Talk:Migration Watch UK

Tony Kushner

Following a discussion with User:Yorkshirian, I settled on a version of the text quoting Tony Kushner's article about MigrationWatch's role in debates about asylum which includes a description of Kushner as "a university professor with research interests in prejudice, intolerance, Jewish history, refugee movements, and issues surrounding immigration and ethnicity in Britain". Revisiting this, I don't really see the need for this description. It goes way beyond what is necessary per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. When quoting an opinion from a newspaper, we don't include a whole description of that newspaper, and I don't see the need for it here either. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What do people think about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Kushner piece claims that Migrationwatch is part of a campaign against asylum seekers does not stand up to examination and should be removed. On the page 'Who we are', on Migrationwatch's web site, it clearly states "We entirely accept that genuine refugees should be welcomed." Nowhere on their web site does it reject genuine asylum seekers. It makes no bones about illegal immigrants - unsuccessful asylum seekers who no longer have any lawful right to remain in the United Kingdom being removed from the country immediately. --Moonshineblue (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kushner's point is more subtle than that. He's arguing that MigrationWatch have contributed to a discourse of suspicion towards asylum seekers. Even if MigrationWatch support the principle of asylum, they have, in his view, contributed to a feeling that most asylum seekers are not genuine. More generally, I'd point out that we can't rely on MigrationWatch's self-image as a neutral source for the article. Kushner's article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and is a valid source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

--The entry in question does not say that Migrationwatch have contributed to a discourse of suspicion. It says that it has been part of a campaign. I can see nothing on their website which substantiates this accusation. Futhermore, reference 19 in the paragraph ASYLUM links to an advertisement for Kushner's book from which the alleged quotes have been taken. It is obviously not possible for anyone to question the allegation unless one has access to the original source. Unless you can show that the source can substantiate this claim the whole paragraph should, in fairness, be removed. It is not a matter of an organisation’s self-image, rather a matter of evidence.

I agree that we do not need the lengthy description of Kushner. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is not to an advertisment for a book. It is the abstract of a journal article which is downloadable by subscribers (i.e. people with access to a university library). Again, MigrationWatch's own website is not a neutral source. I'm sure the BNP's website says that they're not racists, but that doesn't change the fact that other people have said they are. The same applies here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

--Apologies for calling an academic journal a book.

It must be unacceptable for sources to be used that are only available to those prepared to subscribe to an academic journal, or with access to a university library, in order to see the original source of quotes used on Wikipedia. It would, therefore, appear to be impossible for a member of the general public to see the evidence, if any, for allegations in the quotes you have used or judge the neutrality or other wise of the author. This would appear to be a deliberate attempt to shut down any discussion which you do not like. Unless you can show that the source can substantiate this claim I propose to remove the whole paragraph. --Moonshineblue (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Members of the public can view the source article by visiting a library. Libraries which don't subscribe to the journal in which the article appears can obtain it on inter-library loan. The journal is also held at the British Library, as with all other academic journals. If Wikipedia ruled out the use of academic journal articles as sources then how would scientific articles be sourced? Please refer to WP:SOURCES, which states: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:SOURCEACCESS states: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I raised this issue on the reliable sources noticeboard, where it has been confirmed that access issues such as this are not a barrier to verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try my local library as soon as possible. --86.149.214.205 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kushner quote includes the allegation that Migrationwatch "constructed for itself a spurious statistical rationale". Cosec has dealt with some of the facts. Given that Kushner has no special expertise on either immigration or statistics, this clause would be better delleted. Jumping George 18:44 29 dec 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumping George (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fellow academics who peer reviewed the article obviously didn't agree with you. As I've spelled out above and below, this is a reliable source. If you want to take the issue up further, I suggest you do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the unsigned Jumpimg George above, I should make it clear that this arose because I had not quite understood how to sign correctly. That should now be resolved.--Jumping George (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge. I'm suspicious about the use of single-purpose accounts here, but I can see that there are sufficient sources to improve the Andrew Green (diplomat) article beyond its current sorry state. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I suggest that the Andrew Green (diplomat) article be merged into this one, since the activities that he is notable for are all to do with MigrationWatch. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think not. You have obviously not read his CV on Migrationwatch web site. Here is a brief extract "...He has since devoted his time to voluntary work. He is a former Chairman of Medical Aid for Palestinians, a British charity seeking to improve health care for Palestinians both in Palestine and in refugee camps. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Sudan Peace Building Programme, working to rebuild relationships in that war torn country. And he is a board member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights organisation which speaks for Christians and others around the world who are suffering persecution for their beliefs." --Moonshineblue (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of all of that. The question is, does it make him notable per WP:PEOPLE, which states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? I'm open to persuasion that he is notable, but the point is about coverage and all the coverage I've seen of him concerns his role with MigrationWatch - hence why I wonder if it is better to merge the two articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Details of Sir andrew Green's CV are confirmed in a p[rofile published in the Observer on 7 January 2007. which mentions specifically that he is chairman of the charity Medical aid for Palestinians, a member of the Advisory Board of rht Sudan Peace Building Programme and a board member of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. This meets the requirement oof published secondary source material. however, the question of whether Sir Andrew is to be regarded as notable for the purposes of the definition quoted is irrelevant to the argument as to whether the two articles should be merged. --Cosec (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — Cosec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is hard to see the purpose of such a merger. The article is supposed to be about the organisation, not its Chairman. He is already sufficiently described with links to further material. (Jumping George 15:25,23 December 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumping George (talk • contribs) — Jumping George (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Given that Cordless Larry's suggestion of a merger has not been supported - indeed, three people object to his suggestion I am removing it from the Article page.--Moonshineblue (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that two of the users to comment suspiciously haven't edited Wikipedia at all other than to comment here, I think that the discussion (which you didn't close properly as set out at Help:Merging) should continue for a while longer. I'll re-add the template. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

From what I can see the users to whom you refer have commented on more than just the Merger Proposal. I therefore believe that given more people supporting the proposion that the merger should not take place it should not and the archived item should be removed. --Moonshineblue (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What archived item are you referring to? If you mean the summary of the discussion recorded above then there is no reason to remove it. Road Wizard (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The two users registered to take part in the discussion and have still only edited this page. But whether that remains the case or not, there is no case for removing an archived merger discussion. You state that the merger shouldn't take place and it won't as I closed the discussion as 'do not merge'. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

References

ASYLUM SEEKERS

The paragraph on this subject states :”Migration Watch claims to support the principle of political asylum but has been strongly critical of the government failure to remove many of those whose claims are rejected.” The use of the word “but” between the two parts of this sentence is obviously a snide attempt to cast doubts on the sincerity of Migration Watch’s support for asylum. There are no grounds for any such doubts. Any reference to removal is entirely proper. If an asylum application is rejected and any appeal against rejection is unsuccessful, the applicant has no lawful claim to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. If he fails to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily he may properly be deported, though the numbers of those deported are always well below the numbers of those who remain without leave. I suggest the following alternative wording: “Migration Watch supports the principle of asylum for genuine seekers of protection against the risk of persecution in their countries of origin for one or other of the reasons given in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Briefing Paper 9.14 on the MW website, published in April 2004 analyses the detailed statistics relating to successful and unsuccessful applications and appeals at the time, relying on official published statistics.” --Cosec (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose that becuase I think we need to include mention of MigrationWatch's stance towards those whose asylum applications have failed. We should also probably mention that MigrationWatch have been quite criticial about the validity of many asylum seekers' claims. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now reworded and expanded the section. Comments on the new text are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CRITICISM

This section of the article contains much adverse criticism and in particular suggests that the accuracy of Migration Watch’s research can be questioned. In recent years there has been widespread acknowledgement that Migration Watch’s carefully drafted research papers, based on official published population figures, are reliable. An article by Dean Godson in The Times of 10 June 2006 states: “With much prodding from Migration Watch it has been officially confirmed that 83 per cent of projected population growth in Britain will come from mass immigration, adding six million people to these islands over 27 years. This will have enormous consequences for public expenditure, for the NHS, for crime - in short for almost every aspect of state policy. For example, immigration will account for nearly a third of new households, requiring 1.5 million further homes over the next two decades.” Particularly telling on this subject is the following paragraph from an article by Jay Rayner published in The Observer on 7 January 2007: “Privately, even the government which has been at pains to counter their former employee’s [i.e. Sir Andrew’s] argument agrees. “Can we please stop saying that Migration Watch migration forecasts are wrong?” wrote one Home Office official to another in 2003 in an email obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request. ”Migration Watch assumptions are often below the government actuary’s department’s high migration scenario”.” A recent article on Migration Watch’s website draws attention to current population projections which are not now seriously disputed - Briefing Paper 9.21 dated January 209 and entitled “Population out of control – why present policies cannot keep our population even to 70 million”. Population projections in line with this title are discussed in careful detail, supported by many references to figures produced by the Office of National Statistics and to numerous official documents.

I suggest that the text in bold be inserted after the present opening paragraph under “Criticism”.

The second paragraph under “Criticism” makes sweeping adverse comments on MW’s involvement in discourse on asylum and states in particular that MW “has constructed for itself a spurious rationale”. Neither this nor any other adverse comment on the subject is substantiated by the text. I note that the publication by Professor Tony Kushner which is quoted as the basis for these statements appeared six years ago, a fact which must of itself cast doubt on the validity of the statements.

Asylum has been and continues to be the subject of careful study and analysis byMigration Watch. For a recent detailed study of the subject reference should be made to Migration Watch’s website, Legal Briefing Paper 8.32, published in January 2009 which carefully explains the legal basis for asylum. Paragraph 9 of this Briefing Paper quotes detailed figures from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin in relation to asylum applications and appeals against refusal of asylum. In particular it shows that of 23,430 applications in 2007 6450 resulted in grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. 14935 appeals were determined during the year, of which 23% were allowed and 72% dismissed.--Cosec (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever substance there may have been in Professor Kushner’s paper quoted, after six years it is manifestly out of date and certainly cannot be regarded as a proper source on which to base the damning comments made on MW. I suggest that the second paragraph under “Criticism” should be deleted and replaced by the text in bold above.--Cosec (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In light of the comments above, I sense that you're going to go through the whole article and suggest amendments that involve removing criticism from reliable sources and replacing it with material from MigrationWatch's own website. If you find sources supportive of MigrationWatch such as the Dean Godson article, then please feel free to mention that in the article. That doesn't change the fact that the criticisms come from reliable sources and should remain. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The point I have made is that the statements attributed to Professor Kushner in the paragraph which I have suggested should be deletd are not reliable. They are vague, unsubstantiated and manifestly out of date. I stand by my previous comments and suggestion.--Cosec (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not just about MigrationWatch as an organisation in 2009. The fact that the article dates from 2003 does not make its arguments invalid. It is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, which, per WP:RS, is a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we disagree, may I suggest that you ask about the reliability of the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? You're likely to get wider input there. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the journal in which Professor Kushner's remarks were published is academic and peer-reviewed does not of itself mean that the remarks or their source must be treated as reliable. The statement in particular that Migration Watch "has constructed for itself a spurious statistical rationale", without any substantiation to support it, is no more than an expression of an unfavourable opinion, whatever its posssible justification at the time. Furthermore, whatever the basis might have been for criticising Migration Watch on the basis of its treatment of statistics in 2003, six years on those figures are manifestly out of date and remarks based on them obviously cannot be relied on as the basis for an adverse opinion on Migration Watch in 2009. Once again, I stand by my original comments.--Cosec (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If the comments are sourced then they can be included on the basis that they refer to a particular stage of the group's history. If you have a reliable source to dispute the claim then we can mention both the claim and the dispute. If you have a reliable source that says the quality of the statistics has improved then we can mention that they were considered unreliable to start with but have improved.

What we will not do is remove sourced information solely because you do not like it. Road Wizard (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Road Wizard. I take issue with the statement that "The fact that the journal in which Professor Kushner's remarks were published is academic and peer-reviewed does not of itself mean that the remarks or their source must be treated as reliable". A peer reviewed journal is one in which all articles are peer reviewed before publication, so the article should be considered reliable unless its claims have been disproven elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I grow weary of repeating myself. Professor Kushner's article may or may not have been reliable at the time of publication, but a critical statement such as the one quoted above made in 2003 can no longer be treated as a basis for questioning Migration Watch's treatment of statistics in 2010. I am unrepentant and adhere to my previous statement.--Cosec (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, the response is that you present an alternative source to either dispute the 2003 research or show that the situation has improved since the research was carried out. Road Wizard (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Current state of the article (December 2009)

A request was made at the UK Politics WikiProject for comments on the current state of the article and the contributions by the various editors. Before I begin I should point out that I have no prior knowledge of MigrationWatch UK or its activities; I will be commenting solely from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

• On reading the comments here it appears that some unorthodox editing practices have been going on. I won't point fingers or name names, but I would draw the attention of editors to the policy on using multiple accounts in a discussion and the guideline on how to handle conflicts of interest. I am usually more willing to believe and assist someone who puts forward an honest argument than someone who attempts to make the same argument through deception.
• Looking at the source material there appears to be far too much reliance on self-published sources. I count 17 citations from the article subject out of 58 total (29%). I get concerned if an article of this size has more than 5% of its citations from self-published sources; that almost a third of the sources on this article are questionable is a significant problem. It certainly won't meet GA-class anytime soon and it should really be downgraded to C-class until the issues are resolved.
• The second statement of the article - that it is considered to be right-wing - is supported by seven citations. That is a little over the top. If a statement cannot be supported by three sources or less then that suggests the source material is weak. Normal practice is to use one or two citations with three as an unusual exception. I can't access any of the sources currently numbered six to nine, but either the Times or Observer would be sufficient to meet the reliable sources guideline. I would suggest using either or both of those unless the sources I can't access are judged to be of higher quality.
• It may also be useful to clarify who calls them right wing; perhaps with the statement, "although media groups such as The Times and academics like Christina Boswell have characterised it as a right-wing lobby or pressure group."
• For the "Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration" statement I would suggest using sources like The Times and House of Commons Register of All-Party Groups instead of the self-published sources.
• I am always wary of sections titled "Criticism" as the name does not lend itself well to putting forward a neutral viewpoint and can attract negative statements purely for the sake of making a reasonably sized critical section. I would suggest a rename of the section.

Please let me know if there are any other issues you would like me to comment on. Road Wizard (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really helpful. I'll do some work on the article when I get time, but a couple of points for now. Firstly, the reason why there are so many references for the right-wing claim is that an editor had been insisting that any mention of MigrationWatch being characterised as right-wing be removed and that the article should rely on the organisation's own description of itself. The number of references is perhaps an overreaction to this, but I think it may also be necessary given that the sentence mentions both commentators and academics. Secondly, do you have any suggestion for an alternative name for the "criticism" section? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names could include, "Reaction", "Reaction to the group" or "Reaction in the media". Criticism implies a negative stance while Reaction can be either positive or negative. Road Wizard (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the suggestion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Road Wizard that three citations for the second statement in the article are sufficient. Perhaps the three most recent would be the best? --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a blunt way of cutting the number of references down, particularly in the light of my comments about the need for a mixture of media and academic sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy stances - Immigration flows

This section of the article currently reads

"MigrationWatch first came to public attention in August, 2002 when it claimed that immigration, including an estimate of illegal immigrants, was running at two million per decade "and probably more"."

As this statement appears to be based on a cited article that appeared in October 2004 i.e. more than two years later, does anyone object if I replace it with

"MigrationWatch first came to public attention in August, 2002 when it claimed "The number of immigrants entering Britain has reached a record 250,000 a year" and that "the overall total has doubled in ten years and there is 'no sign of any significant reduction'."

This is taken from the Daily Mail. Aug 5, 2002. headline - "250,000 MIGRANTS A YEAR ENTERING BRITAIN" Mighty Antar (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of the current source is that it specifically states that the group came to prominence in August 2002, whereas the Mail source is an example of that prominence but not necessarily proof that it's when MW started to get attention. I think both sources should be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mighty Antar's suggestion on immigration flows. We should perhaps add a sentence at the end of that paragraph to make it clear that government figures do not include an element for illegal immigration. --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be the case, but it would also require a reference. I still think that the current source is valuable for the reasons outlined above, although I think we should include the Mail one as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In order that Policy Stances reads logically the ASYLUM SEEKERS section should be moved down below the ECONOMIC paragraph. If no one objects I will do this.--Moonshineblue (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

--The last sentence under this heading has been updated to include the Office for National Statistics latest immigration figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshineblue (talk • contribs) 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OUTPUTS

I suggest that the section on 'Outputs' should be brought up to follow that on 'History and Structure' since this would set the scene for the more specific paragraphs that follow. --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this now. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

--The last sentence of Immigration Flows has been up dated with the latest Office for National Statistics figures.

  Moonshineblue (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

--Link to the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration entered along with the names of the co-chairs: Frank Field (Lab MP) and Nicholas Soames (Con MP). Reference to the Daily Express and Daily Star removed as no relevant links can be found. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION

The paragraph on the Economic Impact of Immigration has become distinctly unbalanced. It should surely contain a reference to The House of Lords report - the only major enquiry conducted in recent years into the economic impact of immigration in the UK. I suggest the following:

'The Select Committee on Economic Affairs of The House of Lords reported in April, 2008 on the economic impact of immigration. They reported that they had "found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population".

This could go after the first sentence, to be followed by the views of other bodies.

Similarly the last paragraph of that section needs re-balancing perhaps with the addition of the following quotation from the Migration Advisory Committee report on Tier One of the Points Based System, dated December 2009:

"Dustman et al (2008) examine the effect of immigration along the wage distribution. They find the overall effect to be small and positive. At the high end of the wage distribution they find immigration has a positive effect on wages of resident workers, but at the lower end immigration depresses wages. Nickell and Saleheen (2008) look at the effects in different occupational groups. They find a negative effect of immigration on pay overall but, like Dustman et al, positive effects for those at the upper end. Their findings show notable evidence of wage depression in semi-skilled or unskilled services such as caring and personal service occupations and leisure, sales and customer service occuptations." --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wary of this becoming a section on the economic impacts of migration rather than MWUK's take on the economic impacts and the response to their view by other groups and experts. If anything, I think the section needs slimming down rather than expanding, unless what is added specifically addresses or draws on MWUK analysis. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be a balanced paper one needs to have reference to research which, although it may not support the pro-immigration lobby, does re-enforce MigrationWatch's economic research. I have, therefore, included more up to date references to research to this section.--Moonshineblue (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

REACTION TO THE GROUP

Finally, Reaction to the Group is largely a catalogue of seven criticisms, balanced only by statements from Green himself. As Road Wizard pointed out, independent sources would be better. I suggest that the first sentence reads "Migrationwatch has received both criticism and praise in the media but mainly criticism from academics...."

I suggest a new paragraph as follows:

'Its defenders claim its warnings have been vindicated and that Migrationwatch's research has opened up the debate on immigration for the first time since the late 1060's ("Immigration Warning Vindicated" - The Daily Telegraph 4 October, 2004). They also claim that Migrationwatch is merely advocating a legitimate position that net immigration to the UK is to the country's detriment ("Asylum: Peddler of Truth or Exageration", BBC News 26 January, 2004).

According to an article in The Times of 10 June, 2006 "The dramatic change in the terms of the immigration debate over recent months is largely down to the determination and courage of a single individual - Sir Andrew Green, the founder and Chairman of MigrationWatch UK. Almost single-handedly, he has rescued the national discourse from the twin inanities of saloon-bar bigotry on the Right and politically correct McCarthyism on the Left. Thanks to Sir Andrew, it is now socially acceptable to discuss this subject rationally."

More recently, The Daily Mail (1 April, 2008) commented that,

"the Chairman of Migrationwatch has repeatedly and patiently warned about the risks of admitting more settlers than we can comfortably absorb. Yet for his pains he has been vilified by the mass ranks of the liberal establishment, led by the BBC....But it's not too late for Sir Andrew's attackers to offer him their humblest apologies - and to admit that he and others like him have been right all along".

The paragraph from the Cardiff School of Journalism no longer quite fits in a paragraph entitled 'reaction'. This 137 page report is entirely about asylum so would be best under that paragraph. I suggest:

'Bernhard Gross, Kerry Moore and Terry Threadgold of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University have criticised the broadcast media's use of Migrationwatch to 'balance' reports on asylum. In a study of broadcast coverage of the issue they state:

"...anxiety about taking a position seen to be supportive of asylum seems to produce an over-compensation in terms of using easily accessible right-wing sources such as MigrationWatch UK as a 'balance'. The whole idea of 'balance' in these contexts needs to be re-thought and re-imagined. There are never just two sides to any story and two negative sides do not add up to 'balance'. Journalists do not seem at present to know where else to go with this issue.--Moonshineblue (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs to reflect more positive reactions to the group. The reason that it only includes criticisms is that it was recently titled as such and I while I renamed the section, I haven't yet had time to add more material to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the Gross, Moore and Threadgold quote is out of place. But wouldn't it be better in the "outputs" section? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that a paragraph about Sally Bercow has been added to 'Reaction to the Group'.

Migrationwatch's press release of 7 October, 2010 says:

"In a discussion programme on Sky News on 18 August, Mrs Bercow associated Migrationwatch with Mosley and Hitler. When we heard about this we asked for a copy of the programme and obtained a transcript of precisely what she had said. After taking advice from counsel we asked our solicitors to write to her seeking an apology and an undertaking not to repeat such an allegation. In their response, solicitors for Mrs Bercow said that she "did not intend to (and did not) allege that Migrationwatch is a fascist or racist organisation", that she was expressing an honest opinion about the handling of a Migrationwatch report by the Daily Express and that she had a right to do so in a democratic society.

"Migrationwatch are strongly in favour of free speech. We accept her assurances about her intentions, and consider that important and sensitive issues such as immigration should be debated without descending into derogatory language and associations.

"In view of the assurance contained in her solicitor's letter, we do not intend to take the matter further."

In view of Migrationwatch's press release I suggest that the last sentence of the Wikipedia entry be replaced by:

"In the light of an assurance by her lawyer that Mrs Bercow did not intend to (and did not) allege that Migrationwatch is a fascist or racist organisation, Migrationwatch decided not to take the matter further."

This is a neutral and factual account as would be required on Wikipedia. --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

--Given that Migrationwatch figures of a decade ago have been proved correct by the 2011 census (or rather a little cautious) they have certainly done better than the majority, if not all, the academics and other think tanks who have seen their pronouncements rubbished. Hence the addition in the Reaction to the Group. Moonshineblue (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK

I actually think the article reads quite well. But at the same time, I do often think that common sense, and fact are sometimes overrided by editor protectionism.

Drawing on minor wikipedia violations, and technicalities, to keep text you don't personally like out of an article. All I can say is I'm hardly surprised 60'000 editors leave the site every year.

I think the culture of Editors allowing their personal feelings to override common sense on articles - circling their wagons around subjects close to their hearts - will be the thing that finishes this site off.

You know, our role as editors is to merely present a fair representation of factual topics. Not win the company an Esther Rantzen "Heart of Gold".

Play fair

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you mean by this, or state who you think is using Wikipedia policies to keep out material that they don't like? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all but the first paragraph of Cjmooney's comments. Removing links to pages that are already on the web in order to put in a proposed future separate Wikipedia site is just not on. It points to the fact that the person who hopes to set-up a new Wikipedia site deliberately keeping evidence already available on the web from viewers. Why, for example, does the editor want to put a Wikipedia site for Migrationwatch's Briefing Papers when there is a comprehensive site listing all of the organisations papers? --Moonshineblue (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'm hardly surprised 60'000 editors leave the site every year." This statement doesn't seem to be born out by statistics[[1]]. Mighty Antar (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Moonshineblue, which editor are you saying is trying to set up a "future separate Wikipedia site"? I didn't really get what you meant by that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look, I suspect that your comment was directed at my addition of a link to Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration. I didn't remove links to the web though. In fact, it was you who replaced citation templates with bare URLs linking to the same sites. Please don't do that, particularly after I worked so hard to use citation templates throughout the article. Also note that the addition of links to not-yet-existent Wikipedia articles is encouraged by WP:REDLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the link to briefing paper wasn't intended to be to a page on MWUK's briefing papers but to an article on the concept of briefing papers in general. I find it odd that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on them, and therefore put the link in as a reminder and encouragement to create one. All the time, I left in the reference to the briefing papers section of the MWUK website. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

left wing bias in Article

While there are in the very first paragraph links from left wing commentators suggesting that MW is 'right wing' there are no links from the vast majority of independent groups/agencies that state that MW is apolitical. Take as an example the BBC who last year had to publicly admonish their staff over this very issue. Please insert an equal number of links from eminent sources who state that MW is non-political. The Left wing must stop trying to discredit the messenger.Twobells (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of:

'MigrationWatch UK describes itself as an independent, non-political immigration and asylum think-tank,[1][2] although it has been characterised as a right-wing lobby or pressure group by some commentators[3][4][5] and academics.[6][7][8][9] and apolitical by other academics and commentators [links]' otherwise it just looks completely biased.Twobells (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone can insert a statement with links to support it providing they are from reliable sources. Rather than making unsupported statements can you provide any links that say MigrationWatch is apolitical which meet WP:RS? Even right-wing media like The Sun and the Telegraph now label MigrationWatch a pressure group rather than a "Think-Tank". ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Migrationwatch is actually PRO-immigration

There are claims here that Migrationwatch is anti immigration. This is clearly false. Migrationwatch actually promotes 'balanced migration' i.e 'one in one out'. Since there are up the half a million folk both coming and going from the UK (excluding tourists) each year then Migrationwatch is content to allow half a million immigrants into the UK annually. This 'net zero' immigration policy should be contrasted with a genuine right wing 'zero immigration' policy allowing no immigration whatsoever - or an even more draconian 'zero plus' policy. Right wing organisations such as the BNP and UKIP would probably regard Migrationwatch as 'soft' and left leaning, not right wing. One imagines that most British folk would agree with that assesment, if they understood that zero net migration doesn't actually mean zero immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.26.162 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir Joe Bloggs, ROTFL, LOL, FART

The list of members of the council here provides excessive detail in listing some members' titles – in a way that seems to be aimed not at helping readers identify the individuals in question, but to impress naive readers with the large number of titles. (Individual members' academic credentials may be from activities entirely unrelated to the group's academic credibility, but a naive reader might feel: "Wow, this is a very credible/scientific/respected group. Just look at all those titles.") It is of course correct to mention titles in Wikipedia – but they should be mentioned on the Wikipedia article page of the individual, and not here. Mentioning a single most important title of a person in another article, or maybe mentioning two titles where it serves to disambiguate the individual from namesakes might be ok, but in this section the excessive detail is obviously included just to impress naive readers. Worse, some of the members do not appear to themselves have own Wikipedia articles – either those should be written and linked, or if the individuals are not notable enough to have their own articles, then maybe their titles aren't either, and enumerating all of their titles in articles that aren't about them is clearly the wrong "solution" to the lack of articles about themselves where this information would have a place. 31.16.20.174 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that there doesn't seem to be a single title amongst these academic, honory (or otherwise) post-nominal title letters that serves to qualify the ability of these individuals to determine any better than anyone else what is right or wrong about the UK's immigration policies, the named individuals are still entitled to use them assuming they are sourced. WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:POSTNOM show the current guidelines. I think the titles just need to be wikilinked to the relevant information so people can decided for themselves how little (or how much) these qualifications serve to support anything this group is saying. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the Advisory Council web page at http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/profile_council.php on Migration Watch UK’s web site you will see there are two British ex-diplomats who have been in charge of overseas British Missions which, of course contain immigration sections for which they were responsible: Sir Andrew Green and Alp Mehmet. There are three former Immigration Judges: John Entwistle, Harry Mitchell and Patricia Skitmore whose relevant experience is self evident. There is also a Professor of demography which is highly relevant as, according to the Office for National Statistics, two thirds of the population growth is due to immigration. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that their qualifications, and resultant titles, are irrelevant to the matters in hand. It is an impressive list but that is no reason to seek to suppress it. Indeed the tone of the heading to the first comment above verges on the offensive. --Moonshineblue (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Without questioning the validity and importance of these people's qualifications and credentials, having text such as "Professor Roger Williams, CBE, MD, FRCP, FRCS, FRCPE, FRACP FmedSci, FRCPI (Hon), FACP (Hon)" in the article is rather ridiculous. Even Williams's own article doesn't list all of those post-nomials. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the outdated list of Advisory Council Members and simply suggested that viewers go Migration Watch UK web site to see the list, if they are interested. Moonshineblue (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

HISTORY & STRUCTURE

I have re-moved the "anti-immigration letters by David Coleman" on the grounds that this must be hearsay evidence. The author of this can have no direct knowledge of the matter. Moonshineblue (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased. "Reactions to the group" is 75% critical and 25% 'moderate approval'. Even the lead is biased. I'd sort it out but i'll get edited :o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions won't get edited out if they're sourced and NPOV. Go for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Astroturfing"

Over the past couple of months, the claim that MigrationWatch is an "astroturfing" group has repeatedly been added to the article, first by an IP and then, when the article was semi-protected, by Augenblink. Such an assertion needs a source, and the only one provided so far has been a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS. If editors want to add this material, they need to find a reliable source to reference it to. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem as I see it with the "astroturf" claim is not that it is unsupported but that it is not accurate. The definition appears to be the act of representing a groundswell of popular opinion that is otherwise denied representation. That doesn't fit Migrationwatch. Migrationwatch purports to represent an informed, academic view, not that of the "silent majority." The problem is with lazy journalists who put self-proclaimed "expert" organisations such as this into the contacts book and then, in the interests of "balance", consult them whenever the subject crops up in the news, without pausing to examine their authority. The response to Migrationwatch's e-petition illustrates the extent of its popular support. "Balance" is not achieved by representing both sides equally; it is achieved by applying the criteria equally to both sides. As it happens, I a) find Migrationwatch ridiculous and insidious, and b) live a few doors away from the Chairman, but that does not prevent me from representing NPOV in this matter and others. Edith Waring (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Augenblink has been blocked for edit warring and block evasion, and the article is currently semi-protected, but I expect the unsourced additions will start again once the protection expires given these comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Of course. Your anti-WP behaviour will not be tolerated. As long as I am able to do anything about it, I will continue to fix your vandalism whenever/however I can. To do any less would be a serious breach of ethics. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • As explained on your orginal account's talk page by several editors and administrators, removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • As explained on there, the material is sourced, and your removal of it is an act of deliberate vandalism. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • This is now under discussion at AN/I. Apart from ignoring the need for sources and consensus, Augenblink is now clearly engaged in block evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Please try to stop shifting the blame. As I said to Darkwind, I absolutely understand your need to try to assuage your guilt for your acts of vandalism. However, as mentioned before, the only way your argument makes any sense is if you accept your semantic revisionism as to the definition of what a "commenter" is. And that is pure nonsense. Augenblinkauch (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Nope, it's about the lack of reliable sources. Find a source that meets WP:RS and we can add the material to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • (ec) Please don't pretend to care about WP's policies when you continue to ignore Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You're not fooling anyone. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Why would you say that? I seem to be the only one involved with this that is actually behaving correctly. I also would challenge your accusation of "sock puppetry". My original account can no longer edit, so therefore in order to continue to fix vandalism and perform other edits, I was forced to open a new one. My goal is not to have multiple accounts active at once, merely one. If there is a process/mechanism for closing out my other account completely at the same time, please let me know and I'll absolutely do that. Augenblinkauch (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Sock puppetry is the illegitimate use of alternative accounts, block evasion is an illegitimate use. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Jeraphine Gryphon:@Cordless Larry: Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. WP:DENY. Keri (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Indef PC requested at WP:RPP. Temp-semi is clearly not going to stop a persistent edit warrior, and full protection is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Keri (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pending changes will not stop Augenblink either. PC allows anyone, including IPs, to make changes, they just get flagged. With the current protection only confirmed users can edit the article. So it will stop any IPs he uses and makes him autoconfirm any accounts first. -- GB fan 11:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Right wing pressure group"

If this is a "right wing pressure group" then SPLC and ADL are "left wing pressure groups"

If Wikipedia was a politically unbiased encyclopaedia then it would apply these labels to all these groups, or to none of them.

To label the groups that you don't like, but to not label the groups you do like, is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThebeOkonma (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that the article does not state that MigrationWatch UK is a right-wing pressure group; it states that it "has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing pressure group", which is demonstrably true. I've never edited the other two articles you mention, to my knowledge. The place to discuss the description of those groups in their articles would be their respective talk pages in the first instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MigrationWatch UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516091403/http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/whoweare.asp to http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/whoweare.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923144849/http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpapers/migration_trends/failed_asylum_seekers.asp to http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpapers/migration_trends/failed_asylum_seekers.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724095351/http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpapers/economic/Migrants_economic_benefit.asp to http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpapers/economic/Migrants_economic_benefit.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014014529/http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/papers/p_DailyMail_10feb_06.asp to http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/papers/p_DailyMail_10feb_06.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819221427/http://learning.chs.ac.uk/file.php/1/New_immigrants-_Migrants_in_socia_housing_in_Britain.pdf to http://learning.chs.ac.uk/file.php/1/New_immigrants-_Migrants_in_socia_housing_in_Britain.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Although the lead as it was earlier was not compliant with WP:LEAD, it hasn't been improved. Anyone reading it would think that the organisation was non-controversial. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This article is messy, to put it mildly. It is disjointed and probably a bit too long. The lead is inadequate. It features news articles from nearly 20 years ago describing the actions of the organisation and the views of its critics. The article on the whole has been very haphazardly updated since its creation. It also relies heavily on primary sources from the Migration Watch website itself, which are then editorialised to various degrees approaching original research. Then there's a few other issues like its information box being tiny and the organisation's logo being outdated.

I have done some minor work on the article already, such as cleaning up some of the egregiously long quotations. But I will be putting a cleanup rewrite template at the top of the article for now with a view to doing more comprehensive work on it. Hyperion1913 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

McCarthyism on the Left?

Almost single-handedly, [Green] has rescued the national discourse from the twin inanities of saloon-bar bigotry on the Right and politically correct McCarthyism on the Left".

McCarthyism was a right-wing agenda to finger Communists. Valetude (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)