Talk:Immigration to Norway/Archive 1

Public opinion about ...

I've read my way through all off the {{Immigration to Europe}}-articles, and at this moment, this article is the only one with a section on Public opinions, with datas from an opinion survey. I fail to see what this section tells us about the subject Immigration to Norway per se.

We do not have "public opinion"-sections in articles as Courts of justice of Norway, List of national parks of Norway or Sami Parliament of Norway, referring to how many % of the norwegians who trust or doesn't trust the courts, consercvation policies or sami administration. Why should we allow it, or find it natural, in this article?! I'm not too good on en:wp style manuals, but i have a urge this is on the edge of objectivity. Bw --Orland (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a public opinion section if it can be balanced with various public opinion polls from different sources that cater a variety of political viewpoints. It has relevance in this article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How to improve this article

This article has multiple issues, as indicated by various templates in the article and the discussions above on this page. The main problem is in my opinion the undue weight given stuff under the heading "Social issues", while other areas such as immigration history, demographics, culture and religion is hardly mentioned. A translation of the equivalent article in Norwegian, no:Innvandrere i Norge, may serve as a better starting point than the current article here - a googletranslation of it may give an impression [1] (Warning:this is googletranslation, so many sentences look rather ridiculous ;). If other editors would be interested in helping out (preferrably both other Norwegian-speakers as well as native English-speakers), I would be willing to help translating this Norwegian article to English. Thoughts? Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already tried the GoogleTranslate thing to help check out a few sources, but the video clip ones are the ones that stump me as i don't speak Norwegian, and they are the ones that may be the most dubious. If it helps sort out the mess that is social issues and other parts of this article i'll help in whatever way i can to make it more neutral and evenly-balanced. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Crime" section

I'm proposing the deletion of the crime section of the article which currently looks like:

In 2009, foreign citizens accounted for about 33% of inmates in Norwegian prisons nationwide, and about 60% of those in detention.[22]In 2010, 96% of foreign citizens residing in Norway were defined as immigrants by Statistics Norway.[23]Crime among immigrants has been found to vary between ethnic groups.[citation needed]

Oslo
In 2010, for the first time more than half of everyone arrested for crime in Oslo were foreign citizens, and in the prison of the city, Oslo fengsel, more than 70% were foreign citizens, and even more had "foreign sounding names". Despite of an overall crime reduction in Norway during the 2000s, the crime rate in Oslo has been increasing making Oslo the city in Scandinavia with the most reported crimes per capita having a crime rate 400% higher than New York City in 2008. The Oslo police and Minister of Justice Knut Storberget blamed an increased influx of Eastern Europeans.[24][25]

Figures by the Oslo Police Department have found that from 2006 until 2009, all 41 cases of assault reported rape in Oslo were committed by non-western immigrants, with people of Kurdish and African backgrounds forming the majority.[26]

I can't remember the exact Wikipedia convention article, however using sources and statements to imply things that aren't stated or backed up by a source isn't allowed i believe. The opening of this section feels like using two different statements, though related, to create an impression for readers that isn't exactly backed up by a source - this is original research and should be deleted then.

It is also misleading as the 33% figure is for foreign citizens in jail. The 96% figure of foreign citizens defined as immigrants are stated as being foreign citizens that are residing in Norway. What does this mean? It means the sources are being distorted to give a false impression - the 33% doesn't differentiate between foreign citizens that are residing in Norway or those that don't such as holiday-makers, tourists, business-trippers, human-traffickers or whatever.

So to sum up this section is highly suspect and from the looks of it passes the grade for deletion. The only thing that can be retained is the rape-figures as it is attribuated to immigrants. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree! Delete. The rape section is btw also dubious; the police official uses the term immigrant, but unless they are all arrested and idetified, it is hard to tell whether they are "immigrants" or "foreigners". --Orland (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent crime reverts

The IP user Special:Contributions/85.70.56.231 apparently wishes to add some unsourced material. In my opinion the editing activity might be disruptive. See: diff1 diff2 diff3diff4. This looks like a 3RR break to me, but I'll give it a chance. Please provide a source that actually covers the statements made, quote it in a way that ensures WP:NPOV and take into account more recent information on the topic --benjamil (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked the diffs - the editor seems to have tried to come up with better sources. BTW, the one you gave is non-RS, as I [as far as I could check]. Zezen (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Crime - No due weight

I've written far less, probably no more than a tenth of what would be necessary in a crime section, if its size were to justify the POV-pushing addition of the statements about assault rapes, if the article were to comply with WP:DUE. The weight given to sexual crimes is huge compared to overall crimes, and its listing in the table contents is hugely undue when compared with the other topics. The size of the crime subsection is quite undue in its own right. Do people want the article to remain this way? Nearly every other part of the article is a stub, and there are several instances of cherry picked facts given undue weight, for instance when it comes to welfare recipients and unemployment figures. Frankly, what's needed in this article is a real dugnad. If we can bring the total number of entries in the table of contents up to about 100, the sub-subsection on sexual crimes might become due. In my opinion, a more realistic way to achieve WP:BALANCE would be to strike that sub-subsection, and leave the subsection on crime. Please note that my last edit was in part to demonstrate the lack of balance that I see. I will not have it counted as support for the POV-pushing addition of a single sentence which leaves the reader with the impression that assault rapes in Oslo are the most significant impact of immigration on crime in Norway. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no response, and I don't have time to contribute to the dugnad at the moment, I've done as I suggested above and blanked the subsection on sexual crimes. benjamil (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't provide a response to your earlier post, but I am going to revert you. This is a very controversial issue in Norwegian public discourse, and we have previously had several contributors making great exertions to have this information removed. There are a couple of issues which I base my position on principally. The first is that this article does not fall within the purview of WP:BLP. In this context it simply doesn't matter that an entire group is painted in a bad light. The statistics are sound, they are significant, and they are indeed extraordinary. We have no obligation when writing about a subject to make a full and "balanced" presentation of subordinate or related issues before we can present bits of information that in themselves are relevant. We build an article incrementally, and unless an issue is trivial (which is different from controversial), there should be no grounds for suppressing its discussion until the article is in some advanced state of development. Furthermore, WP:DUE is a non-sequitur in this respect as that section of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy page is not about dealing with certain aspects of a subject but with minority or fringe opinions. These statistics on rape have not been contested and presenting them does not impinge on the article's neutrality. Sure other information can be presented that gives a fuller picture of immigrants as related to crime. However, citing the fact that nobody has supplied the article with this as grounds for removing the rape statistics is flawed. __meco (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, WP:DUE doesn't cover this.. The policy that covers the bias is WP:ATTACK. There were several other instances of tendentiously interpreted statistics in the article. However, I have begun to improve the article, and I'm not really in a hurry, so ok, let's leave it. benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That is also completely wrong. Having negative information in an article does not make it an attack article. Allowing people with negative attitudes towards the article's subject to present damaging information from reliable sources does also not make the article an attack page. __meco (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. As you can see, I've added material that isn't flattering for the immigrant population. However, when the negative information is wrong (look through my latest edits) or misleading, it's a different case. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistical blunders on crime

Just a couple of quick comments regarding the crime section. When referring to statistics, and talking about something being "significantly lower", different people will have a very different understanding of what that means. What is meant in this instance?

In the sexual crime sub-section, it is confusing that 2001-2004 statistics is given in % foreign offenders while the 2010 is given in % of norwegian offenders. Fixing this could also get rid of the superfluous i.e. 137.111.13.104 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of today's immigration policy

In his closing speech[2] Anders Behring Breivik during his criminal trial claims one specific episode to be the beginning of contemporary immigration of non-western populations to Norway. According to Breivik, it occurred in the 60s and concerned a large group of Pakistanis that had been refused entry to Finland and had arrived in Norway with tourist visas. The Labour Party (presumable meaning the cabinet) then decided to give this group permanent residence. It would be very relevant to have this episode documented in this article. __meco (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't see the relevance 137.111.13.104 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If it made Breivik commit his crime, then it is relevant. Will anybody check it and instert here? Zezen (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Immigration table

While the table in principle is fine, the numbers are inconsistent with the statistics for 2001 and 2013.

The 2001 column uses the "Innvandrarbefolkninga" "I alt"(Immigrant population, total), which means immigrants (born outside Norway with no Norwegian parents) plus those born in Norway with two immigrant parents. From a cursory check these numbers are right.

The 2013 column is more inconsistent, probably because the table has a lot more categories, going back to the grandparents. To be consistent with 2001 the columns "Innvandrere" and "Norskfødte med innvandrerforeldre" should be added and the other four columns ignored. Here there seems to be a lot of variabilities, these numbers are not now reliable. I don't have the time to go through the numbers now, so I'll just flag the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.250.176.73 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding Immigration to Scandinavia Page

Hi I am interested in creating a broader summary page about Immigration to Scandinavia and the specific details of the conflicts that rise regarding access to the social services offered within welfare states and issues of recent cultural and racial diversity in nations that have historically been very heterogeneous. I am also considering adding a page on Immigration to Denmark since one has not been created yet.

Have any of you considered creating a broader page about trends in Scandinavian immigration and the similarities and differences in country policies? Do you foresee any issues in creating either of these pages?

Thank you Rloftis5672 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed wrong statistics

Some statistics given here, e.g. in Sex crimes were POV or plainly wrong (misquoted). I fixed the figures there using the very reffed source provided. Please check for the other suspect POV or non-RS statistics trying to whitewash (pun intended) immigrant crime.Zezen (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Immigration to Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206040422/http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-04-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-04-en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120131655/http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-03-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-03-en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.udi.no/Norwegian-Directorate-of-Immigration/About-UDI/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.udi.no/Norwegian-Directorate-of-Immigration/About-UDI/A-brief-history-of-the-UDI-/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdi.no/Documents/Rapporter/Overview_2008_ENGLISH.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdi.no/Documents/Artikler/Eng_Immigrants_in_Media%E2%80%9309_v2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Immigration to Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206040422/http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-04-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-04-en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120131655/http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-03-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2012-04-26-03-en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ssb.no/innvbef_en/tab-2011-04-28-02-en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdi.no/Documents/Rapporter/Overview_2008_ENGLISH.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdi.no/Documents/Artikler/Eng_Immigrants_in_Media%E2%80%9309_v2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Niqab discussion

I removed this paragraph from the history section:

The Prime Minister of Norway Erna Solberg stated in an interview that in Norwegian work environments it is essential to see each other's faces and therefore anyone wearing a niqab will be less attractive on the job market. Solberg also views the wearing of the niqab as a challenge to social boundaries in the Norwegian society, a challenge that would be countered by Norway setting boundaries of its own. Solberg also stated that anyone may wear what they wish in their spare time and that her comments applied to professional life but that any immigrant has the obligation to adapt to Norwegian work life and culture.[5]

However you feel about the niqab ban, this is contemporary politics. I don't see how this belongs in an overview of the history of immigration into Norway. There are many topics which are far more relevant, ie. the change from predominantly labor-based to predominantly refugee-based immigration, the impact (good and bad) of EEA and Schengen membership on immigration, or the evolution of immigration laws over time. Stian (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stian: I moved the removed section to the Islam in Norway article. Otherwise I can only agree that there are other areas to improve in this article. AadaamS (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Series of reports

Soupforone made this edit, but the Norwegian text means that the publication is part of SSB reports. not that the report of immigrant crime is part is done regularly. The report was ordered by Listhaug, source is quite clear on this. AadaamS (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As an academic assigment

Hi Maiemram, how is this article going to be involved in the coursework? AadaamS (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it is part of the work for a sociology class on immigration. We will try to update or fill in information where it is needed, based on research done through coursework. ( Maiemram (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC) )

Old numbers

notice that most of the stats are from 2016 and earlier. the stats on immigration from 2018 are available here: https://www.ssb.no/innvandring-og-innvandrere. I also see that stats come from lots of diffrent years which i would say is cherry picking, but it could be because of the difficulty of acquiring the stats. all the numbers should be updated to what is most recently available to mirror the most recent immigration trends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)