or wrote 'Somali' in the Other Black Background". It only says that one percent of Somalis ticked the Arab box, that the introduction of the box didn't really affect the responses of other Arab League members either, and that "in 2001 this group did not write-in consistently under the same heading and used a variety of terms to express themselves". A significant proportion of the other 99% of other Somalis could just as easily have made use of the "Any other, write in" option under "Other ethnic group" (c.f. page 30 [51]). That's precisely what many of them did in the 2006 Scotland test, where "few people chose to write-in ‘Black’". Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Complaining about the weight of the Arab section and then proceeding to replace it with a pov section titled "Most British Somali's reject 'Arab' label in Census" (a claim which the ONS does not make) and one man's irrelevant opinions about the Arab League does not help your argument. The same applies to the distorted "Black" section; particularly the twisting around of the Isaaq's successful rejection of "native" status. Middayexpress (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there is evidence, subject to a degree of interpretation, on both sides of the argument. So, notwithstanding the referral of this wide-ranging discussion to the admins, here is my constructive WP:GOODFAITH suggestion for a compromise on this matter. You will accept the inclusion of a section containing material in which some Somalis and other reliable sources acknowledge that some Somalis (such as Nadifa Mohamed) have and do identify themselves as having a 'black' social identity in Britain and elsewhere. You agree not to interfere with that section. In return, I will accept the inclusion of a different section in which alternative positions are included. And I will agree not to interfere with that section. The only condition is that neither section directly quote or reference racist or other derogatory terms about black people, Arabs, Muslims, Somalis or Africans. Just to keep the temperature lowered, you understand. Ackees (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that some individual Somalis identify this way or that way. It's quantifying how many do and adequately sourcing this. Using an opinion piece to assert as fact something as contentious as a whole group's self-identification is unacceptable; especially when there's an actual policy indicating as much. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional statements require exceptional sources. This entails high quality academic and/or official government sources. Some have already been cited; others need work. Until the addition of the phrase "East African Negro" (which Turton does not use), derogatory terms weren't even in question nor should they be per WP:PROFANITY. In the interests of good faith, it would first perhaps be best if the article contained neither section until satisfactory drafts have been hammered out and agreed to here on this discussion page. This is something an admin will have to see to, though, for obvious reasons. Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The diff record demonstrates that I have never tried to assert anything about a 'whole group's self-identification', instead, from the beginning I have introduced WP:reliable evidence that some Somalis in the UK identify themselves and each other as black people. A normal everyday fact that you now admit is indeed a 'problem' for you.

As for 'quantifying' – 1% of Somalis tick the 'Arab' box and you created an entire section for that, irrespective of the other 99%... the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Contrary to your assertion, that there was no 'Other ethnic group', in fact there was, in 2001, a non-black 'Chinese or other ethnic group' census section, with a a non-black 'Any other' option available for writing in (see Figure 5.1 here). But in the studies, Somalis (except the 1%) are not recorded as using it - only 'Black African' and 'Any other Black background' (see 5.2.4). A fact that you apparently find unpalatable, hence your introduction of the Scotland study which in no way contradict my position. Yes, many Somalis identify as Somali in the 'African, Caribbean or Black' section - so they shoud. That doesn't contradict the fact that, according to this report, many young Somalis also identify as 'black' people. - black and Somali identity are not, as you seem to insist, mutually exclusive, or mutually contradictory.

It was you that introduced not only the Turton document but all the phrases it contains - such as 'Negroes of East Africa'. And that was so you could recall those traders who pretended not to be Somali so they could evade British apartheid laws. How disappointing that you can't even admit this. By all means use the Turton citations in the 'Arab' identity section, if it suits your purposes - although, it does suggest that, as I have been saying, that identity is fluid, rather than the rigid notions you seem wedded to. But, I cannot accept the removal of a section about British Somali people and their relationship to black identity in the UK - which is what you propose – as that would be to allow the edit warring tactics to succeed. Nor can I accept a veto by you on so-called drafts, as you have demonstrated a lack of WP:GOODFAITH from the start when your first reaction was to delete the section outright (accusing me of Soapboxing) - and later tried to reverse its meaning. You have now been offered a WP:GOODFAITH compromise, something which up to this point you have avoided. Am I to take it that you have rejected the compromise offer out of hand? Ackees (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains that nowhere is it indicated that "the other 99 percent ticked African, or wrote 'Somali' in the Other Black Background". Not in the 2001 Census nor in the 2007 Census test. A significant proportion of the other 99% of Somalis could just as easily have written in "Somali" in the write-in area under the "Other ethnic group" heading. And we already know from the 2006 Scottish Census test that this is precisely what many did. Moreover, that SYDRC pdf says nothing about how many Somalis in the UK self-identify; it's just one person's opinion. Furthermore, I initially proposed the removal of the section because it was largely undue and pov, as detailed above. I later opted instead to tidy it up and add an Arab section for balance. Lastly, while I did introduce the Turton paper on the Isaaq poll-tax agitation in the British territory of Kenya, nowhere did I use the term "Negro". Not on this talk page or the article proper. That's very much your own doing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there were positives in each version, but the best way forward is a compromise. I explained some specific objections in your 3rr thread. I specifically oppose removal of content about Somali self-description. Pass a Method talk 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Compromise was proposed in my last post above from 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC), but was rejected. You also did not explain anything of note in that thread. And the only reliably sourced material on general Somali self-identification was Mitton and Aspinall (2010) [52], which was removed. Middayexpress (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont mind mentioning the above source, but please do it without making removals. Also Edjohnston on the 3rr thread said that you rejected a ommpromise. Pass a Method talk 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I offered a counter-proposal, which was rejected. Ironically, your blind revert removed the entire Arab section, and replaced it with a section centered on a made up statistic (see above on "99%"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Somalis DO NOT reject Arabs

I have noticed some changes made on this entry again I will like to clarify some issue with editors who have been editing this, I have noticed that there is a subheading about Somalis' in UK rejecting our association with Arabs.

That Can not be the case

The evidence that Ackees has provided is just an opinion of young Somali writer, also even we take that as evident it doesn't change anything as Somalis are black in term of the colour of their skin tone, but as I said before, in term of race, we identify ourselves as Somalis. The other reason that also editor Ackees mentioned is pure political one, AND I WAS HOPING this to be impartial editing, racism in Arab league is just fabricated political slogans, Arabs have done more than enough to support Somalis and Somalia in general, evident of that is the Kuwaitis, Qataris and Saudis spending larger amount of their money on Somalia through UNICEF and OIC and this is widely documented, so this argument is not valid. of course, I am not suggesting that countries in Arab league do not have some problems with racism.

The last evidence editor Ackees provided is notes taken on the Britain's ONS,this actually has nothing to do with Somalis, its more on clarity of the form, so I am surprised this has been used as proof the Somalis reject Arabs and their association (5.2.4 Clarity, quality and acceptability).

Therefore I have restored the version to that of Middayexpress for this entry.

I hope this stays the same

Abdirisak (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such a thing as a "race". That Kuwaitis, Qataris and Saudis are spending a large amount of 'their' money on Somalia is not relevant to the case that British Somalis are 'rejecting' the Arab label. The poll gave a clear result, it was nearly unanimously(99%). The "rejection" is based on the poll, we can't deny that, but it is not obligated that the "rejection" section should stay. If it isn't contributing to the article, then it could be removed or replaced by an other section, discussing it on a different manner.

Instead of reverting, we should ask ourselves: are these sections really necessary? Is it contributing the article and helping the reader to understand more about the "Somalis in the United Kingdom"? What if we just remove the entire section about "relations with other communities". This article is only about the Somalis in the UK, and not about their affiliations with other ethnic groups within the United Kingdom Runehelmet (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Somalis did not "reject the Arab label in Census" as the section title claims, nor is the cited 99% figure even real. The document alluded to is a Census test from 2007, not the Census itself. On the other hand, the ONS' assertion that "there is some evidence that with an ‘Arab’ tick-box, some African Arabs might be unsure whether to tick ‘Arab’ or ‘African’[...] cognitive testing with Somalis in Wales showed that there was no standard way for them to answer this question with some ticking ‘African’, some writing in ‘Somali’ in the ‘Any other Black background’ write-in section and others ticking more than one box" refers to a separate Wales cognitive test. It does not refer to either the 2001 Census or the 2007 Census test. Please see my posts above from 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC) and 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC) for more details. Also, the contention is between this page version, versus this other one. In the latter version, the entire counterbalancing Arab section has been replaced with that misleading "Somalis reject the Arab label in Census" section. It also claims, among other questionable things, that one Isaaq leader in British Kenya "acknowledged he was identified as an 'East African Negro'". In reality, he was complaining somewhat hyperbolically to the Colonial Office that, despite long service to the Crown, the Somali community in the Great Lakes area was sometimes treated "on the same level as the Negroes of East Africa" in terms of privileges (i.e. he identified the locals as such, not himself; c.f. [53]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that the article is ultimately about Somalis in the UK, not about their affiliations with other populatins. This kind of material is also not common on other UK immigrant community pages. Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont see how that census shows that somalis reject arab label it just shows they identify as blacks then arab even the sudanis declare themselves to be black once in a while..based on my observation there's two types of somali self-identity, one that declares themselves to be arab by blood or religious affiliation (common brotherhood) and the other that totally rejects arabs as outsiders..some somalis will reject those who are light skin (probably a specific clan), declaring them arabs that speak the somali language and are to be excluded from being "pure somali"..overall somalis as well as those in the horn have a considerable amount of arab blood in them and its not something that can be "rejected". Baboon43 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Note that that "Somalis reject the Arab label in Census" material was actually added in place of a section on the relationship with the British Arab community (viz. [54]). If the material on the relationship with the Black British community is to be retained at all, this British Arab section should be re-included for balance. The Black British section also needs work, as many of the statements in it are either false, original research, out of context, or poorly sourced opinions (specifics are provided in the discussion above). I already tidied it up (c.f. [55]), and included a general statement on how many Somalis in the UK self-identify [56]. However, that too was reverted. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if the poll is false, then I don't see any reason why we should keep it. And I'm doubting if the "poll" is representing the British Somali community, even if it truly occured. The entire section is actually dispensable, it will benefit the article if it's scrapped from the page. Runehelmet (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

what about removing both relationship with black and arab communities because i dont see why its important in this article. Baboon43 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Relationship with the Black British community part in this entry should be removed, because the evidence provided is just opinion and does not reflect the fact that if Somalis in UK have relationship with other black community in UK or not. One has to define what type of relationship we are talking about? if we talking about the colour of thier skin, of course Somalis identify themselves as black and then Somalis and because of that we can not say because Somalis are black they also have relationship with other black community in United Kingdom!

Another point is that, I don't know how many of the editors in this entry are based UK or so, but frankly there is no clear relationship between Somalis and other Black community, specially with that of West Indies who contribute the largest members of black community in the UK, Somalis for example do not participate the famous London carnival and any other important black event that take place in UK and that is the fact and to be frank again it seems people are mixing the colour of our skin tone to the race which is not fair.

Cheers Abdirisak (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We are in agreement. The section is undue, misleading and unimportant. Middayexpress (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Black British cats, etc.

Besides the now removed section discussed above, the editor has also attempted to add category "Black British people" to the article, arguing on various pages that Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans in the UK are and self-identify as "Black British".

According to Movinghere [57], the term "Black British" arose in the 1980s to emphasize the political relationship between all ethnic minorities in Britain ("During the 1980s this term was used to stress the political unity between ethnic minorities in Britain, particularly African, Caribbean, South Asian and Chinese"). Nowadays, "Black British refers to British descendants of first generation Caribbean migrants." It only then adds the politically-based qualifier that "where necessary Black British refers broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain, for instance, 'the relationship between Black British people and the police'"". "Black British" thus refers first and foremost to a subset of Afro-Caribbeans, though the term is sometimes also extended on a secondary basis to all African or Caribbean immigrants.

Accordingly, Movinghere describes the genesis of the distinctive "Black British" identity as follows:

• "Young Caribbean migrants took advantage of the fact that sport was the one arena where it was possible to compete on equal terms and, from the 1950s onwards, many played a prominent part in Britain's sporting life. Music, on the other hand, presented different opportunities but also problems. In the days before reggae gained general acceptance, young migrants forged their music into a tool of self-expression and used it as a career opportunity. They created their own market for the music which, in turn, gave them a platform from which they influenced British youth culture. In the process, the music created its own market: clubs, small recording companies and, notably, DJs. It was this music culture which helped to create a new, cohesive identity among young migrants, and one which everyone began to recognise as 'Black British'. Jazzy B, for instance, one of the most prominent of recent Black British musicians, went to school in Islington, and spent his spare time learning to be a DJ and creating his own music to give voice to an emerging Black British culture." [58]
• "In the aftermath of the Second World War, nationalism and the effort of nation building began changing attitudes in the Caribbean. The migrants who arrived in Britain in the post-war years were making their journey at the beginning of a new cultural and political ferment, which was to redefine what it meant to be Caribbean. They brought with them the ideas which were sweeping the Caribbean region and Black communities generally - Black nationalism, a renewed interest in ethnic origins and a new assertiveness about racial justice and equality. These ideas were the basis of new forms of self-expression which new Caribbean migrants began developing in Britain. The result has been a culture which we now call Black British because it draws its identity both from the migrant background and the specific experiences of living in Britain and becoming part of the mix of cultures in the UK." [59]

We seem to be in agreement that: a) the term "Black British" in its main usage does not apply to Somalis and other Horn Africans in the UK, b) many of the latter immigrants also do not identify in this way, and c) the few who do usually do so on account of dark skin tone as opposed to racial self-identification. Would this assessment be correct, especially given Movinghere's definition of the term and its genesis? If so, should we apply this across all other relevant wikipedia pages? Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it is clear that Black British doesn't refer to Horn Africans, so the added section is 'unlawfully' in the article. And it is violating the reached consensus/agreement. There must be one clear definition of "Black British", wich doesn't include the Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples in East Africa, so it should be removed from the article. Runehelmet (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this view, the term Black British is associated with black people from West Indies background, historically and commonly, an example for that is the Nagerians in UK are commonly known as Nagerian British, also same applies to the Ghanian.

I agree with Runehelmet and Middayexpress, people from the Horn of Africa should removed from the article. Abdirisak (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

usually east africans (including those from the horn) are lumped in as blacks in western countries but im not familiar with specifically "UK"..im assuming those who have several generations of ancestry in the nation would be referred to as "black british" and those who are african "black african" specifically malian,ethiopian,somali etc Baboon43 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Classification of Horn Africans in Western countries varies. For example, in New Zealand, 'Ethiopian' is included within 'Other African'. However, specific Afro-Asiatic ethnic groups from Ethiopia, like the Amhara and Oromo, are categorized as 'Other Middle Eastern', as they have closer ethnic ties with the Middle East (c.f. [60]). In the UK, from about 1991 to 2001, the "African" tick box in the census was classified under something called "Black British". However, the British Office of National Statistics (ONS) has now moved away from that with its 2011 Census, and the "African" category is no longer under the "Black" heading, but is instead listed on par with the latter. In fact, in the Scottish version, "African" is listed first [61]. The ONS now defines the 'African' tick-box on the basis of continental geography. It thus also includes North Africa in that designation, indicating that "the African population is one of the most diverse in terms of geographic origins[...] there was no compelling case for adding a tick-box for any single sub-African group ahead of all others and space constraints meant that it would not be possible to sub-divide the ‘African’ category into smaller geographical areas, like North African or East African" (c.f. [62]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

have you looked at this page Demography of England it says "These groups are often combined into broader categories" refering to black british caribbean or black british african or is that page outdated? in 2011 census England and Northern Ireland lumps them together except scottland as seen here Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. New Zealand's classification is somewhat odd..i can see why they classified ethiopians as "other african" but to say amhara and oromo have close ties with the middle east is pure ignorance..those two ethnic groups have gone a great length to reject any ties with the middle east. Baboon43 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Demography of England page is outdated. It references the 2001 census data and uses its old classification scheme. So does the lede in the Black British article. Quite a few wikipedia pages are still using the old 2001 scheme, and they need updating. I've already seen to that on the the main Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom page. As I wrote, between 1991 (when the British government first introduced a question on ethnicity) and 2001, the "African" tick-box was aggregated under a "Black or Black British" heading. However, it no longer is in the current 2011 census. "African" is now part of the heading itself in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the "African" tick-box falls under that. In Scotland, "African" has an altogether separate heading. There is no "Black British" box in any of the censuses. It was included in the 2011 census as a possible write-in option to accommodate people whose "ties with their ancestral countries and culture had been lost over time and they and their children had been born or had lived for many years in the UK[...] the term ‘Black British’ seemed to be a way of asserting their own identity in relation to their British roots while acknowledging their distant non-European heritage" (c.f. section 5.3 Black British [63]; the African category is discussed separately in section 5.1). Regarding New Zealand, that's what the Stats bureau indicates ("If ‘Ethiopian’ is reported it is included within the ‘Other African nec’ category. However, if the response is ‘Amhara’ or ‘Oromo’, the ethnic groups of most Ethiopians in New Zealand, then these responses are placed within the ‘Other Middle Eastern’ category. ‘Amhara’ and ‘Oromo’ ethnic groups have closer ethnic ties with the Middle East." [64]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a lazy summary on part by the new zealand statistics bureau. They seem to think that only oromo and amhara may have a middle eastern connection as they refer to them being the two largest in ethiopia. Baboon43 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

They mean the two largest immigrant groups in NZ from Ethiopia ("the ethnic groups of most Ethiopians in New Zealand"). So size is probably also a consideration here. Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Khabra

There's a rather incendiary opinion from one Piara Khabra in the social issues and solutions section. Given the fact that he made that statement essentially in passing and over a decade ago (he himself apparently died six years ago), it definitely seems to be undue weight. Your thoughts? Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Khabra's statement isn't a significant one, nor based on facts, so actually it shouldn't be there at all. Just one of the many populists statements, but this one is just odd. It is not only undue weight, but redundant and spurious too. It should be removed, for the sake of the article. Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Welfare figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of this source appears to have been dealt with, but in case anyone is tempted to rely on it in future, I will just point out that it has received pretty hostile reviews. This one in particular criticises its use of statistics, pointing out that many of them are unsourced and some demonstrably incorrect. I therefore think we need to steer clear of using Goodhart's book for statistics or facts. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There's a tab toward the bottom labeled "Full text". Once that it is clicked, it is explained that "the refugees who arrived in London during 1980s and 90s were often wealthy and educated, but found it difficult to find work here comparable to the work they had left behind" [65]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

It's in part due to language. But also to the authorities for whatever reason choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many highly qualified asylum seekers [66]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

It's an old figure and obviously doesn't take into consideration the qualifications of many Somali professionals: "An estimated 1,500 refugee teachers live in England, but many are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work. Sir Robert Dowling, headteacher of George Dixon International School in Birmingham, said his newest recruit, a science teacher, was a Somali refugee he had met at the school gates. His most recent job had been as a fork lift truck driver" [67]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The main statement that many teachers "are denied jobs either because their qualifications are not recognised or, in the case of asylum seekers, because they are banned from paid work" isn't an anecdote. At any rate, the assertion that only 3% of Somalis in 2005 had higher education qualifications is at odds with an earlier 2003 study by the Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council in which 12% of the total sampled refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees, while around 20% of the sampled Somali refugees and asylum seekers had higher degrees. Despite this, "among the Somalis interviewed, only a quarter of those with a professional background had found similar jobs in London[...] They were four times more likely to be working in semi-skilled or manual labour jobs than would be expected given their education and employment experience[...] There were similar proportions of people working in semi-skilled jobs across all the communities interviewed." This is pretty old, but it supports CARE's aforementioned assertion that the authorities for whatever reason are choosing not to recognize the qualifications of the many refugee and asylum seeker professionals [68]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

It's indicated as well in the link above: ""There is a barrier for many refugees in terms of their qualifications," Ms Jones [of the London Development Agency] told the London Assembly. "They may have qualifications which are not recognised in this country and then find themselves having to effectively start again. "On the one hand we have got skills shortages in London and on the other hand we have a group of people with skills. With a little support they could be in work"" [69]. According to the AETLLSC, "not being able to get overseas qualifications recognised" is also one of the main barriers to employment [70]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)