Talk:2015 European migrant crisis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Self-inflicted

This portrays the Europeans as hapless victims of circumstance, when the refugee crisis was caused by America and Europe's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. We have have to stop pretend we live in a world without cause and effect, where shit just happens. Lets say there's an all-out war between USA and Iran. Are we again going to pretend the subsequent displacement of Iranians came as a surprise? I child can figure these things out, but adults go around playing dumb.

Lead doesn't mention war

It seems weird that the first few paragraphs (before you get to the "sections") mentions

Some research suggested that record population growth in Africa and the Middle East was one of the drivers of the crisis

and yet not the more direct cause, the devastating wars in Syria and Iraq. I know they're mentioned further down in the article, but is there a good reason not to mention them early in the lead section? —ajf (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's one of a million things that are wrong with this article. See the many discussions above. Deb (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Retitling the page

Colleague Drmies renamed the page today to: 'European migration events since 2013'. This was a bold action -- and Wikipedia encourages rightly such bold actions. Drmies gave a clear motivation: "What crisis?" The current name: 'European migrant crisis' is essentially "POV", he contends. I think I agree with that line of thought: basically, the current title seems a form of (political) framing: to call such events suddenly a 'crisis'(why?). 'Events' is a more neutral name. People have always migrated, which will often have caused problems here or there. Why should it be a 'crisis' as of some totally arbitrary date(2013?)?
Ritchie92 was unpleasantly surprised, several hours later, and reverted the "move" (= name change). In principle he had the right to do that, but I think he failed to properly motivate his revert. Drmies not having discussed on beforehand is not enough reason: if Ritchie has substantial objections to the title change--which we may assume--he should better have shown the politeness to let us know, immediately, what his substantial objections are. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: Bold edits to a page's content are encouraged (and by the way WP:Be Bold is valid both ways). Moving pages is 1) not something that every user can technically do, and 2) regulated in the appropriate page WP:MOVE. The first step to do when thinking about moving a page (especially when it can be expected that not everybody would agree) is to list it in the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. And by the way, such a topic as immigration deserves a discussion about such radical changes, don't you think?

So I had all the right to revert User:Drmies' "bold" move, even more because previous attempts to move the same page for similar reasons did not reach consensus (see this thread of nine months ago), and I stressed this in my motivation for the revert. Also, the fact that I reverted does not necessarily imply that I think the name of the page is good: I think it should be discussed appropriately by the community. If you or User:Drmies want to request the move again, please do it properly and seek consensus first, since you obviously don't have it yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As there is a clear consensus NOT to move above, WP:BOLD doesn't really apply. It is incumbent upon the mover to build and change the consensus. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well this is fun. Yeah, I didn't see that discussion, which by the way is hardly a ringing endorsement nor a binding contract ("a clear consensus NOT to move" is incorrect). One of the opposers (to a move) even concedes the title isn't neutral. Mind you, I was led here after looking at some other non-neutral NEWSy and essentially POV-y article, now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migration events in Finland in 2015, an article whose history and content strongly suggested that some POV-ish editor was at work here to create a kind of walled garden. HUH THERE WAS A CRISIS IN FINLAND, one might say. And one might say "migrant crisis"? What crisis? If these articles list events that go back years, sometimes a decade, then what was that crisis? (A crisis doesn't last a decade.) And doesn't "migrant crisis" in essence blame the migrant? Those who support this title, don't you think you should be a little ashamed of yourself if you consider that? Do you know where you go when you type "syrian boy" in our search box? Do it, and then click on the first link, and look at the picture, and tell me if that migrant is to be held responsible for any kind of crisis. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmies The sources clearly refer to it as a "Migrant Crisis". If you want to change the title please find some sources that back up that it is not a crisis. Kilometerman (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The "crisis" originated not primarily in the number of arrivals, but in the lack of working legislation on a European basis. And no serious attempt has been made since to fix that. Instead a number of deals has been made, between the EU and african countries, to halt the bulk of the migrants - resulting in bizarre stuff like this. However - when people manage to slip though that net, the lack of legislation gets obvious again. For example today its: still this and this. So the crisis is not over. Alexpl (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Academic sources generally refer to this as "European migration crisis of 2015" or some variation. But at the same time, some of them challenge the term "crisis" and to some degree the idea that this was a single even in 2015, rather than a trend that was building up from before and continued after that. --MarioGom (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Migration origin

The article states The greatest number of refugees fleeing to Europe originate from Syria. But other reports suggest otherwise. Most recently, Deutsche Welle ([1]) reported that according to a 2019 study by Stiftung Asienhaus the major group of immigrants comes from Afghanistan, not Syria. We should look for better sourcing and possibly fix or clarify this. --MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a recent development. See for example [2] of march 2020: " (...) There are two reasons why relatively few Syrians and a disproportionately high number of Afghans in Turkey have made their way to the country's border with Greece and the European Union. Syrians who have managed to gain a foothold in Turkey in the past few years would have a lot to lose if they migrated illegally to Europe. Afghans, along with many other irregular migrants from Iran and Pakistan, would not. Syrians usually live in family units: They stay. Afghans and Iranians in Turkey are mostly young, single men: They want to leave." Alexpl (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexpl: Right. Although the mentioned study is from 2019 and probably spanning a previous period. I could not find the original Asienhaus study that DW talks about. The study is probably published in German and I'm not getting search keywords right. If anyone finds it, it would be good to check it. --MarioGom (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised this issue. There are too many blanket statements in the article. Deb (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there excessive prominence given to religion in the article lede?

I would like to remove "Muslim majority countries" fact from the lede. As long as the data is reliable, it should be added to the article body. However, the lede should be introductory part of the article. If the lede includes an information about religious views of the majority of migrants, it may cause a bias view. I would like this term to be removed from the article lede in order to protect impartiality of the article.Cosette9 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A religious standpoint is very necessary as it remains as the pillar of of the beliefs of the followers. Hence, it is not biased. HARSH PANDYA MUMBAI (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You're late to this discussion. Deb (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, per discussion below. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

---

European migrant crisis → Migration to Europe since 2014 – "Crisis" is an evaluative, judging term for a certain situation. However, the article as it is now does not give a clear definition of which situation is addressed here as "crisis". The lead sentence until today said: 'The crisis was a period with high numbers (…)', but did not say which period that was. Also, that statement in that opening sentence was apparently not based on any ref source, so it seemed an invention of a Wikipedia contributor – which ought not be the basis of a Wiki article.

Moreover, it seems not right to say that any period of time in itself can be a crisis. 'Crisis' means a difficult or problematic situation, it indeed takes place at a moment or in a period of time, but it is not that period of time itself. Apart from that unclearness of that alluded 'period in time', the lead sentence also didn't say what the suggested difficult or problematic situation ('crisis') was, any further than the vague indication "high numbers (…)" which is not a description but an evaluation (judgement).

Nevertheless, if we simply look at the contents of the article, that does not seem very obscure or unclear: the article clearly describes migration to Europe since 2014 and reactions on that. So let's just give it the short and clear name: 'Migration to Europe since 2014'. If we then find sources – not just Wiki editors, but sources – that identify certain difficult situations in that period concerning migration which they label as "crisis", surely we'll be able to find ways to present such judgements in the article. Corriebertus (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should adhere to the principle of commonly recognizable names. The term "European migrant crisis" is the name of a series of events that took place mainly during 2015 and beyond, whether you like it or not. It is a well-established term in media and it is even sometimes used in official contexts, for instance by the Council of the European Union. And it was indeed a crisis, of course both for many people who came to Europe (among which actually some died in the Mediterranean) but also for many EU member states, which had to take extraordinary actions, such as reintroducing border controls, to handle the crisis. Renaming the article to "Migration to Europe since 2014" changes entirely the meaning and does not summarize the content of the article well, in my opinion. --Glentamara (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. "Crisis" is a very well-sourced name for the events that the article describes. Actually, probably the only term that precisely describes the issue. It has been called a crisis by all factions and all organizations and people involved. There are a dozen reliable sources cited at the moment in the lead, which the OP themselves eliminated in this edit, which is really dishonest given that they are asking for support for a move that concerns also the descriptor "crisis" in the lead sentence.

Conversely, the term "Migration to Europe since 2014" is a very ambiguous, vague and generalized term which fails to describe the issue and the historicity of it. One could ask, then why are there no "Migration to Europe since 2009, 2004, 1945, 346 BC, etc"? And by the way the proposed title is not a name used anywhere to describe these events, unlike the term "crisis" which is overwhelmingly used and WP:COMMON. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ritchie92. Also, if there were not a specific on-going event (aka crisis), then the 2014 cut-off in the title would seem to be arbitrary to the reader. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. "European migrant crisis" is a good description of the situation. "Migration to Europe since 2014" would mean any migration to Europe, not just these Arab refugees that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about, and "since 2014" is weirdly specific, as there is speculation about when exactly the migrant crisis started. The original Arab spring is three years older. JIP | Talk 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current name is a commonly used, well-sourced name.--Darwinek (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current name is arguably the WP:COMMONNAME, while the proposed name is too vague for the subject. Additionally, despite the fact that the number of migrants and their impact on the EU's economy and ethnic constitution have been by and large fake news, the political crisis is unfortunately real. Daß Wölf 15:21, 29 March 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

The title should read "European Refugee Crisis" - in the refugee community in Europe and vast refugee volunteer network across the world the word "Migrant" is thought of as a derogatory word used by the media to suggest these people do not have a valid asylum claim. "Refugee" is the respectful and accepted word that does not carry any racist connotations. The 1951 Refugee Geneva Convention (UNHCR) demands a person has the right to claim asylum, until this claim is accepted or rejected this a person is technically an "Asylum Seeker" but colloquially known as a "Refugee", the word "Migrant" implies the person had a choice whether or not to leave their home country, when in fact they did not. 2A00:23C5:98D:9B00:1052:D9C4:3774:FE08 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You’re suggesting a major change and should therefore engage in a discussion with other editors in a separate section on this page to reach a consensus. You’ll need to provide reliable sources to do so effectively. Good luck! — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 14:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There's also a section that mentions migrants who look for work but don't actually live in the new location permanently (economic migrants). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing Islamophobia references from anti-immigration positions

user:Ritchie92 removing repeatedly this [[3]] and this edit [[4]] two information based on his personal view. These graphics are not "two cherry-picked opinion polls" or "redundant to put a graphical representation" as he claims. These graphics show the basic tenet of "opposition to immigrants" during this crises. They belong to "Chatham House survey" and "European Social Survey Round 7." They show the public response toward "All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped" and "Attitudes towards different sorts of migrant." They are complimentary to each other. The issue represented is an important phobia in Europe. Removing references to "Islamophobia" is not a simple act. It is "white washing" the article by "sanitizing" an important negative outcome of the "crises". user:Ritchie92 is also removed [[5]] any reference toward European public response (anti-immigration) at the lead. If user:Ritchie92 doesn't believe in "Islamophobia" among the the anti-immigration groups, he should point to other sources sources rather than "white washing". BlueMadrigal (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd have to agree with User:Ritchie92 on this one. These polls are not directly relevant to the article. I am a bit surprised that BlueMadrigal wants them here, because they contribute to the article being made both unmanageably long and an easy target for those who want to introduce a racial slant to things. Much better to keep this article as short and to the point as possible. Deb (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - With all my respect: Deb 'm trying to learn Wikipedia administrators position. Should we remove "antisemitic" references from Nazism page, because it would make the article "unmanageably long" and "target for those who want to introduce a racial slant." Surely that would make the "Nazism" less controversial. BlueMadrigal (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not troubled about controversy. This article is supposed to be about a "migrant crisis", not about politics. The more we introduce opportunities to discuss the politics, the more contributors have the opportunity to sneak in racist views. The article's already pretty awful and introducing results of multiple polls is not likely to make it any better. Deb (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I am all for talking about controversies. I am also not against citing opinion polls. I am against having a list of polls result (which is basically what this new section about "Public opinion" is made of), or having a graphical representation of some (yes, cherry-picked) opinion polls result. Why those two polls and not some other polls? Or then why not listing all possible polls? This is obviously an editorial choice that BlueMadrigal made alone. So I would support removing those graphs from the page. We can refer to Islamophobia in many other ways, without picturing the polls result here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92 are you fine with a reference to Islamophobia as long as it doesn't make it obvious like a graph? BTW opinion polls and referendums are how we measure public opinions, these are not something demeaning as you imply. If you have studies showing "Chatham House" and "European Social Survey" are just cheery picked studies (results), why don't you bring it to article (otherwise they are not so cherry picked)?BlueMadrigal (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A graph extracted from one or two polls (which nobody knows if they are reliable, how they are done, who funded them, etc etc) is meaningless, and really too much in this page. For example, why can't you just cite the result of the poll without having to create a graphical representation of the result of this particular poll? These two polls have been cherry-picked by you, and this is called original research. It would be encyclopedic to report the incidence of Islamophobia in Europe using secondary sources instead of taking one or two polls and draw conclusions by yourself. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling the link between anti-immigration/Islamophobia as: "this is called original research" is tragic. Specially seventeen years after adoption of EU laws that forbid discrimination. Immigrants, descendants of immigrants, and minority ethnic groups continue to face widespread discrimination across the EU and in all areas of life. These graphics are reported by "Chatham House" and "European Social Survey" which are both highly respected information sources, not a secondary source! The facts you are opposing by removal of these graphics are also among the findings of the "European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights" organization. That is an EU agency. Reported at the second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II). You might consider looking at the findings: fra-2017-eu-midis-ii-main-results_en. Sincerely I don't know how to close this gap. I believe both of these graphs summarize very important facts on the EU public position. First one "STOP Muslims!" Second one "I accept some immigration (people like me) but not Muslims." I haven't see anything in your response (sources which prove your claims) that supports your personal position. Just your personal opinions. Thanks all. BlueMadrigal (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have claimed any personal position, or actually expressed any claim on the subject. In fact you have no idea about my position on this subject. I am saying that there is no need of having a graphical representation of those two opinion polls because it suffices to report the results in the text, among all the rest of the polls that are cited there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pictures about demonstrations

Pro-migration rally in Prague, Czech Republic, 12 September 2015

(pro) 12 September 2015 Vienna; (anti) 2015 Poland; (anti) 12 September 2015 Czech Republic; (pro) 6 December 2018 Finland; (pro) 12 September 2015 Czech Republic;

The fifth picture has an aspect ratio that is different from the others, resulting in ugly white bars at the top and bottom of the picture. Can this be fixed directly in the wiki source code or do I need to upload an alternate version of the picture on Commons? JIP | Talk 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page widening

There is something in this article that widens the page, making it scroll outside the browser window. But I can't figure out what. When I scroll the window to the right and then scroll through the article, I don't see anything extending outside the default text area. But still something keeps widening the page. JIP | Talk 22:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

JIP, this appears to be the diff that introduced the widening. Not sure if it's the image array template that's causing the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to remove the image array (in a preview, the edit was not saved) and it stopped the page widening. Here the image array is:

Population of Syrian origin in Denmark by sex, yearly fourth quarter 2008-2017 (Statistics Denmark)

Syria-born persons in Sweden by sex, 2000-2016 (Statistics Sweden)

And sure enough, now it's widening this page too. JIP | Talk 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that the way it's rendered on the actual page is that it's actually four images, not two. The first two are 450 pixels wide each. They are followed by two invisible images, both 448 pixels wide. That makes 1796 pixels in total, which is too wide to fit on the page. But where are those images coming from? JIP | Talk 10:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems that I have to add the "perrow" parameter. I'm testing it here first. JIP | Talk 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have worked. JIP | Talk 12:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When User:BlueMadrigal added these graphs, some of us were doubtful whether they were helpful to the article in any case. I still feel they are too specific. Deb (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Definition of the word "crisis"

Corriebertus keeps going with their argument about the word "crisis" not being defined as "a period (of time)", again with this edit. I would like to point to dictionary definitions of the word "crisis": Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "a time of great disagreement, confusion, or suffering", Merriam-Webster also has the definition "an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending", and Lexico, by Oxford Dictionary defines it as "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger." So definitely a crisis can be "a period of time", because this is the English language. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering, why people who place a tag, like Corriebertus did in that edit mentioned by Rt92, need to be snapped at (by Ritchie92) before they are answered. Suggesting that someone should not write about (the potential meaning of) the word crisis because he has written about (the potential meaning of) that word before, without telling where that earlier discussion (supposedly) took place, amounts to bullying and personal attack, not allowed in Wikipedia. Can someone, other than the targeted person Corriebertus himself, please tell Ritchie92 that? (Until now, on this page, several people have stated that a crisis is a series of events, or a situation, taking place of course in some period of time, presumably none had yet argued that the migrant crisis is a period itself; my tag of 4 June (therefore) just asked for a ref source stating that the migrant crisis was a period – as our article still states in the lead.) --Corriebertus (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, I do agree with Corriebertus. Although there may be a dictionary definition of "crisis" as "a time", it seems to me that it is more often taken to mean the alternative, a "state of affairs". Would it be better to describe it as such: for example "a situation lasting from x until x, a period characterised by..." Deb (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: A "period" is a "period [of time]", so yes in this sense a crisis could be defined as a period. Also saying "a situation lasting from x to y" involves a timing, a period, namely "from x to y" where x and y are points in time. My point was that it's not so obvious, as other editors suggested, that it's totally wrong to call a crisis "a period of time", but indeed that is one important meaning of the word "crisis" in English (and I think also the equivalents in other languages). @Corriebertus: I am extremely sorry but I did not understand a word of what you wrote in the first part. Anyway, placing a tag is not an insult or a personal attack, I'm tagging you because you are the one with the argument of "crisis cannot be a period of time", and I wanted to make sure that you read this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is also that this should be changed or removed because the sentence is (1) written in a personal tense (using "I can't find", who is "I"? a person reading this surely does not know who is writing this; an encyclopedia should be impersonal) and (2) unclear: there are plenty of references cited in the lead sentence using the word "crisis", so I don't understand where is the issue. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to get rid of that note, certainly - I hadn't noticed it. But what do you think of my proposed tweaked wording to get around the question of whether it is a period? I mean, you can't argue that a crisis is solely a period of time. Deb (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that "a period characterized by" is perfectly fine. I wouldn't call the European migrant crisis a "state of affairs". Regarding "a situation" it must be specified a situation of what, immediately after: "the European migrant crisis was a situation of ... (higher migration flows in the EU, I don't really know how to put it) ... lasting from 2015 to 2019", but I'm not sure about the flow. So I prefer far more the current "is a period characterized by". --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't like that wording. Perhaps you could suggest another compromise. Deb (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you could be more specific about what is wrong with that wording? I still don't get it, sorry. Anyway it was also among your proposals for a solution (see above), and now you said you "really don't like [it]", so I am confused. Another way to compromise would be "The European migrant crisis ... is an expression used to refer to the increase in the number of migrants arriving to the EU between 2015 and 2019" (or reword the last part to your liking, I'm not 100% sure about it). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean I wouldn't want to use that wording without the rest of the clause I suggested, i.e."a situation lasting from x until x, a period [that was] characterised by..." Deb (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then I prefer my "compromise" solution, see my previous reply. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Migrants in Hungary 2015 Aug 018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Debate on multiculturalism

I really feel that this latest section added by User:BlueMadrigal is verging on irrelevant here. If it belongs anywhere, it surely belongs in the existing article on the subject of Multiculturalism. Deb (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Actually many of the sections around that one are of dubious relevance, and also badly written. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

These additions aren't the idea, or theory of Multiculturalism. These were the collection of the debates on "European migrant crisis". These remarks belong to this article "European migrant crisis," because arguments happened in the context of "increased migration to Europe during the period. (oppose: White nationals - support: integrate people)" It is impossible to explain EU response to the migrant crisis without talking about what is the "driving force" behind all the legislation and political discourse. This reflects "EU public opinion" during the period. BlueMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that the title should be "EU's identity" as multiculturalism is only one side of the debate. That makes not a balanced heading.BlueMadrigal (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Now it's even worse. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:BlueMadrigal, the paragraphs you keep adding don't even make sense. Please remove them. If you need help, you can use your sandbox. Deb (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb. I think you should point out exactly, which sentence makes you feel that way. [6] This addition is only nine sentences and it is line by line. Shouldn't be a problem to point out where is the misunderstanding originating from. From my perspective criticizing my tongue is not a good faith point. It is insulting. BlueMadrigal (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For a start, I don't understand what you mean by "it is line by line". Deb (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your re-insertion of this content. This is, as others have pointed out, vague and not well written. Neutrality^talk 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this what they talk about what used to be gang of authors which "guard!" the articles, but now it is administrators (Deb, Neutrality) who delete contributions using politically correct arguments. Removing identitarian positions is wrong ! All fuzzy words without any evidence.BlueMadrigal (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If multiple people object to your edit and explain why, perhaps the course of wisdom is to actually consider what they say — rather than invoking a shadowy cabal. Neutrality^talk 18:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You guys win! For that "shadowy thing", this is the second time. [7]. Removing text based on dubious ideas are a rule, not exception. "Multiple people" rule here, as you say. Thanks BlueMadrigal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BlueMadrigal - I'm sorry that you feel victimised - at least, that's what you appear to be saying; it isn't very clear what you mean. You are inexperienced and other contributors want to help you, but if you behave as though you know everything and won't take advice, then you won't get help. If you want to stay and contribute here, it's better to accept consensus and try to learn. Deb (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: There is a difference between Conversational English and Written English. I don't proofread my conversations. Kujos for you. This was a waste of your time. The real thing which I ask you to reverse yourself was here [8] and the nine sentences you objected to here [9]. I don't know what this effort of your tries to prove if you are not working on the real sentences in the article which would make difference for article. BlueMadrigal (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. In the encyclopedia we use written English and it needs to be of a good enough standard that you don't waste other people's time trying to work out what you mean to say. That's why I don't go to other language wikis and try to converse about complex issues or "improve" articles about such topics. Deb (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Several times now I've removed content linking immigration and terrorism sourced from The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing US think tank. I don't think this is an appropriate source if we are trying to keep the tone of the article neutral. I'm up for discussing this. Deb (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like charts and data appearing in the source given [10] are all "Media reports compiled by author", which is not optimal in terms of neutrality and comprehensiveness. If the report on The Heritage was written and based on data published by some authoritative agency, that would have been acceptable. In this case I would rather not use this partisan source with data compiled by the authors themselves. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The numbers didn't strike me as being in the wrong ball park in that one article but I am not familiar with The Heritage Foundation as a whole. Used Danish Institute for International Studies instead. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The numbers given by Heritage Foundation still don't seem to be completely off. For instance the German Bundesinnienmnisterum (federal interior ministry) reported 9 cases (attacks & thwarted plots) for Germany only in the 2015-2020 according to Merkur (in German). A Thousand Words (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your latest addition is superfluous and not particularly helpful when quoted out of context.Deb (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What sort of help are you referring to? A Thousand Words (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The interior ministry report is well covered in German media such asn-tv Nachrichtenfernsehen. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the statistics are unhelpful to the reader when quoted out of context as you have done. For example, "In the 2015-2020 time span, there were 9 islamic terrorist attacks" (note: "islamic" shouldn't be written with a lower case initial) and thwarted terrorist plots..." How many of these were attacks and how many were plots? What evidence is there for the plots? Where in Europe did they occur - how many different countries were involved? Another example of poor wording: "The numbers of discovered plots began to decline in 2017." Decline from what? How many of the 9 plots were in the years before 2017 and how many in 2017? Deb (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Some contextual information on how lack of or falsified identity documents facilitated the entry of radicals into Germany have been added. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That hasn't helped in the slightest. If you can't answer the above questions, please remove the whole paragraph. Deb (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User Ritchie92 wrote that if it was written and based on data published by some authoritative agency and seeing as Merkur based it on interior ministry figures it should then be acceptable and I agree so there is consensus on the content being acceptable. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92 did not say what you are implying. I'll remove your new paragraph myself. Deb (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's a violation of WP:PRESERVE. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Caling edits "inappropriate" in the edit comment is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as if citing German interior ministry information is, somehow, something enWP should not do. The paragraphs are cited to WP:RS. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Deb, deletion of the paragraph violates WP:UNDUE because the section does not reflect available WP:RS sources. en WP cannot simply choose to ignore the German interior ministry because 1) this is the ministry that manages BAMF, the immigration agency and 2) Germany received over 1 million immigrants during the crisis. If you want to challenge this edit then you really need to provide a better source. One question is easily answered: the Merkur (and N-Tv and many other articles which refer to the Bundesinnenministerium figures) concern attacks and plots in Germany. The article also mentions people who have been jailed, that means the evidence of terrorist plots was good enough to hold up in court. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The section in its current form violates WP:UNDUE by not giving an overview of the terrorist incidents where asylum seekers were involved, so a template has been added. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Whose fault is it that you didn't write the paragraph clearly and couldn't answer the questions I asked you about the context? Deb (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph accurately reflected the information in the WP:RS source in a WP:NEUTRAL manner. That a source doesn't provide a statistical distribution to your specification is an invalid reason to delete WP:V information. That's why your deletion (and now, the section) violated WP:UNDUE. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the section violates WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with my edits. You CHOSE to write a paragraph which made statements out of context. You REFUSED to correct it. Your edit has been removed because, as it stood, it added nothing to the article and was simply confusing. Deb (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92 did not say what you are implying. Indeed, I was saying that if one wants to write a paragraph related to those data one should use data from an authoritative agency and not The Heritage Foundation. But I agree that the new paragraph was still unclear and confusing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring about statistics

Corriebertus is edit warring because they think that simple statistics about the gender of the migrants arrived in Europe are "not relevant" for this article. I think this is ridiculous, as for any human population it's important and it might be relevant to track the gender composition and in general the demographics of the participants. This piece of statistics is not useless at all, and in such an article (which is by the way overly long and full of many other superfluous details...) is indeed very important because it shows the preponderance of young male refugees with respect to women, for example. It is something that is often talked about on the news, and is tracked by the most prominent statistics institutes and by the UNHCR and UN themselves. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of statistics about male/female, age

There's this disagreement between two editors, Ritchie92 and me, about whether:
"Of the migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015, 58% were males over 18 years of age (77% of adults), 17% were females over 18 (22% of adults) and the remaining 25% were under 18"
-- is relevant for this article. I don't see the relevance. The article is not titled "migrants to Europe", it clearly is titled "(European migrant) crisis". So, any information about migrants (to Europe, in this case) is only relevant for this article, if there's some clear link to the 'crisis' aspect of that migration. The article is already quite (or very, or too) long, if we'd start adding every possible thing we can find about these migrants, without clear connection to the 'crisis'-aspect, it would risk to get even (much) longer. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already started a thread about this above here, if you paid attention you would have noticed it... Anyway as I said, demographics statistics are very relevant to a phenomenon such as the migration crisis. In particular, these statistics show that young male refugees are consistently and relevantly more than other categories, and this is an important fact reported often by newspapers, and tracked constantly by research centres, statistics institutions, the UNHCR and the UN. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague Ritchie92. You still don’t seem to give an argument, to corroborate what age or gender have to do with the ‘crisis’-aspect of this migration. Ofcourse every (? or nowadays: most !) person has a gender and an age. But where’s the relevance in connection to ‘crisis’? The fact that newspapers (and "research centres", etc.) report this or that (for example age, gender) about whatever topic in whatever news article, is not an argument: we are not that newspaper, we are not that research centre, etc.. The newspaper (etc.) is responsible only for its own actions and productions; Wikipedia is independent, and responsible (only) for itself and its decisions, too. You suggest that "more" (migrants), that is: the amount of migrants, is the crisis- aspect; in that case, give us a ref source which states, that the amount of the migrants is the 'crisis': I don't know any such ref source. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you really have a problem with the word "crisis" here, and this is all you talk about. The "crisis" is the event of many migrants coming to Europe in the last years, in the sense of "many more migrant than usual". This is very easy to understand, and the use of the word "crisis" to describe these events is very well sourced in the beginning of this article. So, I think it's indeed extremely relevant to know, within the migration crisis, a bit of demographics and statistics about the refugees, which are obviously what the crisis is about. I'm not saying we have to add demographics about all refugees that came to Europe in the history, I'm talking about the statistics about these refugees related to this migrant crisis. It's very simple to understand. Also, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, so if reliable news sources and other organizations like the UN stress and report these statistics about the European migration crisis then it's worth inserting this information also in this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not corroborating your statement, as to what the ‘crisis’ actually was (the "many more than usual" migrants, you consider to be the 'crisis'), by giving a ref source. So, it’s just your personal idea of what the ‘crisis’ was. I don’t have “a problem with the word crisis”, I do have a problem with the fact that our article does not yet give any corroborated definition of it – as is noted in the tag on the first sentence of the article. Nevertheless, if the amount of refugees is the crisis (what hasn't been corroborated yet), it would possibly still seem unclear why "a bit of demographics and statistics about the refugees" (as you put it) in the sense of such age and gender statistics, would be ("extremely") relevant in this article. And again you make the strange assertion (which I already refuted) that if UN etc. report certain statistics, Wikipedia should doubtlessly copy that. No we don't, we make our own judgements. If we'd 'slavishly' copy what (admittedly) respected groups publish around this topic, the article could quickly grow from 423,000 bytes to 4,233,000 bytes, and further. (I have today not the time and energy to read the rest of the reactions here below.) --Corriebertus (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, there are many sources in the first line of the article showing the usage of the word "crisis" to refer to this particular event, and this has been already discussed multiple times on this article talk page, so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up if every time we discussed about it your position didn't reach consensus. Also, regarding what the word "crisis" means, I already sent you a few English dictionary links to show you what "crisis" means in English. So it's not my "personal idea" about the word: it's backed by many sources, by English language, and by consensus on Wikipedia. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That the majority of arrivals in Germany were male, was a big part of the public discourse in 2015/2016. So it should be reflected in this article. F.e. in an attempt to counter the prejudice in the crisis that almost all arrivals were male, the German Handelsblatt wrote a "fact check" in September 2016 [11] stating: Two out of three are male (...) The quota between boys and girls among children below 12 yrs is almost equal, with minors and young adults there is a big imbalance: Among 16- to 18-year old four out of five are male, at 18- to 25 years three out of four. Among the higher age groups it levels out again (...) among the people above 65, women are the majority. The German Spiegel evaluated in 2015 why most arrivals are men,[12] speculating, that while more refugees worldwide are female, the arrivals from conflictzones in this 2015 crisis included more men, because they either want to evade military service, and/or that men are send by the families because they are deemed to have a higher chance to be successful. Alexpl (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Describing the demographics of the migrants is relevant to the scope of the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the Handelsblatt and Spiegel sources above clearly speaks about demographics in the context of the migration crisis, an enwp editor cannot make the case that "demographics are irrelevant" since that would not neutrally represent an available WP:RS sources. Ignoring what WP:RS sources write would be POV. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexpl gives some theories (from Der Spiegel etc.) as why migrants from conflictzones include more men then women. Surely that is interesting, but for the correct Wiki article and that is either 'Migrants' or 'Refugees' or 'War refugees' or something like that. As long as the issue 'male/female' is not connected with the (2015?) Eur. migrant crisis, it shouldn't 'clutter up' this already (too) long and complicated article. So, again we circle around the enigma: what is actually meant, adressed, with the term 'crisis' in this context? Read my reasoning on this point, above, in my reactions on Ritchie92, see also the tag in the first sentence of the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Again what Corriebertus really wanted to start with this issue, is another discussion about the word "crisis", a discussion that they have already had many times on this talk page (with no consensus in their favour reached). The word "crisis" is well-sourced and it's the most common word used to refer to the situation.

About the issue of demographics, obviously the articles of Der Spiegel etc are related to this migrant crisis, and not to the statistics of migrants in general, so yes if there is a place where it is relevant it's exactly this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Corriebertus on this one. Statistics are being included in order to "make a point" and to invite the reader to stand in judgement on refugees. They just clutter up an already dreadful article. If all the author wanted was to say that there are more men than women, they could still have used the reference to back that up without going into this level of unnecessary detail. Deb (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cannot ignore WP:RS sources which write about the migration crisis. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Our responsibility is to balance coverage according to the weight and focus in reliable sources, and to avoid presenting it in a way that makes an argument ourselves or which leads the reader to a conclusion not in the sources. The citation for these figures - an offhand mention in an Indian newspaper - doesn't support the idea that it's a major aspect of the subject, and it barely gets mentioned in the article, so it is at the very least WP:UNDUE for the lead; additionally, it's completely unclear why we're placing so much focus on the figures from 2015 in particular when the crisis lasted several years. --Aquillion (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely the sentence can be written in a better way and with better sources. A few examples: [13], [14], [15]. However we should not "censor" some basic demographics just because it could create a political argument in the mind of some people, we should limit ourselves to state the relevant facts if reliably sourced, and I think that a very simple thing such as how many men vs women arrived in Europe as refugees is not completely off-topic. Also, I approve of moving the sentence out of the lead section. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: What point is being made in devoting one sentence to the demographics of the refugees in this article? Some malign right-wing agenda behind that? --Pudeo (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but there's no value in quoting detailed statistics from one reference if you don't quote them from every other reference. And I think you must be able to see that this would make the article ridiculously long and not one iota more informative. Deb (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, since you think there is undue weight on the year 2015 I suggest you start a new discussion thread about that. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that the whole article is already tagged for multiple issues. Practically every paragraph gives undue weight to something or other. It's easily one of the worst articles in the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: I totally agree with you that the article is too long and full of unnecessary things (and also that it's possibly one of the worst in terms of maintenance). However I honestly don't think that this particular sentence is what makes the difference here. Anyway I agree that the sentence is wrongly put and must be changed and moved away from the lead sentence. But I don't see why we shouldn't have a place for this type of data and analysis: there is even an entire section of the article called "Profile of migrants" (which might well also contain some well-sourced demographics) and nobody complained so far. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Weird sentence added to lead section

@BlueMadrigal: you should stop insisting with adding that sentence to the lead section. "During the migrant crisis countries struggled to cope with the influx" countries? which countries?, "creating division in the EU over how best to deal with resettling people" really? is this one of the main outcomes of the crisis?, "and culminating in EU's Parliament working to create a new European asylum policy." that's definitely not the culmination of the crisis. It is probably only from the point of view of the European Commission... Anyway I already reverted you more than I should have, because the sentence is ridiculously out of place and weirdly specific to be in the headline of this article. You add the source of the European Commission, but that is not a reliable source about the topic, because on Wikipedia we use secondary sources. A governmental agency involved first-hand in the crisis is definitely not the best source to summarize what the European migrant crisis has been. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: You are objecting without even reading what you object, :-( You are NOT arguing with me but you are arguing with the WP:RS. EU parliament documents are reliable sources regarding EU. When EU says "To respond to the migrant crisis, Parliament has been working on proposals to create a fairer, more effective European asylum policy." that is what EU says. Go and argue with them. Also there is no Good Faith in your position when you remove WP:RS information from from the article. There is a clear WP:PRESERVE policy which you disregard. BlueMadrigal (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but the EU Parliament (or better, the press-room website of the EP) is not a secondary source on this matter, even if they are reliable it's still not good to use their statements in the first sentence of this article. Also, I don't think that the assertions of the European Parliament are what define the European migrant crisis, and even if they have a lot of weight on the matter, I don't think that this sentence that you extracted from one article on the EC website should be in the first paragraph of this article. What you wrote in the first sentence is only one part of what the crisis is and has been, and reflects the POV of the European Parliament newsroom only. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to improve the lead and checked the sources which are already in the article. The source you object was in this article since MARCH (may be earlier as search engine stopped at march)!. The source should be inserted by another author referencing EU Parliament position. EU Parliament has a natural part in the crisis. [16] OMG! This is bad. :-( You are just objecting to my edits, evidently. BlueMadrigal (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand if you are trying to be funny. What am I supposed to look at in the link you attached? Anyway, the source is fine to refer to the position of the EU Parliament (for example in a sentence like "According to the EU Parliament, the crisis .... "), then it's of course OK. It's also OK to use such a source in the body of the article, when giving more details about what happened and the various organizations who took part in it – but I wouldn't take it as the supreme definition of what this crisis has been, so to have it in the first sentence. To use that source to justify a generic sentence that defines the European migrant crisis in the first paragraph of this article, then I think we need more general and secondary sources. However first of all we need a sentence that captures what the crisis has been with a neutral POV. For example to me it's a bit crazy that you want to mention – as the first thing on your list – the struggle that the "countries" had to face, and there is no word about the struggle and many deaths of actual people in the Mediterranean Sea... just a small example of what a partial POV is. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: @BlueMadrigal: Ritchie should not object here against source EC, in some contexts such source can be reliable and relevant. The real controversy between Rt and BM here seems to be: what is 'the crisis' really (and hence what are its "main outcomes" or "culmination")? See my arguings in the previous talk section ('why is male/female relevant?'), and in the tag in the first sentence of the article: it is high time, that the article should start with (a) corroborated definition(s) of what is really meant with 'crisis' here. I'm working on that (but you both may work on it, too). --Corriebertus (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I object of course, if you read what I wrote you could well understand why EC is not the only POV to take in the definition of what the crisis has meant.

Now I see you're fully back again on your crusade against the word "crisis", but I advise you to at least start a discussion before implementing any edit that changes the start of this article like you did many other times in the past. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not keen on the word "crisis" either, but it's been discussed previously and the consensus was against me. Deb (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, specifically there have been two requested moves "recently": one in June 2018 where 0/9 respondent editors supported the move, and the latest as recent as in March 2020 with 0/5 respondent editors supporting the move. So I don't think this is even a discussion worth having. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

As for BlueMadrigal, you keep saying that you are "improving" the article, which makes me wonder if there is a competence issue here, as no one seems to agree that your edits are improvements. I think it would be advisable for you to listen to the advice of other users, like Ritchie92, otherwise we could end up in a situation where you are topic banned. That's not a threat or something I would like to see, but you should be aware of the possibility.Deb (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: To begin with, an administrator shouldn't insult other editors. I'm still waiting for your line by line proof that my English is sub-par. This is your first deletion of so called sub-par [17]. Also you deleted whole section with the same dubious claim [18]. Both of these are very informative, well sourced, highly related additions. The second one is about "return of refugees to their homes". An administrator personally supported an article about migrant crisis without the section about how/when/why refugees can turn back to their homes. The problem here is the editors (not so shadowy), who own the article. It is the deleting editors POV (though at the same time claim that it is my POV) when an editor deletes my additions with a claim that migrant crisis shouldn't include government policies that create the crisis in the first place. That is the main reason it is in the poor shape. This behavior became so outrageous that an administrator whose job is to help editors, deletes submissions. There is also another editor one who openly claims that he did not check the source before deleting, because as the delete-or claims there was no reason look at the reference presented in discarding the addition. Like this is a personal form not an informative place which reflects facts produced by various informative sources. I just don't want to argue (like a discussion form) including the virtues of "government policies" or "public opinions" in creating the "Migrant Crisis" to editors who want to keep this article only about the numbers of migrants. I'm also not interested why these editors want to keep an article in poor shape as it is. Sadly that also includes a group of Administrators. I still personally don't know Deb's positive contribution (did created a section?, did improved a layout? did resolved a conflict?) to this article, since I began editing. I just know I'm told by Deb that I suck at this. —BlueMadrigal (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.Deb (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Title change - migrant to refugee

Calling it the migrant crisis implies that this crisis is about economic migrants when in fact it is about asylum seekers and refugees which are coming from various parts of the world due to social, religious, sexual or environmental persecution. I also think that the word crisis is problematic however, I do understand that this is how this issue has been overwhelmingly referred to in the media and by governmental institutions, so it does make sense to keep 'crisis' in the title. It would be more accurate to name the page European refugee crisis given that economic migrants are controlled by individual government policy and there is no uncontrolled situation with them. Mangodust (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

AGREE - I would go even further to say that this article confuses the creation of refugees with the normal migration that Europe experiences Evertent (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The acceptance rate for asylum applications of the people, who came for example to Germany in 2015 and later, is usually well below 50%.[19] So "No" - it was/is still a "migrant crisis". Alexpl (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I remember a while back when I did a full copy edit of this article that there were mentions of economic migrants, so changing the title to "refugee" would be inaccurate unless those mentions are removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, I think these should be removed as that is part of the issue Evertent (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As in, I agree with this statement, I know it was not a response to mine. Evertent (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

AGREE - For the reasons stated by User:Mangodust. I don't see the relevance of the statistics quoted by User:Alexpl, when there are clear problems with the asylum-related bureaucracy in Germany [20]. This is a flawed system with evidence of racism, regional inconsistencies and political motivations to reduce the number of successful applications. Odderlily (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of sources define it the "migrant crisis", and this should be enough. However to be more precise, as other editors also said, there is actually a large part, if not the majority, of people which are not technically "refugees" but "asylum seekers", meaning they don't necessarily get the refugee status granted. I think using the more general term "migrant" can do no harm in this sense – while on the contrary using "refugee" can put unwanted and unnecessary limits on the content of this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that you don´t see the relevance. And because the acceptance rates differ per state - I did link statistics with the national average. But as long as none of you presents any source, that shows why those people should be adressed as "refugees", based presumably on the 1951 convention (?), I really don´t see any reason to invest in further discussion. Alexpl (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92:@Alexpl: I would argue that its core to what is being discussed. A crisis of migration I would class as a non-neutral stance as it implies that migration is a negative thing, although wikipedia can never be classed as truely neutral, I think this is conflicting with the aim of neutrality. Wheras I think it a fairly politically neutral to class the creation of refugees a problem, I would argue that the exisitance of migration itself being an issue is not politically neutral. Therefore I think it would be ok to have this page be about the creation of refugees but not about economic migrants or just migrants in general. Evertent (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not Twitter. You have to argue with relevant sources for the topic at hand, and I did at least show, that a majority of these people were migrants, found not to be in need of international protection. However, it is also unarguably true, that the original entry into the EU was forced by claiming to be a refugee, or an "asylum seeker", to be precise. EU law (directive 2013/33/EU iirc) forces the memberstates to let everybody in, to hear their claims for asylum and check them. So at one point, the people in question were indeed "refugees", who later turned migrants, when the claims for protection had been dismissed. I really dont see an elegant way to reflect all these complex problems in this articles title. Alexpl (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The refugee status is given after checks and vetting, until then migrants are "asylum seekers". But anyway nowhere the crisis is called "European asylum seekers crisis". And I really don't see the problem with the word "migrant": is it a negative word? Humans have always had migration spikes in history, so I really do not see the issue. "Migrant" does not mean "economic migrant" (which is also not a bad word), and it's good because it's general enough to include all types of migration, and that's what Wikipedia should do. My personal idea: probably most people proposing the title change are afraid of hurting the feelings of right-wing people who use the excuse of "migrant" vs "refugee" to attack all immigration. I say that Wikipedia should not be edited according to these political twisted interpretations. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No. But I dont see how "official status" should become the determining factor in this "crisis". Nobody cared. The people got in by asylum law (s.a.), then they were protected by the non-refoulement provisions in the refugee convention, until their status has been determined.UNHCR p. 66 But they just didnt wait for that to happen and "secondary migration" of asylum seekers began within the EU, producing the pictures who stand for "the crisis".[21] Alexpl (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I would argue that it is more nuanced than whether "Migrant" is a negative word (I would agree that it isn't) what I mean is that high migration being called a "crisis" is a right wing view in the sense that, steriotypically, closed borderes is a right wing ideal wheras open borders is a left wing ideal. I don't think its posible to be truely neutral but I think a title change would improve neutrality. Furthermore I think adding information about general migration actively hurts this page, making it harder to understand and read about the creation of regugees that then entered Europe which I feel this page is supposed to be about. Evertent (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "creation of refugees". Do you mean war and droughts? This is not what this page is about. The article is supposed to describe the events characterized by the greatly enhanced influx of migrants of all types (economic, asylum seekers, refugees, etc) to Europe. This event is named all over the news with the term "crisis": there are plenty of sources that you can view and check in the first sentence of this article, taken from media outlets that are certainly not right-wing. Also, the word "crisis" does not give a negative connotation to the migrants themselves, it only means that the increased influx of migrants was "critical" in Europe, in the sense that it was the apex of an otherwise more controlled process, and that it created various demographic and political issues. I seriously think that only right-wing or ill-intentioned people will abuse terminology and propagate a negative view upon migrants based on the title of this article, but we – on Wikipedia – should not be bothered by this and go by what reliable sources state. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored just to appease one or another side of the political spectrum. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of the word crisis, but sadly I think that it is migrants of all kinds who are being targeted by this article - and I do mean "targeted", because this is a horrible article that was created as an outlet for xenophobes. Deb (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: per because this is a horrible article that was created as an outlet for xenophobes you are required to follow the WP:AGF guideline. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't created for that purpose, but over a period it's been hijacked by editors with a political agenda, including several who have since been blocked. Deb (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: There were already two requested moves regarding the word "crisis" in the title: one in June 2018 and one in March 2020, both got zero supporters for the move except for the requester. One of these was started by you so I imagine you might remember, and proposing again such a move with the same arguments would go against consensus. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: No need to remind me. I have no plans to propose it again, but I would support any such proposal - I could hardly do otherwise. Deb (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

AGREE - As per User:Mangodust stated. All the prominent English language dictionaries define a migrant as someone who moves from one country to another in search of work and better living standards. A refugee, is defined as someone who is forced to leave their country in order to escape persecution. Calling it a "migrant crisis" doesn't reflect the experiences of these people. The UNESCO website says that "The term 'migrant' should be understood as covering all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned, for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor." [22] Ottermost (talk)

User:Mangodust I think that you will need to relist this move with the following proceedure to get the process moving and to get an uninvolved editor to review the discussion and decide on consensus Evertent (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The migrant crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:9BDC:EA00:457F:A11E:90B9:44AB (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)