Talk:Rwanda asylum plan

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Rwanda Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Rwanda. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliably sourced criticism has been removed with the edit note:

removed party-political sound bites - it is the job of opposition party members to criticise anything and everything the government dd and for that reason this stuff should not be given so much weight here

This seems entirely disingenuous. Clearly the opinions of political leaders is relevant. (Hohum ^@) 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are they making authoritative statements and genuine and reasoned criticism, or are they simply attacking the government because that's what opposition party members are paid to do? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood has also spoken about how it seemed to him a "massive distraction" from the breaking partygate story. Wikipedia should obviously take the long view on this and see where it is (and where Boris Johnson is) in a week or a month's time, but if the article ends up as a weird historical footnote where the government announced a controversial plan and shelved it a few days later, a reader from 2042 shouldn't be deprived of the context that it was a surprise announcement made one day after the prime minister had been fined for breaking the law. --

talk) 08:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I quote the contentious part of the proposed article below. "The Leader of the Opposition and Labour Party Keir Starmer claimed Boris Johnson was using the scheme as a "desperate announcement to distract from his own lawbreaking"; Johnson had been fined the day prior due to his involvement in the Partygate scandal.^[1] His party also criticised it as an "unworkable, unethical and extortionate policy that would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds during a cost of living crisis".^[2] Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey echoed similar concerns to Starmer: "They’ve announced this because they’re trying to deflect attention from the Prime Minister’s lawbreaking [...] They’ve brought this in to try to move the story away from the shocking partygate revelations." He also criticised the cost of the scheme, expressing his desire for it to be spent towards the cost of living crisis instead.^[3] The Scottish National Party responded negatively to the policy, with Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon calling it "despicable", SNP Commons leader Ian Blackford calling it "evil" and Scottish health secretary Humza Yousaf using it as evidence of institutional racism in the British government.^[4]" See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rwanda_asylum_plan&diff=prev&oldid=1083050130. It's clearly reasoned discussion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that wikipedia should include notable and relevant published discourse on an article subject, it being up to the reader to decide it's worth. Not including the opposition because it's their job to oppose would apply just as much to not adding government comments because it's their job to support their own actions. (Hohum ^@) 12:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum Yahoo News... sorry, we need a reliable source. 2600:6C5A:17F:9189:848D:1D54:905B:9D07 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply: 1) Yahoo News is considered to be a reliable source and 2) the article is aggregated from ITN. Cortador (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really traditional (or maybe even in the manual of style) to list always polls with the higher number first, even when two are being presented as a change over time? Writing the paragraph as 42% of those questioned disagreed with the scheme, while 35% were in support [and later] 44% of those questioned supported the plan, and that 40% were opposed to it seems very easy to misread as "the 42% became 44%, the 35% became 40%".

As a wider flag on that, the BBC source being cited is quoting the second YouGov poll as showing that support for the policy has been falling since the policy's announcement, although it looks like they're comparing a YouGov poll to a Savanta one. (The same source says that Savanta polls alone have shown a drop in support and an increase in opposition.) If the two YouGov polls aren't directly comparable, perhaps because they framed the question differently, we should avoid doing that here. --