Talk:History of Somali Bantus in Maine

What happened to this article?

Why was the name moved? Where is this mythical "discussion" used in the rationale? Why was it turned into a right-wing attack on Somali's? I am very uncomfortable with using a biased source like the American Conservative as a source. Besides, the term "mass migration" is highly POV. I am going to remove the use of the biased information and restore NPOV.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The source is not biased; it is factual, and the reverted version also quotes from it. While the people in Lewiston are indeed both Somalis and Bantus, the ones that are making headlines for arriving en masse in a very short period of time and overburdening the system are for the most part Bantus, not Somalis. It has to do with a paradigm shift in US immigration policy that has elected to classify Bantus as a priority and grant them instant refugee status in the United States. Note, however, that the US government has not extended that same privilege to Somalis. The title of this article and the article itself now reflects and explains all of this, as well as briefly touching on the other Bantu migrations to US cities. Middayexpress (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The name should still be "Somali migration to Maine" as Somali refers to the nationality, encompassing all citizens of Somalia. The term "mass migration" and other phrases used in the article, specifically referring to the massive increase in welfare benefits are terms used as scare tactics by xenophobic commentators, such as the people at the American Conservative and are not neutral at all.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an article called "Somali Bantu migration to the United States" is more of what you, Middayexpress, are looking for. The whole conflict between ethnic Somali's, Somali Bantus and the US preference isn't related to their migration to Maine.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The name should not be "Somali migration to Maine", as the term "Somali" only refers to the descendants of Soomaal (i.e. Somalis) of which Bantus are not a part. Bantus are the descendants of people that were taken as slaves from Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi and brought to Somalia only 200-300 years ago. More importantly, they are the descendants of migrants from the Bantu expansion which first brought them to East Africa circa 3000kya, where Somalis had already long been. The article from the American Conservative source you refer to was already cited a grand total of four times in the edit you yourself reverted to, so I fail to see why it is all of sudden "xenophobic". Moreover, the reference to a "mass migration" refers to the proposed (and actually almost complete) resettlement of 12,000+ Bantu refugees in the United States in a matter of just a few years. As for me "looking for" an article called "Somali Bantu migration to the United States", that sounds an awful lot like a personal attack, and I don't believe I personally attacked you (though I could easily speculate on your reasons for including this paragraph! lol). Middayexpress (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not and was not a personal attack and I apologize if it seemed that way. What I meant is that you included a lot of information not directly related to the topic. If the article was "Somali migration to the United States", I would see your edits as perfectly legitimate. However, it is specifically about Maine. I don't see why including information about the demographic change of Maine being illegitimate when referring to that area. Bantu migration to Maine would also technically include most African migration to Maine, including the prominent Sudanese. By changing the title without discussion, you change the focus of the article which I started with an entirely different focus than the conflict between ethnic groups and US bias.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the source, it is VERY clearly biased. In a sarcastic tone, it claims that getting a job is a low priority for Somali's, that they are destroying small town America and are somehow related to the Black Hawk Down incident. There are better sources from legitimate news sources (newspapers like this, and this) which have been removed which give a less biased image of Somali life in Maine. It should be removed as it is at best a questionable source--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The source may be critical in tone, but the facts it presents and which are relayed in this article are just that: facts. The US government really has begun relocating upwards of 12,000 Bantu refugees in cities across the United States, most being small, sleepy towns like Lewiston; welfare and social assistance spending in Lewiston really has shot up since the migration; the mayor really did write that critical letter; other towns really did balk at accommodating the Bantus after Lewiston. The articles you present do not go into nearly as much detail and fail to identify the significant Bantu presence in Lewiston, a community large enough to have its own websites dedicated to it (e.g. 1, 2). There's even an all-Bantu soccer team there referred to as the "Lewiston Star". As for the title of the article, another editor and I already discussed and agreed to rename it to "Somali and Bantu migration to Maine" with the understanding that the two communities are mutually exclusive and migrated to Lewiston under very different circumstances and with very different needs. Most of the Somalis, for one thing, emigrated from other US cities to Lewiston; they weren't resettled there by aid agencies. Most already spoke English and were already more or less accustomed to living in North America. The Bantus, on the other hand, were expressly resettled in Lewiston, didn't speak the language, and were completely unaccustomed to life in the States. Many didn't even know what electricity was. They, frankly, needed the help. Also, the title "Somali and Bantu migration to Maine" is not ambiguous at all since the only Bantus in Maine are from Somalia. And the southern Sudanese, while they of course share the same origin as Bantus in West Africa, are not Bantus but Nilotes. Middayexpress (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Link

You and I both know that the article exists. We both know that not all sources need to be online as well. There is no reason to remove "Maine's black population doubles" as a source for the information, and even less to remove the information itself.--TM 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not the article exists. It is whether it was properly referenced to begin with -- something that is impossible to verify since the link is, of course, dead. Per WP:VER: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." Middayexpress (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A Source DOES exist. It is a print newspaper. A print edition exists. An online source also existed. Simply because a newspaper is taken offline does not mean it doesn't exist.--TM 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time I am explaining to you that the question is not whether or not the article exists. It is whether it was properly referenced to begin with; that is, whether it was accurately used in this article. The latter is something that is impossible to verify since the link is, of course, dead. Per WP:VER: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." WP:PROVEIT is also clear that:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Middayexpress (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We both know that the article in question stated the fact, which it substantiated. The real question is whether we should remove the fact because the source is not online anymore. The source exists, it is simply no longer online. If we were to have a copy of the Press Herald from the day it was printed handy, it would be perfectly verifiable.--TM 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not both know what the article states. You might, but I certainly don't. Kindly refer again to WP:PROVEIT:

"When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy."

And Jimbo Wales' own comments on the issue:

"As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons"."

Middayexpress (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Claiming this is an original research issue is absurb. You didn't claim the newspaper article was original research for the nearly two years since we discussed this article. So, because the Press Herald updated their site and the old articles aren't online anymore, somehow it is original research? Your arguments are borderline absurd. There is no novel position being argued; there are no BLP issues.--TM 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't "my" arguments I've quoted above. Those are actual Wikipedia policies on citing sources, verifiability and original research. You know the rules, and so do I. They are, after, clearly quoted above, as are the words of Wikipedia's own co-founder. I am sorry if you object, but Wikipedia does not function according to one's own whims. If you can prove that the material in the edit you kept reverting is supported by the source you and only you claim it is, great; do WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it is original research. And as we've already seen, OR has no place on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to living persons. Middayexpress (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Believe it or not, I am not in the business of memorizing what every last unverifiable source every last editor on every last page claims was included in an edit he himself added (and years ago, to boot). In fact, I don't believe anyone is, nor is there any such Wikipedia policy requiring such a formidable memory. Middayexpress (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Another opinion

I've put in a request for a WP:Third opinion on this article regarding the inclusion of Somali Bantu's and the other disagreements.--TM 22:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I've had a look at the article and the comments on this page. Can you clarify on what issue or issues a 3rd opinion might be most constructive at this point? To take a random stab at it, I'd say that WP:PROVEIT puts the burden of citing a reliable source on the contributing editor, but that it of course remains the burden of whomever cares to do so to then retrieve and check that information, whether that is done electronically or at the local library. Is there anything else that either of you would like another opinion about, as things stand now?—Wikiscient (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems

There are still major problems with this article. The undue weight given to anti-immigration sources and the inclusion of Somali Bantus, which none of the Maine-related sources refer to are the two biggest problems. I think that discussing the issue of Somali nationals, not ethnic Somali's migrating to Maine is much less biased and more representative of the majority of sources. The Somali American article, for example, makes no mention of the so-called Somali Bantus. There is no proof besides the openly anti-immigrant sources that say Somali Bantus are the majority in Maine.--TM 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bantus aren't ethnic Somalis, and none of the sources indicate that it is primarily ethnic Somalis that have migrated to Lewiston. It is well documented that Bantus proportionately make up the majority of immigrants from Somalia to Maine (obviously not in absolute terms). The source which is already in the article and which you have described as unreliable (but which was deemed reliable) indeed make this clear, nor is it the only one. Discussing strictly Somali nationals obscures the very relevant fact that the Bantu presence in Lewiston is part of the resettlement of about 12,000-13,000 Bantu refugees in U.S. cities by the U.S. Department of State with the help of various aid agencies, which constitutes the single largest resettlement project ever from Africa. Even Bantu community organizations in Lewiston readily discuss this (c.f. [1]). That most certainly makes it due weight, not undue weight. Focusing on Somali nationals unfairly transfers that focus onto ethnic Somalis, when they weren't even a part of that largest-ever resettlement program. Most ethnic Somalis in Lewiston are actually secondary migrants from other states ([2]). Middayexpress (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I've removed all potentially controversial statements from that American Conservative article except for the references to the Mayor's letter and the ensuing demonstrations, which I don't believe are controversial since they are widely sourced. I've also removed the reference to 'other migrations' since this is about Lewiston alone. I think that should go some ways toward resolving the issue. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, thank you for removing the statements which only feed anti-Somali hysteria, especially regards to welfare and public housing. Given the increase in more neutral sources demonstrating the importance of the Somali Bantu issue, I am fine with keeping the information. However, I still think that we should be looking at this from a national rather than ethnic perspective. Somali can refer to the Somali people but also to any citizen of Somalia, i.e. Category:Somali politicians. By changing the name back to the original Somali migration to Maine we can still address the different groups of Somali nationals who moved to and reside in Maine, but without the emphasis on the Somali Bantu. If you look at most of the Maine sources, there is no mention of Somali Bantu and honestly, as a resident of Maine with many Somali friends, I have never heard the issue discussed.--TM 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. However, I respectfully disagree that there is undue emphasis placed on the Bantu in the article's title since it clearly mentions both Somalis and Bantus. It's true that Somali is both an ethnonym and a denonym, but in the term's original and immediate application, it refers to the Somali ethnic group alone (the country was named after the ethnic group, not the other way around). Within the scope of this article, it is therefore confusing to use just the term "Somali", as we are actually talking about two distinct populations here with different migration patterns to Lewiston [3]: "Two distinct groups from Somalia have made Lewiston their new home — the so-called ethnic Somalis and Somali Bantu. The latter group began arriving in 2005. They are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally distinct from the dominant Somali group, and have remained marginalized since their arrival (UNHCR 2002). The majorities were farmers in Somalia; because of their rural existence and second class status, the Bantu community had little opportunity of formal education..", etc. If the migration in general isn't quite the issue it once was (which I suspect is indeed the case), then perhaps we should consider merging the material into the respective Somali American and Somali Bantu articles? Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Article name change

This should have been discussed. This article is no longer correct--for instance an abbreviated timeline goes something like:

• 2001 First Somali families arrive
• 2002 The mayor asks that Somali families to not come to Maine
• 2003 Anti-Somali protest held
• 2004 First Bantus begin to arrive

It's not going to work to merely change Somali to Bantu as you did when you made your changes. Please discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The resettlement of Bantus to the U.S. actually began in 1999. Many were already present in Lewiston by 2002. The Mayor also asked all the immigrants to not come to Maine, and that's what the protest was over (see here [4]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

According to your site: "In 2003, the first Bantu immigrants began to arrive in U.S. cities". You should not have reverted me. If you can't provide RS I will revert your edit. It would be much easier if you'd revert to the previous article because is not correct to just pretend that the Somalis were not the first wave of immigrants. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That was to show when the resettlement as a whole began i.e. in 1999. Here is for Lewiston circa 2002 specifically [5]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The American Conservative is not RS for facts. (BTW, that is a very ugly article.) Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's an ugly piece alright. But what it relays about the precocious presence of Bantus in Lewiston is factual. At any rate, I've replaced it with a neutral paper by Americans for the Arts [6]. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The name and content change of this article should have been discussed. I am going to seek that it be moved back and will re-merge the information pending a discussion.--TM 10:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no legitimate reason why it should, Namiba. The standard on such pages is to organize them per ethnic group, and to title them "History of the x in y" (e.g. History of the Hmong in Fresno, California). Somalis and Bantus are two separate populations, with different ancestral places of origin. Per a period-specific case study by Americans for the Arts (linked to above), the letter controversy also mainly involved resettlement of Bantus, not ethnic Somalis. In fact, that's the very reason why Portland's Somali community leaders were reluctant to get involved in it in the first place. That whole affair also took place over twelve years ago, and it in no way reflects the modern history of ethnic Somalis in Lewiston. It's arguable that it did even then. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting the facts to fit your interpretation of the Somali/Bantu immigration to Maine. Despite the new ref you have added that suggests by some Somalis in Portland that the Bantus in Lewiston were the problem, there are numerous sources that clearly state that they had not even arrived in the US at that time. You need to stick with the facts and as a matter of fact, the first Bantus did not begin to arrive in Lewiston until 2003 and we have numerous sources that back that statement, such as "In 2003, the first Bantu immigrants began to arrive in U.S. cities, and by 2007, around 13,000 had been resettled to cities throughout the United States with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the U.S. State Department, and refugee resettlement agencies across the country" [7]. Reading the talk page this morning and briefly looking through the article edits I note that you have been attempting to change the article to your incorrect position and that this is not the first time you have changed the name of the article. I note that you have also defended a racist tirade as RS for facts in the past as well. As an experienced editor you must know better than that. More documentation regarding the arrival of the first immigrants:

• "The first Bantu refugees arrived in April 2003 in New York." [8]

• A report from July 2003 [9]

• "In 2003, the United States began to admit twelve thousand Somali Bantus as refugees." [10]

Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

While the majority of Bantus were resettled after 2003, the resettlement process actually began earlier than that. I also didn't defend the American Conservative piece; I clearly agreed that it was ugly (viz. "yes, it's an ugly piece alright"). I then pointed out that its specific assertion regarding the precocious presence of Bantus in Lewiston was, however, factual. To suport this, I then produced an actual case study by Americans for the Arts expressly on immigration to Maine. This report was also published around the same time period as the letter controversy. None of your links above dispute what it asserts regarding the early presence of Bantus in Lewiston. Indeed, two of them don't even mention the town, and the third is from four years after the affair. Here are the facts on the letter issue from Americans for the Arts, from a period-specific report on actual immigration to Lewiston itself (not New York or elsewhere) [11]:in 1999, the UN recognized these Somali Bantu as "refugees," and their resettlement process began. The Somalis that came to Lewiston are said to be predominately from this Bantu underclass; some of Portland's Somalis did not wish to be associated with this community. I didn't publish the foregoing, so there's no point in blaming me for it; Americans for the Arts did. By the way, if your argument is that the Bantus settled in Lewiston beginning in 2003, this by default means that they would have had nothing to do with the previous year's letter affair (highly doubtful). And if they weren't involved in it, then that's all the more reason for the split. Either way, Somalis and Bantus are two separate populations, and the standard on such articles is to parse them according to ethnic group and to title them "History of the x in y" (e.g. History of the Hmong in Fresno, California). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You say "By the way, if your argument is that the Bantus settled in Lewiston beginning in 2003, this by default means that they would have had nothing to do with the previous year's letter affair (highly doubtful)". Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And numerous RS back that fact as well, for instance the United Way. Just because the Americans for the Arts has reported what was told them by the Somalis in Portland does not change the facts, (nor does the "racist tirade" in the opinion piece, which I will repeat is not RS). The reason that none of the links I offered do not dispute an earlier presence in Lewiston is that there was not one. This is as clear as clear can be and I'm tired of arguing about it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, sources should directly support text. Claiming that Bantus weren't in Lewiston earlier than 2003 simply because a few links on Bantu resettlement don't mention their presence in (or indeed absence from) the town fails that. Looking above, you also actually originally claimed that Bantus began arriving in Lewiston in 2004 ("2004 First Bantus begin to arrive"). At any rate, the American Conservative piece was removed, so the tirade bit is beside the point. Regarding the period-specific Americans for the Arts case study, the authors not only relay what Somalis in Portland told them about the precocious presence of Bantus in Lewiston, they indicate outright that there was a "division" among the immigrants, and thus that "some of Portland's elders maintained a distance from the controversy, suggesting that the problems should be left to the Lewiston community". This is why the section on the Lewiston letter controversy is specifically titled, in bold, "White Supremacists and Bantus". In any event, "History of the Somali Bantus in Maine" is the appropriate name for this page since Bantus are a separate ethnic group from Somalis and "History of the x in y" is the standard format on such pages. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about "a few links on Bantu resettlement", we are taking about RS, for instance the US Department of States, that say, "In the spring of 2003, the first Somali Bantu refugees will arrive in the United States to begin new lives." [12]. Also, if you read my above words, I said, "In 2003, the first Bantu immigrants began to arrive in U.S. cities". You are clearly engaging in tendentious editing and I've had more than enough of it. TM, I suggest you go ahead and revert to the previous article. What are your thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Since your argument is apparently that the Bantus settled in Lewiston beginning in 2003/2004, that is actually less (not more) reason for the non-standard title "Somali and Somali Bantu migration to Maine". In any event, the fact that the resettlement of Bantus to the U.S. officially began back in 1999 is unfortunately not coming from me. It's from Americans for the Arts, as shown above. Here's another period-specific paper specifically on this early resettlement, a Center for Immigration Studies report: "The U.S. State Department has been steadily raising the annual target quota of African refugees admitted to the United States. For FY ’04, the Africa quota is 20,000 out of an overall quota of 70,000. While falling short of its goals, the reorientation of the refugee program from Moscow and Hanoi to Africa and the Middle East is, nevertheless, proceeding. Since the mid-1990s, the United States has been resettling smaller African refugee groups: the Benadir Somalis (approximately 4,000) in 1995, the Barawa Somalis (approximately 4,000) in 1996, Hutu-Tutsi mixed married families and other “at risk” Tutsis (1,500) in 1997 and 1999, and Sudanese “Lost Boys” (3,500) in 2000. In 1999, the State Department undertook the most ambitious resettlement plan ever from Africa. Variously reported in 1999 as numbering between 8,500 and 10,000, the Somali Bantu, now estimated to be nearly 13,000 in number, have begun arriving in the United States in a process that should be completed by Spring 2005." [13]. That said, I've contacted one of the main editors on WikiProject Somalia (which this page falls under) for input. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Somali Bantus in Maine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ci.lewiston.me.us/news/2006/08-03-06b.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)