If the nitpicking shows that you often misinterpret the citations you give, then showing more citations - especially to newspaper articles rather than the actua

If the nitpicking shows that you often misinterpret the citations you give, then showing more citations - especially to newspaper articles rather than the actual reports - isn't going to help. Like, I don't care about your views about how The Guardian does their reporting about the GMC report, when you should be linking to and citing the GMC report. If that report says that the investigations into alleged misconduct showed the allegations were almost all unfounded, then how would that affect your views? If the report shows evidence the equivalent complaints about "white British doctors were more often dealt with by ‘sitting down and sorting it out’" (quoting one of your citations) rather than formal proceedings, then how would that affect your views? As far as I can tell, all of your links refer to the same report. Why have me read all of them rather than pointing me to the actual report? Linking to the primary sources would also stop me from rolling my eyes about seeing all your Daily Mail citations, which infamously the Wikipedia editors characterize as having a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." As an example of sensationalism, the "13 TIMES" in your last headline only refers to doctors who qualified in Bangladesh. They could have used the average for all foreign doctors, which would no doubt be lower, but not as sensational. > your question was like asking how an example from Virginia is relevant to Kentucky. My questions was not of Ireland vs. UK but of the very small numbers involved, compared to the number of doctors, and of why specifically that one year. Small number statistics fluctuate a lot, and newspapers only report the unusual cases. If in 2011 there were only 4 foreign-trained doctors out of 30 FTP inquiries, would that make the news? Would you find it if it did? Look, if you only get your information from news sources - and all but one of your citations has been that way - then you'll inherit not just the bias that each news source has, but also the system bias of only reading things which qualify as "news". Since you linked to The Daily Mail, the following quote attributed to its former owner seems appropriate: "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog Are you only reading "Man Bites Dog" stories?