Talk:MigrationWatch UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article is on a subject of low-importance in Politics. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Recent edits to this article have been clearly anti-MWUK 1.1 We need some honesty here 2 MigrationWatch is anti immigration 3 Non-political 4 Right Wing Pressure Group 5 Trying to improve article further 6 Deletion of neutral material which does not reflect well on Migration Watch 7 Response to Deletion of neutral material... 8 Complaint filed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 9 Role of the Press 10 WP:SYNTH 11 Controversy 12 Neutrality 13 WP:SYNTH again 14 Moonshineblue's review of the article 15 References for WP:SYNTH again section

[edit] Recent edits to this article have been clearly anti-MWUK

and have strayed too far from the neutral POV standards required for an encyclopaedia. If you don't like MigrationWatch, blog about it.

I have edited as follows.

(1) Removed implication that MWUK is anti-immigration. It is not; it is against uncontrolled mass immigration.

(2) Removed the reference to David Coleman's membership of the Galton Institute. The statement that the Institute is "pro-eugenics" is clearly intended as a slur. Additionally, Prof Coleman's membership is not directly relevant to his association with MWUK; it should be dealt with if anywhere in the article about Prof Coleman himself.

(3) I have removed the quote about MP Nick Clegg's comments on a recent MWUK report about the net economic benefit of migrants to the UK. This item seems to have been plucked out of thin air to serve as a negative quote about MWUK. If we are going to quote examples of MWUK's work, we need a more balanced sample than this. EdwinGreenwood 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to define what "uncontrolled mass immigration". On The website of MigrationWatch it is quite clear that they are against migration in the low hundreds of thousands. Thus 100,000 200,000 or 300,000 is too much for them. They positions are against this migration even if it is 100% legal and controlled. I understand controlled to mean deciding to for instance let in x +- 10% people per year. It may be high in number but can still be controlled. Again I would contend that WigrationWatch is against even controlled migration.

Please see the following links on their own website that confirms this.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/overview.asp

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faqs.asp

Immigration in the "low hundreds of thousands", legal or otherwise, managed or otherwise, is arguably mass immigration, given that what we are actually talking about is "hundreds of thousands per year". A flow of 100,000 people sustained over 10 years is a million. Actual net legal inflow is probably 200,000 to 300,000 per year, depending on whose guess you are inclined to believe, and with nothing to indicate that this level will not continue indefinitely. The actual situation seems to fall pretty clearly within the range of "uncontrolled mass immigration" to me, and I would say concern about the impact of 100,000 new arrivals a year, however well-managed, is entirely legitimate.

By the way, Custodiet, don't forget to sign your posts.

EdwinGreenwood 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need some honesty here

I wanted and still want to clear up the matter of uncontrolled immigration. The group is against any from of mass immigration - even if it is all controlled. Characterizing its position using the rhetoric of ‘uncontrolled immigration’ implies that if it was controlled then it be legitimate. Let me give an example. Millions of people migrated to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet they were inspected at the port of entry and given official papers. The migration was en mass yet it was controlled and part of a conscious effort to promote immigration.

The current British government also seems to want mass migration to the UK. It wants them to come legally; nevertheless it is after hundreds of thousands. It wants mass migration, but in a controlled manor. Migration Watch is against even 100% legal and controlled mass migration even if it is consciously directed by the current British government. Of course both the British government and MigrationWatch oppose illegal migration.

I think it is important to talk about this because many who are against mass migration use the language of ‘uncontrolled’ to imply they are just against illegal migration whereas they are also against mass numbers of the legal kind too. Of course it is legitimate to object to both types of immigration. However its simply scurrilous to object to all immigration but to sometimes carefully word one's public statements so as to create momentary ambiguity when talking 'mass migration' so that it appears one is only objecting to illegal migration when one also objects to legal immigration. This constant double speak makes any kind of intellectually coherent discussion close to impossible. It’s a finely nuanced issue.

Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I think it best if we get those nuances correct. We should carefully discuss what types of migration a group is against and why it opposes that type and not get caught up in false arguments.

Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The stated aim of Migrationwatch is to see 0% net immigration to the UK. i.e. the number of people leaving is the same of the number of people migrating. It is not particularly against or for any particular type of immigration, although I would expect they would prefer any immigration to the UK to be done legally rather than illegally. As part of its aims it criticises any failings (or deliberate policy) that allows (or encourages) large numbers of people moving to the UK whether legally or illegally. Part of their criticism is that at present even legal immigration is to a large scale uncontrolled and is mass migration. e.g. 100,000s of people being granted asylum over the last decade, 100,000s of work permits being granted with insufficient checks on the applications, 100,000s of migrants moving to the UK from Eastern European EU countries. Lager7 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MigrationWatch is anti immigration

MigrationWatch has repeatedly shown itself to be anti immigration, this can be seen by reading the press releases, which are here [1] I looked though 100 of them starting with the most resent (march 2007) and working backwards until i got to November 2003, (i stopped here because i was sick of reading racist scare mongering propaganda). Out of these 100 articles i found 94 were negative about immigration and non were positive, there were about 4 articles that referred only to other articles / reports and made no direct mention of immigration as a good or bad thing.

Several articles (at least 20), objected to immigration on grounds that it would change the ethnic makeup or the culture of Briton, and some referred to British nationals born in Briton as immigrants.

Some articles claimed that immigration should reduced because it would reduce the wages for British workers or the number of available jobs while others claim that immigrants are not necessary to fill unfilled jobs because they would 'add to demand' producing new shortages of workers! [2]

Most of the articles about 70 of them, made statement to the effect that the level of immigration is extremely high and is increasing rapidly, many also claimed that the government was lying about the level of immigration, attempting to conceal the level of immigration and encouraging new immigrants and presenting immigration in and excessively favourable light.

Also the [Galton Institute] is the former Eugenics Society which changed its name in 1989, I think membership of such an organisation is vary relevant if some one is discussing immigration

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism misses the point that immigration to the UK is extremely high and has increased extremely rapidly and that the government has concealed figures in the past about the level of immigration (e.g. pretending they had no way of estimating the number of illegal immigrants in the UK during the 2005 election). The ethnic makeup of Britain is changing rapidly, (simply checkout the wikipedia articles on the ethnic minorities in Britain and demographic transition) and that it is undisputed economics that widescale immigration does hold down wages (although this can be good as it stops inflation) new jobs are created but the pay is lower.

I think MigrationWatch have a right to raise these issues without simply being branded as racist, whether they are right or wrong it is not fair just to try and shutdown the debate in this way. Lager7 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lager7: your personal opinions of the effect of immigration have nothing to do with whether or not MigrationWatch are pro or anti immigration. Even if they're dead right, they could still accurately be described as anti, since they consistently argue against it. And so could you from this evidence. That's not a judgement of the accuracy of your argument, just an observation of the position it takes.

--5cc 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Migrationwatch is self-evidently racist, as any cursory look at their website will show

And you are self-evidently a cretin, as a cursory glance at your statement will show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.168.243 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-political

I think this article should include some note of Migrationwatch's claim that they are a non-political organisation. with perhaps a link to semantics. Mighty Antar 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right Wing Pressure Group

User:Migrationwatch's constant revert of the accepted status of Migrationwatch UK as a right wing pressure group to the groups self-billed status as "an independent non political immigration and asylum think tank" is misplaced. A group which chooses to offer its own perspective on a political issue is whether it likes it or not engaged in politics and if the group disagrees with the ruling political position, and chooses to express its disagreement publicly is by default attempting to exert political pressure.

That the control of immigration is seen as right-wing issue in the UK is a matter of historical fact and the headline in the cited article from The Independent should be a clear enough indication of how the media judge MigrationWatch UK's political stance.

Migrationwatch UK may like to bill themselves as an apolitical discussion group, but their every engagement with the media to date in no way reflects such a hands-off stance Mighty Antar 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to improve article further

I have added quite 5 news sections in the last few months. I am always looking for new sources should people have any ideas. Especially if the source looks at migration watch over a period of few years.

IMHO one of the reasons this subject is so difficult is that merely admitting that one has a political agenda effects how the issue is seen. If it was health care no-one is too ashamed of admitting where on the political spectrum they are and how it informs their viewpoint. Here however if one admits one's viewpoint one loses respectability and politcal support. So many want to play games and pretend they are only looking at objective data. Additionally this question effects questions of self and group identity which are quite primal and not susceptible to rational logic.

On the flip side quite often there is evidence that the immigration numbers are much higher than predicted. Thus it is legitimate to ask a government to explain that they said only x people would come when 10 times x did come.

But even this is complicated by the fact that the UK's economy is booming partly as a result of migration. Opponents might sometimes ask about the permanent consequence on the culture of the UK. But this too muddy water. Aren't people entitled to adopt a culture of their choosing so long as it is lawful? Do those who oppose immigration think they can mandate what the culture of the country should be? Yet here still the situation is complex in that cultural cohesion provides people with a sense of well being, low crime and social cohesion. Some people may say that they will be miserable if the culture quickly changes due to an influx of newcomers. Perhaps their happiness should be weighed in the equation? This contradicts somewhat with the liberty of the individual even if they obey the law. Well perhaps we can, as objectively as possible, explore these issues, and try to document this cultural and political conflict. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of neutral material which does not reflect well on Migration Watch

The neutrality of this right-wing organisation in the right-wing UK media has been challenged on several occasions. Repeatedly deleting sourced and cited references to this material just because you disagree with is rather pathetic. This is not an advertising service for Migration Watch - they have friends in enough high-places already. I have added tags to the article accordingly. Hopefully the positive spin constantly given to this anti-immigration and anti-human rights organisation will be addressed in due course. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What a feed of horse apples. Why are you so adverse to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.69.139 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Deletion of neutral material...

This latest post illustrates the clear bias of some of the previous entries.

The revised version is much more balanced and objective. It states the objective of the organisation in the words of its own web site and gives references for the key points of the arguments.

Equally, the history of the organisation is taken from the factual base contained in the web site.

The section on wages makes it clear that the Migrationwatch view is disputed by some economists.

As for the net economic impact, that has been revised in the light of the 1 April, 2008 House of Lords Economic Committee's report 'The Economic Impact of Immigration', which is the most recent and most authoritative study.

It is absurd to describe Migrationwatch as anti-human rights. They have, however, pointed to the difficulties in coping with international terrorism which stem from article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights while calling for national legislation to replace it.

Finally, the revised version quotes both critics and supporters of the organisation's activities.

Taken as a whole, this is a far more up to date, accurate and dispassionate view of the organisation than the selected, and often hostile, elements in the previous version.

I agree that Wikipedia should not be an advertising service for Migrationwatch. But nor should a Wikipedia entry be a vehicle for attacking an organisation - including libellous allegations of racism.

--Moonshineblue (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what cited material it was that you deleted from the article which amounted to a "libellous allegation of racism"? Or where it described Migrationwatch as "anti-human rights". Mighty Antar (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

5cc (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Surely, in a section that's supposed to clearly reflect MigrationWatch's approach to the contribution of immigration to GDP per head, it's relevant to point out that the organisation's own calculation was wrong, had to be removed, and was over 14 times lower than the official estimate and 12 times lower than the organisation's own co-founder.5cc (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

--Moonshineblue (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC) It is important to be clear why the Migrationwatch calculation of 3 January, 2007 came out at only 4p per head.^[1] The reason was not misinterpretation of a statement in the House of Commons by a junior Minister, Joan Ryan. The fact is that she "misspoke". Column 288WH of 18 October, 2006 reports her as saying "Our migration system should be responsive to economic needs and produce economic benefits. The Treasury estimates that migration has increased output by at least £4 billion and attributes 10 - 15% of economic trend growth to migration. Migration has eased skills shortages in key industries and public services, including health and education. We want to build on that success".

The natural interpretation of this passage is that she was talking about immigration as a whole. The Government later indicated that she had meant to refer only to immigration from Eastern Europe. When this was clarified, the Migrationwatch calculation was revised as indicated in Briefing Paper 1.16.^[2] All this was explained in an introductory note to that paper.

As regards libellous comments, Mighty Antar's remark on 16 May that Migrationwatch is self evidently racist is one example. And the description of the organisation as "anti-immigration and anti human rights" on 7 April, suggests an element of bias in the amendments put forward. --Moonshineblue (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page discussing improvements to the article. The disgust with Migrationwatch I expressed in my comments of 7 April on this talk page reflect my opinion of your attempts to censor all cited material that is critical of your organisation from this article and other articles relating to it. The one comment you quote as "libellous" was made by an unregistered user and not by me. Wikipedia is not the Daily Telegraph so I've no idea why you expect me or any other editor to allow Migrationwatch or its "distinguished" panel to get the same free and uncritical advertising. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

5cc (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)The 'natural' interpretation of Joan Ryan's comments is that migrants have contributed at least £4bn to the economy, since that's what she said. She did not say that migrants contribute exactly £4bn a year. That is MigrationWatch's misinterpretation, which it arrived at by dismissing the 'at least' modifier and inserting the interpretation of it being an annual figure.

If asked what the contribution of a group of people is, it's entirely reasonable to answer by saying it's 'at least' the contribution of a subset of that group is if the total isn't known. The total wasn't measured at that time.

The Treasury Enquiry Unit later answered a query from a member of the public which asked what the £4bn figure referred to. The Treasury did not say that Joan Ryan had meant to only refer to immigration from Eastern Europe, nor did it say that she'd "misspoken", to my knowledge.

Of course, if you have evidence that the government actually said Ryan had meant to say something else or said that she "misspoke", you'll be able to provide a link or present it here. As it is, it looks as though you may have misinterpreted the Treasury's reply! 5cc (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint filed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Editors who work on this article are welcome to join the discussion at that noticeboard. We are considering semi-protection for the article. There has been a high level of unbalanced POV editing by editors who appear to be strong and uncritical supporters of the organization. We expect that Wikipedia articles will be neutral and weigh evidence in an even-handed way. Both the POV tags and well-sourced critical material have been repeatedly removed from the article without first getting consensus to do so on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add to that an expansion of my comment at WP:COI.

WP:V requires sourcing in reliable published third-party sources, and an organisation's self-description is not automatically privileged as the most reliable, except as source of what the organisation says about itself.

WP:NPOV also requires all significant viewpoints to be represented. Personally I've doubts about the Daily Mail, but the Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian are all well acceptable as reliable newspaper sources. As major newpapers, they're also significant viewpoints (as is the Daily Mail). If they differ in their slant on the topic - i.e. some describe MigrationWatch UK as right-wing, others don't - those variants should be collated and included per WP:NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of the Press

I've removed this section. Unless this analysis of newspaper references has been previously published, it's original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNTH

Next thing to deal with is original synthesis.

It's OK to have"MigrationWatch UK, stating grounds of X and Y, believes Z'".

It's not OK to have "MigrationWatch UK believes Z. As pointed out in X and Y, Z is the case" (ie. where the editorial is filling in evidence or argument not previously made).

At a quick glance, the Wages, Asylum and Human Rights Treaty sections look like original synthesis at the moment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I have deleted the last two sentences of the present article. Loading the final paragraph with negative comments is contrary to NPOV. As now drafted, the two sides of the press are balanced. Furthermore there is no evidence that the Oxford students actually submitted their petition. If not, theirs was merely a student stunt and does not merit inclusion in a serious assessment. --Moonshineblue (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and added a citation for the STAR petition. On that point, NewsBank finds 15 hits in national newspapers for the STAR petition, including multiple stories in the Daily Mail and Telegraph. If they thought it worthy of such detailed coverage, they must have thought it a significant view.

Also, NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be mentioned; this doesn't require equal text length or equal numbers of sources between some fallacious two sides (in any case, the rest of the article gives extended uncritical description).

And now that COI appears to be demonstrated - see WP:COIN#MigrationWatch UK - by your editing on behalf of the organisation [3] ("the amendment to Sir Andrew Green's personal information has been inserted at his request and that, written by anti-immigration individuals removed"), you should not be making contentious edits to the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Sorry, I know we're supposed to improve rather than revert, but this edit by User:Custodiet ipsos custodes needed reverting. The previous version was somewhat slanted toward MigrationWatch, but that's no excuse to change it unilaterally into a deeply hostile version. The article needs improving, but by consensus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so User:Custodiet ipsos custodes has re-reverted. I won't get into an edit war, but the current version needs as much of an overhaul as the original. For instance, I just removed this material, which was clear WP:SYNTH - an illustrative exposition about asylum abuse only loosely connected to MigrationWatch. Remember this is supposed to be an article about the organisation - not a vehicle for generally discussing asylum issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNTH again

Moved here for sourcing or amendment. Has Philippe Legrain specifically made this argument in relation to MigrationWatch somewhere reliably published? If not, bringing in his, and other, theories about why some people dislike foreigners is WP:SYNTH. The italicised section is also unsourced OR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippe Legrain has said that there are various psychological studies that confirm that opposition to immigration tends to originate from an emotional dislike of foreigners.^[3][4][5] Quite often, intelligent advocates then construct an elaborate set of rational arguments to justify that prejudice. When immigrants are unemployed, they are considered to be scrounging from the state; when they are working, they are stealing the jobs of native citizens. When they are poor, they are driving living standards down; when they are rich, they are driving general prices up. Immigrants cannot win in such a situation: they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. MigrationWatch is viewed by its critics as being such an intelligent advocate. They see its claims to just deliver facts and statistics and "provide the public with full and accurate facts placed in their proper context"^[6] as a thinly veiled advocacy organization for the reduction of immigration where providing data acts as a tool to criticize immigration. It has not to date publicized statistics or data that significantly detract from its cause and stands accused of actively distorting data.^{[7][8][9][10]}

The italicised section IS sourced. See here: [4] The article as it stood as reverted by Gordonofcartoon was astonishingly biased. It contains very little balance and even fails to state that migrationwatch is right wing. For the last year I have spent tens of hours carefully researching and expanding this article. I consciously used sources from all shades of political opinion. I carefully put forward MW's position and balanced them with the opposing views. Indeed both sides in the debate make good points. The article has been rewritten in the last few weeks so as to grossly violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That sourcing needs to be explicit. Since none of the citations to the passage I disputed go to the Progress Online article you just linked, how is anyone supposed to know that's a source? Otherwise, it's original synthesis which comes down to:

Y has this theory why people dislike foreigners. X dislikes immigration, which is an example of Y's theory.

The introduction of Y's theory into the picture is a novel synthesis of sources - the WP:SYNTH flavour of WP:NOR - unless you explicitly provide a reliable source where Y has commented specifically on X in relation to this theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be precise in keeping with your analogy: Y has this theory why people oppose immigration and how intellectuals and advocacy organizations justify this dislike. X is one of these organizations. There is no novel synthesis of sources here.

More simply put:

x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Righto. So you wouldn't see any problem to adding Adams, H.E., Wright, R.W. & Lohr, B.A. (1996). "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?", Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, no. 3, pp. 440–445 to the Criticisms section of the article for <fill in any notoriously homophobic public figure>?. Point being, that's an identical chain of reasoning: (sourced fact about a person's views) + (sourced opinion about a superset of persons who have that view) = a novel deduced result (in this example, a highly inflammatory implication about X that no-one has stated). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Gordon for his extensive effort to make this article neutral. Since this is a disputed article which has already been posted for general attention at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, people who have real-life interests in this issue who impulsively revert the contents of this article without getting consensus at Talk may be exposed to admin sanctions for tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look carefully you will see the following source that talk has linked to:

See: "Opportunity knocks - The government must persuade the public of the overwhelming benefits of immigration", Progress Online, 2007-12-01.  This source was explicitly cited. Its at the bottom of this page in the discussion as well. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the LeGrain article you cite explicitly mentions MigrationWatch (though very briefly) maybe you could propose a sentence or two to be added to the article that refers to that article? The large item about LeGrain that you added here under 'Controversy' seems out of proportion, but a briefer mention of LeGrain's analysis might be OK. I added a missing '{{' to your above citation to make the link work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I missed it because it wasn't adjacent to the text it was used to cite. Nevertheless, I still think there are problems: as you say, prominent weight being given to a rather polemical statement of the views of a pundit who doesn't appear very well-known. The link sentence is also problematical - MigrationWatch is viewed by its critics as being such an intelligent advocate - in that it implies other criticisms are based on that same 'psychological' interpretation, which other citations don't support (they view it merely as advocacy veiling its political allegiances). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moonshineblue's review of the article

Custodiet Ipsos Custodes writes that "for the last year I have spent tens of hours carefully researching and expanding this article. I consciously used sources from all shades of political opinion. I carefully put forward Migrationwatch’s position and balanced them with opposing views. Indeed both sides in the debate make good points. The article has been re-written in the last few weeks so as to grossly violate Wikipedia; Neutral Point of View". Despite these claims, Custodiet’s latest re-write is, as Gordon of Cartoon remarks, a deeply hostile version. The following are a few examples:

The first line contains three references to hostile press articles. One of them, wrongly dated, is six years old, another four years old, the third turns out to be a casual reference in an article about rough sleepers.

The section on history claims that "he (Sir Andrew Green) tried to remove Masari from Britain……" The author seems to be unaware that Civil Servants take their instructions from Ministers rather than vice versa. There is then a reference to Saudi arms contracts which are surely irrelevant. The remainder is pure conjecture. "He perceived immigration to be out of control…..he then looked to extend his brief from asylum into the wide issue of immigration…etc. This is followed by selective quotes from Professor Coleman's ninety papers and eight books.

The section on wages says "Migrationwatch has claimed that migration into the UK has and will significantly cut the real wages of British citizens". The reference given includes no mention of a "significant" cut in real wages. The reference is, in any case, three years old, in a developing debate.

The paragraph on net economic impact makes no reference to the government’s own evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords which put the benefit in terms of GDP per head at 58p per week.^[11] Nor does it mention that the same House of Lords report endorsed the consistent Migrationwatch argument that it is GDP per head rather than overall GDP that is important.

Paragraph 2 of the abstract of the House of Lords report reads "Overall GDP, which the government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the UK…. The focus of analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that these affects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to the increased labour supply".

The section on asylum says "Migrationwatch claimed that the asylum system was skewed in favour of bogus applicants and does not efficiently deport those who have no right to stay". However, the reference (14) is to an article in The Guardian where these are the words of The Guardian, not of Migrationwatch.

The section on asylum numbers confuses the proportion of failed asylum seekers who were removed in 2001 with the proportion of applicants whose claims failed. On the latter, he (or she) quotes an extraordinarily muddled article on the BBC website. The estimate outcomes of asylum applications made in 2001-2004 can be found on page 19 of Asylum Statistics UK 2004 which shows that the proportion refused asylum, other forms of protection, or withdrawn varied from 58% to 75% over that period. There is no question of Migrationwatch having "selectively revealed information thus distorting the truth".

The section entitled "further disagreement over numbers with the British government" is simply incredible. MW and Home Office statements are contrasted in pairs but each deals either with an entirely different issue or an entirely different period. There is nothing to substantiate a disagreement over numbers.

The section on the role of the British press seems to be associating Migrationwatch with the headlines in The Sun. It is surely obvious that Migrationwatch has no control over the headlines given to its reports. The article then reaches its low point by repeating the substance of a libel in the Daily Mirror for which the newspaper has been obliged to apologise, withdraw and pay damages and costs.

The last paragraph on "controversy" is the final absurdity. The quotation attributed to Sir Andrew Green is a misreading of a hostile article in The Guardian. The quote was in fact attributed to Professor Coleman. As for the slur on Baroness Caroline Cox as "further evidence of an anti-foreigner mentality" this is extraordinary. Baroness Cox is famed for her humanitarian work all over the third world as will be clear from the website of her charity HART.^[12]

It will be apparent from the foregoing that this latest re-write is both severely inaccurate and, indeed, hostile. It fails the basic Wikipedia test of NPOV.

I will therefore be suggesting a much shorter, and genuinely neutral, article which might be a more suitable vehicle for improvement. --Moonshineblue (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis. I agree that the article can use further work, and appreciate you are starting off with a discussion rather than editing the article immediately. I changed the header over your comment to simplify navigation; change it back if you prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for changing the header over my article. It does simplify navigation. I hope to improve my presentations as I become more familiar with Wikipedia. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As indicated in my post of 10 May, I have edited the article as follows:

Paragraph 1: I have included the point that it is often referred to as a pressure group. As regards "right-wing" it is more accurate to say that it is so described in some sections of the press.

The second paragraph entitled 'History' is now short and factual, omitting extraneous or speculative material.

I have brought forward the paragraph on immigration numbers which is the central activity of the organisation. I have deleted some inaccurate material on asylum numbers and the alleged disagreement over numbers with the British Government which, on closer inspection, does not actually show any differences.

The paragraph on asylum has been shortened with a link to the organisation's statement on the subject and a further link to its position on an amnesty. I thought about putting in a link to an organisation that favours an amnesty but this is an article about the organisation, not about amnesties.

The paragraph on the economy needs updating in the light of the recent major report from the Economic Committee of the House of Lords. References are included to a number of organisations who disagree with the Committee's conclusions.

Two words have been deleted in the first line of Wages and the last sentence in HIV Testing otherwise those items and the Human Rights Treaty remain the same as they appear to be reasonably balanced.

The role of the press is more difficult since there are literally hundreds of references which can be used to support either point of view. I have put in one headline from The Sun and a piece from a relatively left-wing newspaper, The Observer, which seems to be quite balanced.

Mr Legrain's views on psychology have already, and rightly, been edited out. His main expertise is on immigration. He is the author of "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them", published in 2006 by Little Brown. His own point of view is that there should be minimal immigration controls between rich and poor countries. "I am essentially arguing that rich countries should open their borders to service providers from poor countries...."(page 20). Later he writes "if you believe that the world is an unequal place and that the rich should do more to help the poor, then freer international migration should be the next front in the battle for global economic justice."(page 21). This, of course, is a perfectly respectable point of view but it is not neutral in the present context. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Moonshineblue's version (which ClueBot reverted) is reasonably balanced, but it would be better to make any needed changes one section at a time, and get feedback from other editors who have studied this material closely, like User:Gordonofcartoon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One of ClueBot's criteria is large deletions, and it mistook it for vandalism. I've reverted ClueBot and reported it as a false positive. It looks to me pretty well balanced: a reasonably neutral basis for expansion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the two editors agree that the present Moonshine Blue contribution is a reasonable basis for improvement - and no amendments have been forthcoming since it was posted on 17 May, perhaps it is time to consider removing the 'scales' at the top of the opening Migrationwatch page? What do others think, please? --Moonshineblue (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag, in light of recent improvements in neutrality. If anyone still thinks the article is POV, please be specific about the remaining problems that you see. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References for WP:SYNTH again section