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)

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)