Talk:Immigration to Denmark

History

The last paragraph is based on a misunderstanding of science; studies do not "disprove" things that easily, you would need much more than a single study conducted by a ministry. An improvement would be to a) change the language (a study suggested), b) include the study and elaborate on its content, and c) cite other studies. Otherwise, the linked article doesn't really add much to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.248.1.2 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not just that. The person - @1Kwords: reverted the edit with the sole reason that it is "Wikipedia:RS", in another case saying that "no other RS claims that these ideas are racist", despite the fact that the reliable source they state has long since corrected its claims that their text derives from, meaning the reliable source is, if anything, against their claims by now, way before we even consider other reliable source claims. So, the issues I see are:

1. Potential plagiarism and non-encyclopedic language, because the user quoted the article word-for-word without actually adding quotes, rather than an encyclopedic quote of "Berlingske, a Danish newspaper, states... "For decades Danish immigration and integration policy was based...". It is the rarest of cases in which an encyclopedia will actually use such direct and conclusive language, unless it was quoting much older history, rather than a single 2018 article about a 2018 study from the Ministry, in contradiction of many earlier studies and global study consensus on integration of immmigrants. If I were observing more leniently, I could say it's a matter of failing the Wikipedia:Close Paraphrasing requirements, rather than Wikipedia:Plagiarism

2. The position of the wording is, curiously enough, put it in the opening AND the "History" section of the article. I would scrap the article for any purposes other than referring to the study, and putting it under "Achievement Gaps" in the Education section, otherwise it falls foul of Wikipedia:NPOV, specifically under the "Due and Undue" weight section, as you don't cite a single study in the headline while leaving all the others down on the bottom if you wish to be neutral, and you would be using an impartial tone, too.

3. As you say, a single study cannot "disprove" anything like that so easily, especially when it and nobody in the same section mentions other studies at all. For an encyclopedia to host this is ludicrous and anything but neutral, and at best, the wording should be modified extensively, due to the above reasons.

4. Ironically, the statement by 1kwords on the source being "Wikipedia:RS" is no longer applicable, under the section "Context matters", because the source no longer supports the claim that was made and then translated word-for-word into the top and lower areas of the article, as well as running foul of the "Statements of opinion" section, as the article wasn't quoting the study: It was interviewing politicians, especially Inger Støjberg, who has been noted for being unusually anti-immigrant among Venstre's recent politicans. This one would be easiest to miss with good faith in mind, but ultimately it still leaves the other issues above as a problem, and would otherwise make me wonder if they hadn't checked the updated article, as I'm pretty sure the article's correction happened at least between its original publishing date of 16th December 2018 and the last edit-reversal by 1Kwords regarding the paragraph, which was on the 16th of August, 2019.

I will translate, right here and now, the most relevant corrective paragraphs, now on the top of the article, written by Berlingske themselves, starting with one Danish for reference and correcting the statements in the article, including the one translated word-for-word and put into the article. Only a few paragraphs, which will be removed after they have been understood properly for the improvement of the article, because I'd rather not violate copyright too much given Wikipedia policy, even if I wish I could include all the information:

Overskriften på denne artikel er ændret fra: Indvandrerne fik børn, der fik børn – og de halter stadig efter

Berlingske retter

Berlingske har begået fejl i artiklen, der online har haft overskriften »Indvandrerne fik børn, der fik børn – og de halter stadig efter«. Artiklen havde på print overskriften: »Efter rapport om tredjegenerationsindvandrere: Vi har abonneret på et helt forfejlet syn«. Artiklen blev publiceret digitalt 16. december 2018 og på print dagen efter.

That means, accordingly: "The title of this article has been changed from "Immigrants had children, who had children, and they still lag behind"

"Berlingske corrects"

"Berlingske has made an error in the article, which online had the title "»Immigrants had children, who had children - and they still lag behind«. The article also had a print on the headline: »After report regarding third-generation immigrants: We have subscribed to a completely failed view« The article was digitally made public on the 16. of December 2018 and printed the day after."

And now that people can see for themselves with the Danish quote above that I'm translating somewhat correctly, and verify for themselves, I will translate the English quotes:

Berlingske writes, »that the report lock-ins »that third-generation immigrants do not get better results in the school than the generation before them. That there aren't more of them that finish education in youth. And that there aren't more who acquire employment.

This is wrong. The report does not compare generations, but same-aged children and youth, which today are immigrants, descendants of immigrants or children of descendants.

Berlingske writes, that Danish integration politics for decades have been built on the belief that, with the correct aid, immigrants and their descendants will integrate more, generation by generation. And that a new study rams a pole through that belief. That is an interpretation. Berlingkse should have written, that Interationminister(sic, refers to the anti-immigrant Integration Minister) Inger Støjberg (V) and Merete Riisager (LA) reads the analysis in that way

Berlngske should, to a higher degree, have mentioned and noted the disclaimers of the analysis. I.e that there still are relatively few children of immigrants in Denmark. And those children of imigrants, that are mentioned in the analysis, often have young mothers, which can give them another social profile than children, which are immigrants or descendants.

That doesn't change the fact that it's the responsibility of Berlingske to inform the public correctly.

Berlingske apologizes"

If this is too much to have on the talk page (certainly not the article, let alone with the entire Berlingske text), then I will further whittle it down to the most necessary for argumentation, although I'm afraid there's not much more I can take off without impacting the important information to English-speaking audiences. -- I'll also note that Berlingske, while known as a reliable source, does have heavy right-wing bias, and so while they aren't allowed to report something wrongfully, there's nothing that stops them from spinning the conclusion of the information in the same way the Guardian or Reuters would to either left or center, even if the information they cite before then, at its core, isn't wrong.

The correction does, however, make it damning for the notes by 1Kwords to have been up for so long, especially since this correction by Berlingske has been present for a LONG while. The only reason I didn't come in earlier was because I had other things to deal with and wasn't very Wikipedia-savvy. Not that this was ever a reason for word-for-word translation-and-posting in the article and acting as if one study can somehow disprove many others and consensus, globally and locally in Denmark alike.

An actual encyclopedic entry would note that "An article from Berlingske, titled "Shout from Ministers: Problems with integration of Immigrant children" (the corrected title) writes "quote citing study" and comments "following quotes from article and ministers". However, since the reliable source itself disclaims the very quote used in the article (which was not marked with quotes, giving it the impression of being Wikipedia consensus), the very quote used by 1Kwords is no longer viable, even before we consider the other problems it had.

I would personally prefer to link the study directly, rather than the article itself. https://integrationsbarometer.dk/tal-og-analyser/filer-tal-og-analyser/arkiv/analyse-om-born-af-efterkommere-2018 , since this is better than citing politicians, which belongs in the realm of political issues further down, and certainly not with the kind of quote that is currently put on the headline, if one somehow must want to give those politicians even more exposure compared to the rest.

After that, I would write and cite: "A study by the Ministry of concludes that same aged children and youth retain a disparity of results depending on immigration status, especially being a descendant of immigrant, but also notes, from the study directly: "The amount of children that are descendants of immigrants is today so low that it isn't possible to predict the future demographic behavior for this group." as well as noting after citing a comparative performance figure on page 17 that "The above two figures accordingly show, that relatively many children of immigrants have young mothers. This can also mean that the group "Children of descendants" can have a different social profile than those of the same age with older mothers.". I can perhaps omit the part about page 17 and the above figures, because the claim in the same, regardless of what else is in the study.

It's rather hard for me to assume good faith in this scenario, given that there are so many things wrong with the edits by 1Kwords and their extremely lackluster reasons for defending the edit, that they had exhausted the benfit of the doubt I would give by the time I saw half of them, but I will wait up to a month to give a "grace period" for people, including 1Kwords , to reply to the changes accordingly. I will make the changes regardless if there are no replies. If it turns into an edit-war, we'll likely have to bring some moderator observation in, if available, but if they're willing to actually accept the premise, I am willing to discuss how the final iteration should look in accordance to policy. Corspide (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The aforementioned month has passed, and as I have not seen any replies from anyone watching the article, including 1Kwords, I have made the changes I saw fit. I removed the text and the link from Berlingske, replaced it with the direct integrationbarometer study cited above, and wrote in relatively compact detail what I had found in pages 17 and 47 of the report, which reference the study's findings of younger mothers and their conclusion about the future demographic behaviour, respectively.

As such, I've more or less done what I figured was workable. I wouldn't be opposed to suggestions for further improvement, but at the very least, I don't see the issues mentioned above. If one wants to cite the Berlingske news article, rather than the study itself, perhaps it should be included under the political section. It seemed weird to include it there, though, because that section largely seems to talk about political parties and stances, rather than news outlets citing them. Corspide (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Upon returning to this article, I found that @AnomieBOT: had effectively put the removed text into another column, under the automated reaction of "Rescuing orphaned refs". Owing to the fact that I don't know how to deal with a bot, and I'm not sure of the risks of an edit-war, I have taken the reference and given it coverage under achievement gaps, in a different text that, as far as I'm aware, does not fall afoul of the above references of wikipedia etiquette, such as neutral coverage and paraphrasing. I'd rather not have done that, as I believe the article was still mostly coverage on the political side, rather than the study, but if I have to include the reference, I figured it was best for it to be near the Wikipedia coverage of very study that it itself is covering.

Having not seen any input from anyone else, I don't find it justifiable to add a self-imposed grace period on this, especially since the arguments are much the same as above. Corspide (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Great Start

Congratulations on such a solid start to this article! Although you have some sections to finish (this is a very broad topic with a lot of information to cover), you thoroughly cover the issue of immigration to Denmark. I especially like how you have a section on history before you go into the detail of contemporary immigration. You draw from many different sources, and you incorporate different viewpoints into your article. Think about adding different perspectives in the Media Coverage section to highlight the current controversy over immigration. Overall, I feel like your article is on the right track; you just need to finish the remaining sections if you have time. Again, great job! CamilaKennedy (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To Rloftis5672

I really like all of the content that you added. The graphs and illustration especially are a great addition that complements the content. The captions for the graphs and illustrations are also very helpful in understanding the significance of them. One thing I would focus on though is bringing in more sources and citing the introductory sentence of each section, or else the readers may get confused if this violates the NPOV. Also, there are few formatting issues with the sources, so I would recommend cleaning the references section too. Other than that, amazing work! I really enjoyed reading your article. Lindaticket (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on recent expansions

The recent edits to the article have added greater clarity and depth. The illustrations, especially the charts, are a very useful visual aid, though the chart in the employment section could use an explanatory caption. I would suggest using more sources to back up the statements made as well as looking for other places where the article could be more comprehensive. I would also suggest moving the "ethnic discrimination" paragraph after the two paragraphs in the "employment" section, as this seems to better follow the logical flow of the article. Thanks for your contributions! Rgalts (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)