Talk:British Nigerians

Confusion with numbers

These numbers don't agree with those on the Nigerian American page. There it says that one million Nigerians have immigrated to the US. There may be confusion between contemporary immigration and the former slave trade. In the other article it says that 20 million Nigerians are living outside the country in Africa, so this is confusing, too.--Parkwells (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with numbers

A range between 800.000 and 3 million, while the general black-british population is only 2% What is the reason of such a big range? It does not correspond. Are the sources reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvwissen (talk • contribs) 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That figure comes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: [1]. If someone can find something more precise, that'd be great. Zagalejo^^^ 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The 800,000 to 3 million range is given on the Foreign Office website, but the source makes clear that it's not the FCO's own estimate but rather a summary of other estimates. I'm going to remove it in any case because 3 million far exceeds any National Statistics count of the total number of black people in the UK. 3 million is simply implausible given that the UK population is around 60 million. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The unsourced claim that "Community leaders believe the growing population is over 500,000 in 2012" has appeared in the article since the discussion above. I propose removing this unless a source can be provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's been no objection and the citation tag has been there since December 2012, so I'm removing this supposed estimate. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Category: African Diaspora?

I thought that the African Diaspora were peoples descended from the Atlantic slave trade, e.g. African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. So people who are recent immigrants directly from Africa and their descendants are not part of the African Diaspora. They ARE Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahTM (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The African diaspora simply refers to Africans living outside of Africa, not necessarily those descended from slaves. Also, the "They ARE Africans" comment is not strictly true since the descendants of these more recent African immigrants are unlikely to be citizens of African nations. EttaLove (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect figures

The numbers must be wrong. There are only 500,000 African people living in Britain in total according to the 2001 census, so there can't be this many Nigerians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.49.80 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Africans are the fastest growing demographic in Britain. Britain received its largest wave of African migration EVER after the 2001 census, so the numbers could quite possibly be within that range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.21.164 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Many Nigerians are not documented for firstly. Secondly a lot of the black community don't take part in censuses and some of the community believe these censuses are purposely putting numbers lower than they are. Thirdly alot of other Nigerians have dual nationality with other European countries and have joined family members in UK as there is a established community in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBCjj11 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic of this page

This page is about British people of Nigerian descent.

Per WP:DAB, when a term has two potential meanings, we don't cram both meanings together on a single page; that is why the lede of Pluto says "Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt", not "Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt, and also a fictional dog created by the Disney Corporation".

Any registered editor who wants to start a page about Nigerian people of British descent can do so, on a separate page, rather than trying to cram the two topics together onto the same page. This is the standard practice for ethnic group articles: Chinese people in Korea and Koreans in China, German minority in Poland and Polish minority in Germany, Australian American and American Australian, etc. Regards 61.10.165.33 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your contention that an article cannot encompas more than one 'topic' as you describe it is totally flawed as is your biased and selective choice of other articles to support this contention. Most Wikipedia articles will cover several or many topics. The content of articles will seek to describe the scope covered and editors are at liberty to propose and develop this scope through dicussion, edits and concensus. Through this process articles evolve over time. Please do not try to dictate to fellow editors how they should contribute to Wikipedia and repeadedly make changes to the article especially the lead which have been previously reverted to the established concensus. I encourage you to allow the idscussion here to progress to a conclusion before making further changes.Tmol42 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tmol42:: accusing other people of being "biased" is not likely to lead to a productive discussion. Do you have a concrete reason why "British people of Nigerian descent" and "Nigerian people of British descent" are different from all the other ethnic group articles I listed? You can go through every single other ethnic group article and you will find that not just the ones I mentioned but the overwhelming majority put "X of Y descent" and "Y of X descent" on separate pages. This includes cases which are quite clearly analogous to this one:

• cases where one country had colonised/controlled the other in history, like Koreans in Japan/Japanese people in North Korea, Ethnic Chinese in Mongolia/Mongols in China, Filipino people of Spanish ancestry/Spanish people of Filipino ancestry, Filipino American/American settlement in the Philippines
• "circular migration" cases where many (of course not all) of the "ABC"-ian people who moved to country "XYZ" are actually children & grandchildren of the "XYZ"-ian people who moved to country "ABC", e.g. Indian American/Americans in India, Hong Kong Canadian/Canadians in Hong Kong.

Regards61.10.165.33 (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Different countries have different definitions to terms. In Nigeria, "British Nigerian/Nigerian British" are both used interchangeably to refer to either British people of Nigerian descent, or Nigerian people of British descent. Just because this article only talks about an aspect doesn't make it right; there are thousand other articles that focus more on one territory, than a universal view (and are usually tagged appropriately). What can be done to remove the other meaning is to move this page to "British people of Nigerian descent" and change this page to a disambiguation page which would give both meanings. The major reason why I changed the lead is; there are considerable number of "Nigerian people of British decent" on Wikipedia, who are tagged as "British Nigerian" and linked with this page.....I'm only trying to avoid confusing readers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As this article is about people living in Britain (and not Nigeria), I added more to the Lead to try to clarify it.Parkwells (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Education

An ip-hopping user (and now apparently single purpose account) has insisted on retaining redundant, decade-old material on British Nigerian GCSEs, which do not reflect the present situation. Part of the passage was also sourced to an unrelated opinion piece, with a WP:REDFLAG 78% figure that only appears in that editorial. The number was likewise mislabeled as being from 2013, when it's actually from 2010-2011. I've fixed this by replacing the op-ed with the official figure for the same period from the Camden Education Commission (>50% [2]). Additionally, I noted the group's current standing per the Institute for Public Policy Research's latest 2013 paper [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have only logged in today, please do not indulge in conjecture to support you viewpoint.

Camden is one London borough of 32, so in no way can a report from one London borough be used to represent a whole ethnic group on a national level WP:OR.

Additionally the 50% figure cited in the Camden report is general figure for African students with origins from all nations in Africa and Somali students, not for Nigerians students specifically. Therefore it makes sense that the figure 78% cited in Economist (a well known publication dated 2013) and from an earlier report in 2011 are used for Nigerian students since no better information is available.

Also it is not for you to make calls on the group's current standing, without drawing consensus from other users which I asked you to do on your talk page and you merely removed my request for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nograviti (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nigerians are aggregated within the official African total indicated by the Camden Education Commission, while the 78% figure that you have been insisting on is a WP:REDFLAG figure that is only found in that one editorial. The redflag policy is likewise a clause of WP:VER, which stipulates that "contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page." Also, the actual figures from the other report that you are alluding to are from 2005, and are clearly labeled as such. That in no way reflects the present situation, as it's over a decade old. As a compromise, I suggest we simply note instead the Institute for Public Policy Research's latest 2013 GCSE figures for Nigerians, whatever those happen to be (whether higher or lower). By the way, if you don't mind my asking, can you explain why your first Wikipedia edit with this account is on 3RR and pertains to this page? I mean, how did you even get wind of the page if you hadn't edited anything before then? Middayexpress (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to go to the sources to see what they actually said and as Middayexpress said these cannot now be verified. In any case as they are over ten years old they are of minimal value in a rapidly changing environment in particular statistical projections for 2015 now carry nil validity. I also took the trouble of finding and downloading the IPPR report its interesting to note the IPPR research includes a major caviat about the robustness of the data. See here, page 43 refers

″While the table highlights differential educational achievement, it should be noted, that not all local authorities in England collect data using extended ethnicity codes; there are some local authorities with diverse populations that do not do so. Additionally, new guidance on school achievement data requires that local authorities submit data to the Department for Education using only four ethnicity categories – White, Black, Asian and Other, thus aggregating diverse groups and masking underachievement in some cases″.

I think this caveat needs to be added to the article concerning the IPPR reference. All in all this highlights the danger of taking newspaper articles at face value, as well as selective statistic cropping to bolster an argument. My view is that this whole paragraph on Education looks flaky. Tmol42 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That does seem rather flaky. The data is counterinuitive in many spots, the coding is inconsistent across the various local authorities, and the IPPR itself concedes that the aggregated figures obscure many realities. What perhaps would be best, then, is to use a study exclusively on British Nigerian scholastics, as found among other populations (e.g. [4] [5] [6]). Otherwise, we probably should indeed just scrap the whole uncertain performance aspect of the section (it's just three sentences), and instead stick with the uncontroversial facts and figures on attendance from Euromonitor International for the British Council. Middayexpress (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As it stands the education section is based on data from one London borough which is highly inaccurate. You have also gone down the same path again of using specific sources again, this time from lambeth council another single London borough to indicate that The performance of British Nigerian children is not dissimilar to that of other UK based African groups.

This clearly not the case. Please see the following more recent documents, echoeing the economist article pointing out the relative under performance of groups like Somalis academically vis a vis Nigerians

http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/ecomm/files/Moving%20up%20together%20summary%20for%20web.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/22/white-british-children-outperformed-by-minorities

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/22/white-british-children-outperformed-ethnic-minorities_n_2930502.html

Based upon the three sources above and economist article, the fact that Nigerian children attain results above the caucasian and UK national average is clear. What is also clear is that performance is distinct from groups which are under performing academically like somalis. These articles are more recent and retain the basic premise of the original section before it was edited by middayexpress.

MiddayExpress's poor sources should be removed and information explaining the above should be cited.

Even for the borough of Camden, I found the following information for performance on the different groups

http://www.supplementaryeducation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ACHIEVEMENT-REPORT-2014-FINAL-1.pdf

Which reads : in 2011 the GCSE results for Nigerians

who achieved 5+A*-C was 83%. Ghanaian students achieved 71%, Somalis 65% and Congolese achieved

50%. In 2012, 94% of Nigerian and 92% of Ghanaian students achieved 5+A*-C GCSE results.

I think we all see the pattern that is emerging here. The above articles with the additional information from the IPPR 2013 report strongly support the original thrust of the education section..

Nograviti (talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, this isn't a contest. No one particularly cares how well Nigerians perform relative to other populations, be it better or worse; it makes no difference either way. The latest data also shows mastery of the English language as being the main factor contributing to higher attainment, with performance directly related to that. Nigeria is a country with English as its primary language of instruction, so logically the transition to another English language academic system should be easier for such students. At any rate, the fact remains that the 78% figure only appears in that one editorial, as Tmol42 has just confirmed; this fails both WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG. I therefore suggest scrapping the Camden borough paper as well, and instead noting the GCSE data from that 2014 British Nigerian study i.e. the one with the 94% overall GCSE for Nigerian students in 2012 [7]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere have I stated that this was a contest. As I stated before I would like the Education section of the British Nigerian page to be accurate and reflect the current academic performance of British Nigerian children and that is all.

If no one cared, then there wouldn't be numerous articles on the differing levels of academic achievement by ethnic group, additionally we would not be having this discussion on the talk page is it wasn't important. I am afraid until you can cite multiple articles with regards to their performance being related to the English language, then that argument belongs in the realm of WP:OR. Also assuming I indulge you on this point, if that were the case, then similar levels of academic achievement would be seen in Ghanaians, Liberians along with Sierra Leoneans, which is not the case.

Actually the 78% figure is also cited in the 2013 IPPR report. Given that the mean for children attaining 5 A* - C grades in England is 56.9% and the mean difference away from the England mean for Nigerian children is +21.8%. If you want the mean score for Nigerian children as an absolute mean figure, 56.9 + 21.8 = 78.7%. Give or take rounding, the figure in the IPPR report is actually inline with the figure in the Economist.

I would suggest that we use the figure from the 2013 IPPR report and the original Economist figure alongside updated data for 2014 against scores for other ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. Nograviti (talk

The Euromonitor International for the British Council report indicates that prior learning in the English language is one of the main factors contributing to higher attainment in an English language academic system [8]. At any rate, the 2013 IPPR paper notes a +21.8% difference for Nigerian students from the England mean of 56.9% in 2010-2011, not a GCSE of 78% as that one editorial claims (78.7% also rounds off to 79%). Both were in any event ruled out for the reasons already explained by myself and Tmol42; the IPPR itself indicates that its GCSE average doesn't factor in all local authorities. That leaves the 2014 British Nigerian study, which shows the overall GCSE for Nigerian students in the UK for 2010-2012 (that is, 82% in 2010, 83% in 2011, and 94% in 2012). Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said the Euromonitor article is but one article, leaving you subject to both WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG.

Re 78.7%, If you present the figure to zero decimal places without rounding, then the figure is 78%.

Also please don't speak on behalf of other users (in this case Tmol42). Tmol42 suggested that the data could be used subject to a caveat being included, which I do not have a problem with.

Also if we use the 2014 study metrics for British Nigerian students the data will still show that GCSE results for Nigerian students in the UK for 2010-2012 at 82% in 2010, 83% in 2011, and 94% in 2012. These figures should be cited against lower figures for Somalis, Congolese etc, with additional explanation that they are above the English Caucasian average, especially when you include information from the Huffington and Guardian articles.

Eitherway as it stands I still see no reason not to include IPPR 2013 information provided there is caveat and 2014 information, with additional supporting information from reputable news sources like the Guardian. Nograviti (talk

The Euromonitor International for the British Council paper is a commissioned research report for the British Council, not an article. What it asserts about prior learning in the English language being one of the main factors contributing to higher attainment in an English language academic system is also hardly redflag. The 2014 British Nigerian scholastic study you linked to itself indicates as much (1.5 Ability to communicate [9]). An actual WP:QS article with a WP:REDFLAG figure is that editorial. As I already pointed out and Tmol42 confirmed, where the piece is getting its GCSE figures from is uncertain and cannot be verified since it doesn't bother citing its source ("I have attempted to go to the sources to see what they actually said and as Middayexpress said these cannot now be verified"). Even if we assume that it got its figures from that 2013 IPPR paper, that IPPR paper still doesn't indicate a 78% figure for Nigerians. It indicates a +21.8% difference for Nigerian students from the England mean of 56.9% in 2010-2011 i.e. a 78.7% GCSE. This rounds off to a GCSE of 79% for Nigerians, just as the Bangladeshi GCSE of 58.7% rounds off to 59%. This would mean that the editorial falsified its rounding of numbers for Nigerians, but not for Bangladeshis; it would have lowered the Nigerian figure rather than raised it as it would have for Bangladeshis. Regarding the 2013 IPPR paper itself, Tmol42 pointed out that it contains a major caveat about the robustness of the data and that if we were to use it, a caveat should at the very least be noted. He only did this for my edification, as I had just suggested we use the 2013 IPPR paper's GCSE figures for Nigerians, albeit without having had actual access to the pdf and its caveat. He thus notes that it is imprudent to take newspaper articles at face value, which would include the editorial as well as the Guardian and Huffington Post pieces on the 2013 IPPR paper ("all in all this highlights the danger of taking newspaper articles at face value"). Tmol42's actual overall position is that the entire paragraph is dubious ("my view is that this whole paragraph on Education looks flaky"). Given all this, the 2014 British Nigerian study is the only acceptable source for the Nigerian students' GCSE figures; those of other populations are WP:OFFTOPIC here. These Nigerian GCSE figures for 2010-2012 are 82% in 2010, 83% in 2011, and 94% in 2012. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think we are going round in circles here.

"The ability to communicate" cannot be linked to the conclusions drawn in the one Euromonitor article about prior learning of the English language. That is a tenuous link at best..

Also you cannot simply write off data from the Economist a publication founded in 1843 with a circulation of over 1 and half million as "the editorial falsified its rounding of numbers of Nigerians". The Economist more than stands on its own as a reputable source. Likewise the same goes for the Guardian founded in 1821 and part of the guardian media group with annual revenue of £254.5 million GBP. Again the Huffington post is a reputable source which was bought by AOL for £315 million because of the quality of its content.

Re rounding I gave you an explanation which you have chosen to ignore (Re 78.7%, If you present the figure to zero decimal places without rounding, then the figure is 78%)

Again it is not for you decide what is off topic as I don't see the issue with pointing out the relative performance of other groups.

As a result I will raise a request for comment as I have tried to discuss this issue amicably, but you seem take great issue with exploring the performance of British Nigerian children vis a vis other ethnic groups particularly those derived from other parts of Africa.

Editorials are not reliable sources on living persons. The rounding off explanation you provided is likewise irrelevant, as the editorial (assuming it even took the figures from the 2013 IPPR paper) rounded off all of its other figures to the nearest whole digit not to zero. This is also not a contest. If you want to compare the scholastic performance of British Nigerian children against something, do so against the national average, not against select populations amongst hundreds. Middayexpress (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that the discussion on the BLP noteiceboard pretty clearly indicates that BLP doesn't apply to a group of this size. Nonetheless, agree that the Economist piece isn't the best source for this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on using an Economist article and the IPPR 2013 report as sources

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

---

Could you please confirm that the [10] and IPPR 2013 report See here with the latter text including a caveat, can be used as a source of data in the British Nigerian education section?

The latter IPPR 2013 report supported by the following reputable news sources

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/22/white-british-children-outperformed-by-minorities

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/22/white-british-children-outperformed-ethnic-minorities_n_2930502.html

Nograviti (talk) Nograviti (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The links above are just relaying the 2013 IPPR paper's figures. Those numbers are also inconsistent with the GCSE figures in the 2014 British Nigerian study [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been able to follow all of the above discussion, but I can't find any mention of Nigerian pupils in that Camden Education Commission report, which is cited in the article. Can someone help me by giving a page number? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

They are aggregated under African on 8.3.5. Middayexpress (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So that's the average for all African pupils? In that case, I don't really see why this article reports it. As far as we know, the success of Nigerian pupils may well have decreased, and the African average may still have gone up. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I already suggested jettisoning it. Middayexpress (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. I'd happily support that. The current wording also doesn't make it clear whether the improvement statistic is for Camden or the UK as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Larry thanks for you input, which Camden report are you referring to 2014 or 2013? Data on African students in aggregate is highly misleading, whereas specific data on British Nigerian Students would be more accurate

I think it makes more sense to use data from the economist article and 2013 Ippr report, which has specific metrics on British Nigerian children. Nograviti (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to this Camden report. It seems like there is agreement between the three of us that the use of data on all African pupils is problematic here. I haven't had a chance to look at the IPPR report yet, but I will have a read and let you know my thoughts on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, yes I am in agreement that text can be jettisoned. I wait your response to the IPPR report and economist article. Interestingly I believe you have used the economist article yourself on other WP pages... Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So we're talking about the data from p. 43 of the IPPR report? I don't see a problem with using that, providing that it is caveated with the information that it refers to England, not the whole of the UK, and the issue that Tmol42 flagged above. In this instance, I think it's better to use the IPPR source than the Economist, which only mentions Nigerians in passing in an article that is about Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, glad you agree with the use of the IPPR report, I don't have an issue with the report information being caveated either. Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we remove or replace the sentence "By 2015, the number of Nigerian pupils enrolled in British tertiary institutions is projected to increase to around 30,000"? It is now 2015, so using a 2010 source for a projection for this year seems outdated. We could probably find actual data for 2013 or 2014. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source actually says "The number of Nigerians studying in the UK and the US is projected to increase 10-fold over the next five years (2,800 in 2009 to 30,000 by 2015) according to research by Euromonitor", so we can't use that projection for the UK alone. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the sentence cited above should be removed and the I think we should jettison references to the Euromonitor article entirely, especially since it includes projections for the US.Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to stop using it altogether, just for the projection. The 15,090 students figure for 2009/2010 seems OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are more up-to-date and detailed figures here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The latter source you cited looks better projection wise. So we can use that for the projection section instead Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a projection, but actual data on student numbers for 2011-12 (see p. 5). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, since Middayexpress agreed, I've removed the sentence based on the Camden report, which was about African pupils, not Nigerians specifically. I've also replaced the HESA data with that from the more recent source, and broken it down into undergraduate/postgraduate numbers. We now need to decide if and how we use the IPPR data. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats great Larry, I think the IPPR data should be used to show Nigerian GCSE results against the England mean. I also don't have a problem with also citing the results of other groups who have higher and lower scores as a means for comparison. Beyond that I think the Education section is already looking a lot better Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks alright, thanks. Given the IPPR's indication that its data lacks robustness, I think we should instead use the 2014 paper for the 2010-2012 GCSE [12], and perhaps also note Newcastle University's 2013 UELA scores [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nigerians applying to study at Newcastle University make up a very small subset of all Nigerians in the UK, so I'd not be inclined to use that source (it also contains tracked changes, suggesting it's not exactly intended for publication in its present state). On the GCSE point, do we actually need to quote figures given that finding reliable ones seems difficult? We could just note that Nigerian pupils are regarded by a number of sources to be relatively high achievers. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point there on Newcastle University. Given the uncertainty over the GCSE figures, a simple note on high attainment by Nigerian pupils does seem like a satisfactory solution; especially since it isn't controversial per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and wouldn't negatively impact the students per WP:BLP. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. I'm happy with that too, and we can always cite multiple sources, including the various studies discussed above. They might all come to slightly different figures, but the conclusions are the same. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already drafted a sentence based upon data in the IPPR which reads as follows : "Taking data for only England, a recent 2013 IPPR survey found that British Nigerian children had a mean % percentage of +21.8 away from an England mean of 59.6% for 5 A* - C grades at GCSE (including Maths and English). Other groups by comparison such as such as White British were at -2.3 away from the mean, while some other groups like the Chinese had a mean % percentage difference of +38". I think this gives fair and decent metrics whilst providing some data for comparison. Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mention the caveats that Tmol42 identifies above, though. What do you think of my suggestion to forego statistics? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding an additional caveat in another closing sentence, which would read "Although IPPR noted that not all local authorities use extended ethnicity codes, which aggregates diverse groups and masks underachievement in some cases". I think that would suffice. Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be keen on hearing others' opinions on this. User:Middayexpress? Anyone else? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion above from 17:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC) seems an adequate compromise. I provided additional specifications to that beneath it. Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont think WP:BLP or WP:SCHOLARSHIP apply here as we are just citing figures from a established think tank with supporting articles from established news sources, with both a higher figure for Chinese students and lower one for white British students providing balance. Larry this RFC was raised as no agreement could be found with User:Middayexpress. Given you had no issue with the IPPR report data and neither did Tmol42 provided a caveat was included. I believe we have WP:CONSENSUS which does not necessarily require unanimity. Nograviti (talk)Nograviti (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that Middayexpress and I have been discussing the IPPR figures in relation to the Somalis in the United Kingdom article on the RS noticeboard, and that discussion is clearly relevant here. On the BLP point, the view seems to be that groups such as this are too big to be covered by that policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, in truth I don't know much about the British Somalian community to comment. But I will review the comments and see how they link to this discussion Nograviti (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you contribute to that discussion. I was just mentioning it because it is clearly relevant here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting edit there, by the way [14]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I presume that Nograviti forgot to sign in. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly. Middayexpress (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it would seem we are at an impasse, as even in that discussion most of the objections appear to be primarily from one user. Also as an aside re the Somali talk page, I can't see how using figures from one London borough as indicative of Somali performance nationally is being particularly balanced. I am not sure where we go from here as it is become clearer to me that some users have specific agenda, rather than representing the data as it stands. How you deal with this issue in the context of WP isn't clear to me at this point. Perhaps we should pause for a while and weigh up additional optionsNograviti (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried to point out multiple times that data from individual London boroughs such as Camden doesn't somehow disprove other, broader-scale data, even if there is a big difference in the GCSE results between them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If no official nationwide GCSE stats are available, a government body indicates this, and most of a population happens to live in one local authority (as is the situation), then that local authority's official GCSE stats are certainly representative. Middayexpress (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, but most Nigerians don't live in a single local authority area, do they? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't alluding to Nigerians specifically, but speaking generally of course. Middayexpress (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But data at a national level is available in the form of the IPPR report as data it collated from multiple local authorities in England. However you have chosen to ignore that data for reasons largely known only to yourself. The data in that report could also be used for other groups as I alluded to earlier in this thread.Nograviti (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We are now discussing this IPPR report on the RS noticeboard too. Rather than discussing it in parallel here, we could confine the discussion of it to the noticeboard, to try to establish consensus about it, which could then apply to multiple articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no reliable nationwide GCSE stats for Somali students are available [15], which in any event the IPPR's unofficial, interpreted figure for England certainly is not. That makes the Somali pupil situation special and not applicable to other student groups, where reliable nationwide GCSE stats do by contrast exist. At any rate, that discussion does not concern Nigerians; here's the place for that. Middayexpress (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion there is about the reliability of the source, which is surely of relevance to all of the articles it is used for. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway MiddayExpress, regardless of Somali results, could you please define clearly what your objections are to using the IPPR report for data on the academic performance of British Nigerian children? I have compromised with the provision of a caveat and excluded reference to comparative data for Somalis which you seem very sensitive about.Nograviti (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I already explained what is wrong with IPPR figures. They are unofficial figures that were calculated by the authors themselves, and don't jibe with both official local authority and national government GCSE figures. There doesn't appear to be any official national GCSE figure for Nigerians, but there is for Yoruba. They are at 70% GCSE per the Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit, which is 8 percentage points lower than the IPPR's interpreted figure. However, the largest discrepancy between the official figures and the IPPR's interpreted data is for the Portuguese, who have an official national GCSE of 40% i.e. a full 29 percentage points higher than what the IPPR claimed [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's Portuguese speakers, which isn't necessarily the same as ethnically Portuguese pupils, some of whom will speak English at home. Similarly, not all Nigerian pupils speak Yoruba at home. You're not comparing like for like. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That said, the Demie source that uses the linguistic data is more comprehensive as it includes all pupils in England, so I approve of using that for this article. The only complications is that Nigerian pupils speak a range of languages at home, so we would need to give figures for several of these. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that GCSE figure is indeed for ethnically Portuguese students who speak Portuguese at home. I'm also aware that Nigerians speak various languages; that GCSE figure was for Yoruba specifically. Local authority GCSE figures for Nigerians in general and nationwide GCSE figures for the main Nigerian ethnolinguistic groups are adequate, as they are official. Middayexpress (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's for people classified as "White Other" who speak Portuguese. That will include Brazilians and others, not just ethnically Portuguese people. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's for Portuguese speakers from Portugal, specifically. That is why Demie cites another Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit paper therein on ethnic Portuguese, with a higher GCSE of 47% for 2007. Middayexpress (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does he says that the Portuguese-speaking pupils are all from Portugal. In fact, many of the pupils in the sample would have been born in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed some indents to make this thread more readable. Revert my change if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, unless a report can be found with data for all Nigerian language groups then focus is the IPPR report. As discussed in other pages a source does not have to be officially from the government for it to be valid. Especially since this report has supporting articles from reputable news sources Nograviti (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the IPPR report might actually be the best we have given the linguistic diversity of Nigerians. Perhaps you could make or suggest any edits to the existing article text, Nograviti? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Larry, unless you can advise of any additional changes, I am happy with the existing text I suggested being added to the education section.Nograviti (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, journalists and non-governmental authors don't administer GCSE exams. Only the actual local authorities do. Those newspaper links you allude to are also simply reporting the (dubious) IPPR stats. So no, those links are obviously not of equivalent reliability as the government itself. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, I meant people of Portuguese origin. At any rate, it's certain that there are official national GCSE stats for Nigerians available. Those governmental figures should instead be used. Middayexpress (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is very clear that it's any pupil in the White Other ethnicity category who speaks Portuguese at home. The author wouldn't be able to single out ethnically Portuguese pupils because the data includes LAs where extended ethnicity codes aren't in use. That's the whole reason he's using language instead. Anyway, back to Nigerians, which government figures are you suggesting we use? We've sidetracked the discussion, so I've lost track of which ones you want to be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Larry, my focus is still on the IPPR 2013 report. Regardless of Midday's unsubstantiated claims, IPPR remains the UKs leading think thank. @MiddayExpress You cannot write off a source because you don't like the figures it shows for certain groups (which you appear to be doing) Larry, if you don't object to the use of IPPR 2013 data then I see no reason not to make the change as WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree. Nograviti (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to use of the IPPR source as long as it's suitably caveated with the fact that not all LAs collect data using the extended ethnicity codes and that it only includes LAs that responded to the IPPR's freedom of information requests. That should be easy enough. I would be interested to see what source Middayexpress is suggesting we use though, in case it is more comprehensive. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

cool, I would say my caveat does that, but for now I think it is fair to say that is the only oustanding issue. @Midday we await your thoughts on the wording of the caveat, before adding the data to the education sectionNograviti (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Larry, what I'm saying is that Demie already calculated the national GCSE for Portuguese students in an earlier paper. He cites this other Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit report on ethnic Portuguese within the 2014 one. The Portuguese students had an official GCSE of 47% for 2007 in England, a full 36 percentage points higher than the IPPR's later interpreted GCSEs for them. This only further highlights the dubiousness of the IPPR's GCSE calculations. At any rate, I think there similarly is indeed an official national GCSE for Nigerians available; relying on the IPPR's shaky unofficial figure in lieu of it thus seems premature. I'm pretty sure Demie has one lying around. Middayexpress (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. That 47 per cent is quite close to the 40 per cent for Portuguese speakers, so you might have a point. How can there be a national figure when not all LAs use the extended codes though? Could you link to the paper with the Portuguese students figure? That might help me understand and perhaps find an equivalent for Nigerians. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's there. Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, where is "there"? Can you provide a link to the source with the 47 per cent figure for Portuguese pupils? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a 47 per cent figure for 2007 in this report, but that's for Lambeth, not a national figure for England. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not that figure. It's GCSE 5+A*-C for England. The report is bilbiographed in Demie's 2014 paper. Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He cites several of his own papers. Can you let me know which one it is, and I'll check it out. Since the 47 per cent figure itself isn't in his 2014 article, I presume you must have read the source it's from? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the only one on Portuguese bibliographed therein, asfaik. Middayexpress (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so that would be this one. I'll check it out when I get time. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right that it reports a figure of 47 per cent for Portuguese pupils ("47% were gaining 5+A*-C" on p. 99), but it's not a national figure I'm afraid. The article notes that "The absence of national comparative data which identifies patterns of children of Portuguese origin places serious constraints on affecting targeting policy and practice developments at national and local level", and then presents figures on one local authority, namely Lambeth, which is where the 47 per cent is from. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. There doesn't appear to be any official nationwide GCSE for Nigerians. Given this, perhaps the IPPR's unofficial nationwide figure for this population can be noted, as long as it is explained that the IPPR researchers themselves calculated the average based on local authority data. So something like: "Taking data for only England, a 2013 IPPR survey reported that British Nigerian pupils had a mean percentage of +21.8 away from an England mean of 59.6% for 5 A* - C grades at GCSE (including Maths and English). This average was calculated using student data where available from various local authorities in England." Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. The reason that there's no data on Nigerians is probably the same as for Somalis - neither are one of the "top-level" ethnicity categories (like Indian and Pakistani are), so schools don't have to collect data specifically on them. They all just get bundled into a bigger African category. Your suggested wording sounds perfect to me. What do you think, Nograviti? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello gents, I can't find fault with the text suggested by Midday, so it looks like we are all in agreement.Nograviti (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Want to add it to the article, Nograviti? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Provided that the wording above is used, the paragraph indeed looks alright. Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will aim to make the change later today. In the meantime Cordless Larry, could you please review the assertion in the last paragraph related to the Euromonitor article. I had a quick review of the article and it relates to English usage within Nigeria itself not with regards to the advantages of Nigerians speaking English when studying in England, please correct me if I am wrong?Nograviti (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be correct there. I'll delete that from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Euromonitor International for the British Council paper also discusses Nigerian students abroad in the UK and elsewhere. The passages in question are actually on why the foreign students are achieving high marks: "English is the language of government, business and education, and the number of English speakers is growing consistently in Nigeria, rising almost 6% over the last three years, according to Euromonitor estimates. Euromonitor’s interviews with leading companies in Nigeria confirm that businesses view strong English language skills as key to improving an individual’s career prospects in both the public and private sectors, and also improving access to higher education at home and abroad[...] The number of Nigerians studying in the UK and the US is projected to increase 10-fold over the next five years (2,800 in 2009 to 30,000 by 2015) according to research by Euromonitor. Attaining higher education in countries such as the UK and US is increasing in popularity, but clearly this is only available to the wealthier parts of society. Students in Nigeria consider that an education in these countries can bring economic benefits to themselves and to their families, as it provides longer-term employment prospects" [17]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as I can see, it doesn't support the statement that "Euromonitor International research for the British Council suggests that this high academic achievement by Nigerian students is mainly due to the fact that most of the pupils already matriculated in the English language in their home country" (especially since that sentence followed a sentence about GCSE performance, not higher education). Perhaps something could be formulated for the article based on the quotes you highlight, Middayexpress, although "at home and abroad" is quite general. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on higher education. The paper is on the benefits of the English language in general. It explains that many Nigerian foreign students aspire to study in the UK and other English-speaking nations because of the advantages of holding a degree from these areas and that they already arrive in Britain with a solid command of English: "According to interviews with educational institutions across the five countries, 30% of students in higher education aim to continue their studies abroad, specifically in English-speaking countries such as the UK, the US, Australia and Canada. This can be attributed in part to historical relationships. Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Cameroon are all former British colonies and still have strong links with the UK. A further contributing factor is the status of English as the international language of business and technology. Educational establishments in the five researched countries stated that a large proportion of students would like to study in an English-speaking country thanks to the affinity they felt with the culture, along with greater prospects of career and personal economic prosperity. There is also the social status that a degree from an English-speaking country brings. A degree obtained in a developed English-speaking country is generally well-regarded and considered an advantage for students when returning to their home country[...] Throughout the research respondents from private companies stated that English is now the common global language of communication. Levels of English use in Nigeria and Pakistan, for example, are high. This is underpinned by strong historical and cultural relationships with the UK, and driven by a desire for linguistic unity, resulting in a competitive advantage globally[...] The UK and the US remain the top destinations for Nigerian students, followed by Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. During the course of interviews, four of five educational centres expressed a belief that the main reason for students choosing the UK and the US is English. The majority of graduates in Nigeria must complete their studies in English before applying for education abroad in these countries, as having a good standard of English is usually mandatory." Middayexpress (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the above, the Euromonitor International for the British Council passage just needs to be attributed to higher education. Middayexpress (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and thanks for sorting that out, Middayexpress - and for adding the GCSE data in. I just made some minor changes to the wording, which hopefully improve the clarity. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally had sometime to have a good read of the passage, nowhere in the passage is there a definitive link between final academic performance and usage of English in Nigeria. A quote states it offers a 'competitive advantage', but it does not say in what sense? That could re jobs back home, no direct mention is made with regards to final grades in the UK. Higher Education or not, this section still feels like WP:OR. Otherwise please find a sentence where a direct reference is made to command of English and final scores at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom Nograviti (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I need to read it more thoroughly to give a proper view. I'll do that when I get the chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Euromonitor International for the British Council indicates that Nigerian higher education students mainly choose to study in the UK (~66% of Nigerian foreign students) because of its English language academic system, that these students generally come from the wealthier segments of Nigerian society, that the pupils usually must already possess a solid command of English in order to be admitted into UK universities, that this profiency is gained beforehand in Nigeria's English language scholastic system, that the higher education students in general are proportionately much more likely to have been educated in private schools in Nigeria, where English is taught from nursery age, and that the Nigerian students' time in the UK is facilitated by an established and large Nigerian community: "During the course of interviews, four of five educational centres expressed a belief that the main reason for students choosing the UK and the US is English. The majority of graduates in Nigeria must complete their studies in English before applying for education abroad in these countries, as having a good standard of English is usually mandatory[...] Unsurprisingly, students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools. This not only reflects the better educational infrastructure and teaching staff in the private sector, but also the fact that some Nigerians regard private school as an essential step to higher education[...] Private schools are also making efforts to improve the quality of English language teaching. These schools have made English the only teaching language for their nursery-and primary school-age pupils[...] In private schools, particularly in urban areas, children are instructed in English from nursery age[...] There is a large and thriving Nigerian-British community, which also helps ease the move for many Nigerians, allowing students to settle in quickly and fully integrate into their surrounding community and the educational system. The relative proximity of the UK to Nigeria also makes it more easily accessible as a study destination." Middayexpress (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem Midday, nothing in the passage above draws a direct link between knowledge of English and final higher education results. We can assume that the above factors have an impact on the final results of these Nigerians, but nothing in the passage mentions this directly. As a result what we have in the education section, is a paragraph based on conclusions being drawn WP:OR, which is not explicitly in the cited article. Until you can find a passage or research where direct links are drawn been fluency in English and the results of these British Nigerians, then this section will probably have to be removed.. Nograviti (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that you made edits to the page again, without seeking consensus. Please ask for consensus before just making changes. As a result I will be undoing your edits until we achieve consensus on this issue Nograviti (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted the paragraph to address your concerns. You wrote that the passage didn't match the source, so I made it match. Here is the wiki passage:

"Additionally, Euromonitor International Research for the British Council indicates that in 2010, the majority (66%) of Nigerian foreign students attended universities in the UK. The pupils are mainly drawn to these institutions' English language academic system. They generally hail from the wealthier segments of Nigerian society, which can afford to pursue studies abroad. The students are also proportionately much more likely to have been educated in private schools in Nigeria, where English is taught from nursery age and is the sole language of instruction for private nursery and primary pupils. These Nigerian students thus graduate in their home country with a good command of the English language, which is usually a prerequisite for admission into UK universities. Their time studying in Britain is also facilitated by an established and large Nigerian community."

What if anything in that wiki passage do you believe does not match the Euromonitor International Research for the British Council material above? It looks like a fairly accurate rendering. Middayexpress (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Having read the report in a bit more detail, I think that the problem is the following: "The students are also proportionately much more likely to have been educated in private schools in Nigeria, where English is taught from nursery age and is the sole language of instruction for private nursery and primary pupils. These Nigerian students thus graduate in their home country with a good command of the English language, which is usually a prerequisite for admission into UK universities". It's not really clear to me that the report is saying this about Nigerian students in the UK specifically. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly clear since Euromonitor indicates that "students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools". Thus, the higher education students are indeed proportionately much more likely to have been educated beforehand in private schools in Nigeria. It also notes that "four of five educational centres expressed a belief that the main reason for students choosing the UK and the US is English. The majority of graduates in Nigeria must complete their studies in English before applying for education abroad in these countries, as having a good standard of English is usually mandatory." Thus, the higher education students also graduate in their home country with a good command of the English language, which is usually a prerequisite for admission into UK universities. Middayexpress (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, privately educated students are more likely to continue to higher education in general, but not necessarily in the UK. I think the latter is in all likelihood the case, but that's our conclusion drawn from the report, not something it says explicitly. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Euromonitor indicates on page 59 that the "UK [is] by far the most popular student destination", and that 66% of all Nigerian foreign students study there. Logically, that would thus indeed include the UK. Middayexpress (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still theoretically possible that privately educated Nigerians are more likely to study in the US, and non-privately educated Nigerians in the UK. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. I think we should just avoid making this inference - it doesn't add that much to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't because Euromonitor also indicates that the students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools. Since the foreign students must first graduate from secondary institutions in Nigeria before applying for admission to UK and US universities, that would necessarily include them. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but not necessarily. If, say, 80 per cent of Nigerians who go on to higher education are privately educated and 10 per cent of those who undertake higher education study abroad, 6.6 per cent will go to the UK, but there's nothing to say that any of those in the 6.6 per cent are necessarily also part of the 80 per cent who were privately educated. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no difference between Nigerian students that want to study at universities in their home country, or those who want to study at universities abroad in the UK or elsewhere. They both are graduates of institutions in Nigeria. Euromonitor's stipulation that the "students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools" therefore indeed applies to them equally. Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What's your evidence for the assertion that there's no difference between Nigerians who study in Nigeria, the UK and other countries? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It may well actually be the case that Nigerians studying in the UK are even more likely to be privately educated than the average Nigerian in higher education, given that they can afford to study abroad. However, the source doesn't say that, and we can only relay what the source says. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no difference between Nigerian students that want to study at universities in their home country, or those who want to study at universities abroad in the UK or elsewhere in the sense that they are all graduates of Nigerian secondary institutions. Euromonitor thus indicates that "the growing number of middle-class citizens now have greater opportunity to educate their children privately", that "students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools", and that "the increasing number of middle- and high-income Nigerians means that a large number of individuals now have the money to send family members overseas for education, and educating a child at a foreign university is increasingly seen as a status symbol[...] attaining higher education in countries such as the UK and US is increasing in popularity, but clearly this is only available to the wealthier parts of society". In other words, it's relatively affluent, privately educated pupils who constitute the majority of Nigerian students in universities in both Nigeria and abroad. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can repeat that you don't think there's a difference between Nigerians studying in Nigeria and abroad, but the report this is sourced to makes no such claim. We just don't know whether the proportion attending private schools is the same amongst those going to the UK as the general higher education population, and we shouldn't be basing article content on assumptions. The source does support the statement about Nigerian students in the UK generally being from wealthier families, so I suggest we just include that and drop the private education point. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the above is not repetitive, and all is from Euromonitor itself. At any rate, please explain why you believe that its stipulation that "students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools" does not apply to the Nigerian foreign students in UK universities. What part of the paper indicates this? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with this. Note that this assertion is only a few sentences before Euromonitor's stipulation that affluent Nigerians often send their children abroad to the UK and elsewhere to pursue higher studies. Middayexpress (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't state that it doesn't apply, but neither does it state that this does apply to Nigerians in the UK. Given that, I don't think we can say that it applies to Nigerians in the UK here. The proximity may well reflect the fact that it applies to the UK, but the report isn't clear about this so I think it's best to err on the safe side. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the Nigerian higher education students that Euromonitor alludes to, including the foreign students in UK universities, graduated from institutions in Nigeria. It indicates as much and even quantifies the number of such foreign students. When it notes that students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools, this necessarily also applies to those who would go on to study in universities abroad since the majority of graduates in Nigeria must complete their studies in English before applying for education abroad. Put simply, if two siblings graduate from high school x, and one decides to thereafter attend university y downtown while the other settles instead on university z abroad, both still nonetheless graduated from high school x. Middayexpress (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"When it notes that students from private education are far more likely to continue to higher education than those from public schools, this necessarily also applies to those who would go on to study in universities abroad since the majority of graduates in Nigeria must complete their studies in English before applying for education abroad". This is a crucial sentence. If it's only pupils from private schools who complete their education in English, you have a point. Is that the case though? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The educational system in Nigeria as a whole is largely in English, so public school students also graduate with English language degrees. Per Euromonitor, the public school students don't, however, pursue higher education nearly as often as the private school students. There is the difference. Middayexpress (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. But what if the small number of Nigerians in higher education who are publicly educated are the same Nigerians who make up the small number who study abroad in the UK? See what I mean? It's unlikely, but possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts, Nograviti? This is a relatively simple disagreement and we should be able to resolve it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That many Nigerian university students in the UK were privately educated in their home country before arriving is well established. Many also journey to attend private schools in Britain. Per the Nigerian International Education Consultancy, the typical such Nigerian family (which it underlines) consists of "politicians, business owners, work in the oil & gas sectors, banking etc", the "children tend to proceed to the UK post secondary (15+)", the "parents [are] overall reluctant to allow them leave younger", the students' command of the "English language [is] generally very good (minor concerns on written English)", and the "parents mainly want boarding schools and sixth form colleges" for their kids [18]. As this is more explicit than Euromonitor vis-a-vis the private schooling of the pupils in their home country, it should be noted instead for that particular passage. Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"That many Nigerian university students in the UK were privately educated in their home country before arriving is well established". That might be true, but it needs a reliable source. I don't see that the presentation you link to says that most Nigerians studying in the UK were privately education, and I don't think it would be considered a reliable source in any case. I will see if I can find an alterative. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about whether Nigerians studying in UK higher education were privately educated, but it does mention that Nigerians and Russians "are now the fastest-growing population in British private schools". Worth adding to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Newcastle University, the International Education Consultancy is one of the main education Agents in Nigeria, so it is indeed reliable [19]. As state schools aren't boarding schools, the link above is also redundant. That said, International Education Consultancy indicates that Nigerian students proceed to higher education from both private and state schools, but it doesn't specify which of the two types of institutions most of the foreign students graduated from. It instead quantifies the number of students entering UK universities from Nigeria, notes what courses they take, their reasons for studying in Britain, their high level of English language proficency, what is the typical student family (middle class professionals who already have homes in the UK), and that they mainly attend UK boarding schools, sixth form colleges, and universities. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't suggesting the Spectator source for this purpose, but rather as a source for additional material we could add to the article - about Nigerian pupils in British boarding schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Academic publications are more reliable. Middayexpress (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2015 (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.

Notification of article title related discussion at Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom

There is currently a thread started at: Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#Pluralisation of ethnic group titles perhaps as "British people of <x origin> descent" as per Categories.

Contributions welcome. GregKaye 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on British Nigerian. 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/20100331163114/http://www.communities.gov.uk:80/documents/communities/pdf/1203232.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1203232.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095516/http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls to http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074532/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb699.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb699.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074625/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1000.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074623/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb901.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb901.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074559/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb602.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb602.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074627/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb903.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb903.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135704/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb0704.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb0704.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135650/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0805.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0805.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135659/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0906.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0906.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324212128/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0807.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0807.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122085138/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/rds/pdfs08/hosb0508.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0508.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0909.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625174138/http://www.nanc.org.uk:80/ to http://www.nanc.org.uk
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.efn.org.uk/membership.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619032658/http://www.radiobiafralondon.com:80/ to http://www.radiobiafralondon.com

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Nigerian. 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/20090919120109/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11526.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11526.htm

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) 06:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British Nigerian. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1203232.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc08%2FEDOC11526.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0508.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091112061134/http%3A//www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0909.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0909.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nanc.org.uk/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.efn.org.uk/membership.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiobiafralondon.com/

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) 03:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)