Jump to content

Talk:Latin American migration to the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Latin American Britons)

Fair use rationale for Image:Desmondlost.PNG

[edit]

Image:Desmondlost.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

[edit]

There still appears to be confusion about the article's subject. It appears to include people who are/were Latin Americans of British ancestry, not citizens (or even residents) of the UK. SamEV (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes completly agree with you...ive tried to delete some people that were not born or raised in the UK ...this does not include people that happen to be in the UK for work etc..LA Britons are Britons with latin american hertitage or cultural heritage/Identity via a mother or father..eg: Jade Jagger....which fro me includes people that happen to have British ancestry but came from a Latin american country seems to be corrct since many of them are of many ancestries..but if this needs ot be taken correctly then ..just need to delete some people that do not apply to the article..I repete THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT LATIN AMERICANS OF BRITISH ANCESTRY..they can be of any ancestry as long as they have been mainly raised in the UK...which qualifies to be a Briton...Hispano 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although I wouldn't require that they have grown up there mostly; if they're UK permanent residents who only arrived this year that would still be enough for me. Nevertheless, you understand the issue I was addressing and I'm confident that you made a good edit. SamEV (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a clear up and deleted names of Latin Americans with British Ancestry (as opposed to Britons with Latin American ancestry) from the article. It's not the only article where this has happened, sadly. It's basic factual innaccuracy. Indisciplined (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. I hope you next take on the fact that the article includes Spanish Britons and Portuguese Britons as "Latin American". I think that only an article titled "Hispanic Britons", for example, should include them all, if it should at all. I have no doubt that Latin American Britons and Iberian Britons get along quite well in the UK, but I don't think they identify as one and the same people. SamEV (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article does it do that? Indisciplined (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it has been removed since. The infobox used to read: "In 2007 Inc. Illegal Immigrants and Ancestry (Spanish and Portuguese also) 500,000"[1] But the article still reads: "over 500,000 Britons are of Iberian or Latin American origin" and "The early 1980s saw the Latin American (or "Ibero-American") and Spanish communities coming together". SamEV (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a related topic, is it suitable to have Gilberto Silva's picture in the infobox? I've never heard him referred to as a Brit, he's Brazilian by birth and he plays for Brazil, so I've removed his photo. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't reside in the UK, he shouldn't have been added. Also, I noticed you removed some people who are not British citizens. But our policy here has been to include people who are permanently established in the UK, regardless of citizenship. SamEV (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is resident in the UK as he plays for Arsenal, but I don't see how that makes him British. A policy that classifies someone as British (or any other nationality) solely on residency rather than citizenship is surely highly problematic. If we applied it widely, David Beckham would be American, Arsène Wenger would be British, and so on... Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to resolve this, per the Wikipolicies, not just for this article but for many others. We should peruse Template:Infobox ethnic group et al. I'll do that ASAP. SamEV (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry, from what I read, citizenship is no requirement for this infobox. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template explicitly lists this option: "This article covers the <GROUP> as an ethnic group, not <GROUP> meaning citizens of <COUNTRY>". How do you respond? SamEV (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, this criteria exists so that, say, Irish-Americans can be listed as Irish even if they are not citizens of Ireland. But people such as Gilberto are ethnically Brazilian as well as Brazilian citizens. I see that as further evidence that people such as Gilberto shouldn't be included here, unless you can make a case that he is ethnically British? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that. Anyway, I sense that our debating this between us won't be productive, so I cut to the chase and posted a request for help at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group#What about citizenship?. I hope we get lucky and one of them decides to reply (there's been no comment there in months). SamEV (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of an ethnic group, from that page: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits. Therefore I don't see how Gilberto is British on these grounds. Now, being British is not simply an ethnic identity - it is a civic identity as well - but seeing as he doesn't have citizenship I don't see how he can be termed British on those grounds either. Finally, we might describe him as British if he chose to do so himself, but I've never heard him do so and we'd need a reference for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about Gilberto, but about all those others who've made the UK their permanent home but are not yet citizens. Also, it's not about the label "ethnicity", but the label "Briton(s) with Latin American ancestry", and whether it applies to those non-citizen permanent residents. SamEV (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was only using Gilberto as an example. My wider point is that you need some grounds for defining who is a "Briton". These could be ethnic, civic, or because someone feels British, but I don't think residency should count, otherwise we'll categorise as British lots of people who would never call themselves British. For example, Clive James is listed as Australian despite living in the UK since 1961, presumably because he doesn't have British citizenship and still considers himself Australian. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point.
However, in the case of the US, at least, groups bearing the demonym "American" include both citizen and non-citizen residents. This is the Census Bureau's practice, and it is conventional at Wikipedia. See Hispanics in the United States, Asian American, German American, for example, and visit their Census Bureau referents. We must find out whether different rules should apply to the UK, as you're suggesting. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well the German American article starts with "German Americans are citizens of the United States of ethnic German ancestry". Hispanics in the United States is slightly different because the article title does not suggest that they are American, but rather "in the United States", so I can see how that could include non-citizens. Asian American is a bit more vague about who's included. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I got two out of three? But I repeat: All three include non-citizens, as they quote Census Bureau (CB) figures that do. (But first: The first sentence of Hispanics in the United States does call them American. But I agree that the present title allows people to draw the conclusion they don't really count as Americans like the other groups.) German American cites a figure of 50,764,352 from the CB. Their citizenship breakdown shows that of these 50,764,352, 263,290 are not U.S. citizens. As for the Asian American article: it is not as equivocal as you stated. The title has "American" in it, and the first sentence states that "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian ancestry." (My emphasis) It then cites the CB as its source for a figure of 15 million Asian Americans, whose citizenship breakdown, also from the CB, shows that 3,966,881 are not citizens. And just to be thorough, of the 44 million Hispanics and Latinos, 12,848,354 are not citizens. SamEV (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment at Talk:German American asking about the population figures there because there's obviously a discrepancy if the article is supposedly about citizens but the figure includes non-citizens. But other than using other articles as comparisons, all I can say is that residency is a very shaky thing to base being British on. For example, how long a period of residency is long enough? One year, two years, 10 years? And if we do, as I pointed out earlier, we'd classify lots of people as British who would never self-identify as such. The concept of "permanent residency" isn't very helpful because although we could use this for non-EU citizens with permanent immigration status in the UK, what about other Europeans who don't need to apply for residency to stay here? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Residency is not "the" criterion, but one of them. Now, though I think only permanent residents should be included, other editors may feel no need for such a limitation. And I made no mention of length of residency. Only that these people have attained legally recognized permanent resident status.
If, as I've explained (or tried, anyway), this title means 'British population with Latin American ancestry' (by analogy with how "American" is used in the sample I gave), there's no need for self-description as "British"; only proof that the person is a member of the British population.
"what about other Europeans who don't need to apply for residency to stay here?"
Since this is about people of Latin American origin, I'd rather we left the EU out of it. However, it seems trivial to me that a permanent resident is a permanent resident — meaning that an EU citizen who settles in the UK would meet that inclusion criterion automatically. SamEV (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that the EU might not be relevant here, but it is if we want consistency with other articles. If permanent residency becomes one of the ways someone can be considered a "Briton" then lots of EU citizens living in the UK are Britons, including, as I mentioned before, Arsène Wenger and Sven-Göran Eriksson, who it seems absurd to label as Britons.
However, I think the problem I have with your argument stems from you equating "Britons with Latin American ancestry" with "British population with Latin American ancestry". These are not the same thing because Briton does not equal a member of the British population. If you look at the British people article, it starts "British people, or Britons, are the native inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories". If the article title was called "British population with Latin American ancestry", then I'd be fine with including permanent residents, but as it stands this doesn't make sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...Arsène Wenger and Sven-Göran Eriksson..."
Yes, I too would prefer that people who live there merely for professional reasons (such as football players and coaches) not be included. As I said, this is not about Gilberto.
But it isn't my equation, Larry, it is, from what I've observed, and as I've explained already, Wikipedia's equation. Speaking generally about such phrases, then, 'X American' is also used in the sense of 'US resident of X ancestry', irrespectively of citizenship status. This is so in Korean American, Italian American, or in the previous examples I gave. It isn't my convention, Larry, but Wikipedia's. SamEV (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I sense we're not getting anywhere with this. I don't think it is Wikipedia's convention to do that - some articles do, some don't. Anyway, I'm away for a few days so this is my last edit here for a while. Hopefully this will get sorted out while I'm away. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think it is Wikipedia's convention to do that - some articles do, some don't."
Yet you failed to give even one example. Still, even if true that some articles do not, they'd only mark the exception to the rule. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some examples that use citizenship as part of the definition in the introduction: British Asian, British Indian, and Italian Briton. There seem to be a range of different definitions in use in the articles at Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. That's why I don't think we can say that there is an established convention. If non-citizens are to be included, wouldn't it be better to rename the article as per Americans in Britain, Australians in Britain and Canadians in the United Kingdom? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Larry, they contain the word "citizen" in the lead, but what about the rest of the article? Those statistics they give count, too. Convention is not judged solely based on the opening sentence: there's a whole article to consider. We already discussed other articles that begin by stating "citizens", but which turn out not to be exclusively about citizens, remember? What proof can you offer that the 2.5 million Asian British are all citizens? It's not at Statistics UK. Google turned up nothing. Where is it?
"If non-citizens are to be included, wouldn't it be better to rename the article as per Americans in Britain, Australians in Britain and Canadians in the United Kingdom?"
I don't think it would be. I see no problem with applying the local demonym to all the inhabitants of a country, regardless of citizenship status, per current - that's right - convention. SamEV (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the statistics contradict the definitions at the start of the articles. My point is not that citizenship is a convention, but that there isn't one. But, in my view, citizenship should be way we define who is British. As I already mentioned, to apply the local demonym to all the inhabitants of a country means calling foreign premiership footballers and football managers British, for example. It would also make retired Brits in Spain Spanish, the Pope Italian, Peter Mandleson Belgian, and so on. It also contradicts the definition of a Briton at British people as "the native inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom". One way round this would be to rename the article as I suggested, but you reject this. This debate is going nowhere though so I suggest we try to encourage more people to contribute. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry, I apologize: I had no idea that you'd replied already.
"My point is not that citizenship is a convention, but that there isn't one."
How do you figure that, when for every example we've looked at I either proved that it includes citizens as well as non-citizens, or you've been unable to prove that it's otherwise? In the absence of any significant examples of citizens-only articles (not even one, in fact), the existence of the convention is a clear fact.
"But, in my view, citizenship should be way we define who is British."
Then Larry, go to the appropriate policy pages and lobby for a change there. You can't just pick on one article or one group of people and demand that they be treated differently.
"As I already mentioned..."
Yes, you did. And I'll mention again the responses I gave: this isn't about transients; it's not about footballers, or about the Pope, or whoever else you wish to inject into the discussion.
"It also contradicts the definition of a Briton at British people as "the native inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom"."
Firstly, you can't use Wikipedia itself as a source, per Wikipedia policy. What matters are that article's sources. Secondly, the definition is complete OR. Thirdly, what matters are the sources the article employs, which I quote:
Compact Oxford Dictionary, Briton:
"a British person."[2]
The word "British", in turn, it defines as: "adjective relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom."[3]
Needless to say, Larry, Oxford passed the buck. It does not commit to any meaningful definition of either term, instead leaving them entirely open to personal interpretation.
Merriam Webster, British: "the people of Great Britain or the Commonwealth of Nations"[4]
Merriam Wester, Briton: "a native or subject of Great Britain; especially : englishman"[5]
"The people"? Does that mean 'the inhabitants'? All of them? Does "subject" mean that as well? Whose decision as to what that means: Yours? Mine? Someone else's? Wikipedia sure doesn't seem to want it. Thus, I think your guess is as good as mine, mine as good as yours, mate.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives its relevant definition of British as "The people of Great Britain."[6]
That again is vague. And I note that there's nothing about citizenship there. Most relevant of all to our discussion, its very first definition of "Briton" is: "A native or inhabitant of Great Britain."[7]
Now that's not open to interpretation, is it? SamEV (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a lot to respond to and as I said, I think we need other people to contribute. But a few points:

  • The statistics in the articles I suggested as examples might include non-citizens but the definitions given in the same articles do not. That's why I'm claiming there's no consensus - because even within the same articles, there is a contradiction. There may be consensus in the use of statistics, but not for the definition.
  • I'm not using British people as a source, merely suggesting that there should be consistency across Wikipedia.
  • I realise that it might appear that I'm picking on one article, but I edited it originally because I felt that it prominently featured people who were not British, such as Gilberto. I felt the need to correct this, and the discussion has continued from there.
  • You say that "this isn't about transients; it's not about footballers, or about the Pope, or whoever else you wish to inject into the discussion". My point is that we need an objective definition of who is British. It would help if you could state what you think the definition is/should be since I'm confused when you suggest that it's about residence, but then admit that you wouldn't include people such as footballers who are resident. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"That's why I'm claiming there's no consensus..."
You know, one glaring problem with your position, is this: What's your problem, then, if due to lack of consensus all kinds of definitions are, apparently, allowable? That would include this one. And as you can see, it has the support of several active editors. So why do you seek to impose your preference here?
"...because even within the same articles, there is a contradiction. There may be consensus in the use of statistics, but not for the definition."
And the contradictions redound to use of the more expansive definition by the article: the whole article. Why do you insist on giving more weight to the definition over the remainder of those articles, wherein they discuss all kinds of facts and figures involving citizens and non-citizens alike? If anything, the definitions are the odd ones, as they stand in such contrast to the rest of each of those articles.
"I'm not using British people as a source, merely suggesting that there should be consistency across Wikipedia."
So am I.
"I'm confused when you suggest that it's about residence, but then admit that you wouldn't include people such as footballers who are resident"
What's so confusing about it? Do most foreign footballers and coaches stay, make the UK their permanent home, just like the economic and political immigrants? I think not. Feel free to present evidence otherwise. But unlike you, I admit that's just MY personal opinion and I wouldn't much insist on it. But it's obvious that you've expanded your mini-crusade beyond the footballers to anyone who's not a citizen, and is thereby undeserving of being labelled "Briton", in your opinion. SamEV (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I accept that this isn't the place to discuss wider Wikipedia policy and that the debate has gone far beyond my initial concerns about footballers being included. I'm glad that we at least seem to be in agreement that footballers shouldn't be included. I'll just a make a reponse on the your comment, "Do most foreign footballers and coaches stay, make the UK their permanent home, just like the economic and political immigrants? I think not." There's a bit of a problem here in that we don't know which immigrants will end up staying in the UK, whether they be footballers or not. To assume that an economic or political migrant is going to stay in the UK is surely to fall foul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, is it not? Hence my argument that citizenship would be a more objective criteria but, as I say, I now accept that this is not the place to discuss that. A further problem is that, even if we agree that footballers should be excluded, they will still be included in the statistics because of the way the UK census collects data based on country of birth. By the way, I'm in no way claiming that anyone is "undeserving of being labelled 'Briton'". My concern was rather with how to define Britishness in an objective way. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I hope the policies and guidelines soon address this more usefully, though the lack of activity at the relevant pages is rather discouraging. SamEV (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In the meantime, some effort to try to find references for this article wouldn't go a miss. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the main source other than the census, here states that its figures are "guesstimates", which is a bit worrying! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to help. Not today, though, as I'm swamped.
Yes, too bad about the guesstimates. But it appears they're the best we've got, and since the source seems reputable enough, they should do for now. They should be described as "guesstimates", though, per the source itself. SamEV (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi, saw the note on WT:ETHNIC. I wish there were a cut 'n dried answer, but questions that revolve the issue of identity are almost always kinda messy—especially, of course, for large countries with significant populations of immigrants/migrant workers etc.. As far as stats go, we usually have no alternative other than to accept those generated by the government. Sometimes the government has an interest in manipulating or otherwise influencing those stats. Sometimes the stats are themselves based on fuzzy definitions. It's always a mess. So the mess in Wikipedia is not a function of Wikipedia's failure opr weakness; it is a function of the state of the world. As for British—the easiest thing to do is define them as the legal citizens of the land who additionally have reason to self-identify with another nation or land... That is not a perfect answer, but I am not sure that perfect answers are available.Ling.Nut (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Could you please expound on "legal citizens of the land who additionally have reason to self-identify with another nation or land"? SamEV (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Look, we're grasping for oil-coated straws if we try to nail down precisely who is or is not a "Briton with Latin American ancestry". No matter how you define it, you will end up making someone or other unhappy. Upon further reflection, I retract my earlier suggestion and offer a new one. Here's my suggestion, then: Remove all names from the article. If you wanna make a Category:Britons with Latin American ancestry and then tag each article individually, then may the sun shine on your face and may the wind be at your back as you pursue your golden dreams. In that case, if there are edit wars regarding the status of any individual, they will occur where they should occur: on the talk page of that individual's article. Moreover, I kinda suspect that such limited warfare is far less likely to occur than are wars on the umbrella page (here)... My further opinion, though, is that I actually hate all those categories such as Category:Eurasian people. I mean, holy cow, just look at all the category cruft on the bottom of the Jessica Alba article. [Alternatively, you could just look at Jessica Alba— a far more pleasant way to pass the time. ;-)]. I am starting to believe that all such categories add exactly zero-point-zero value to the encyclopedia, and actually exist as the outcome of some rather lame attempt for someone or other to get a feeling that they are somehow contributing. But I also believe that if I tried to WP:CfD those categories, the aforementioned folks would come out howling and swinging. So delete all the names and push all the cats through WP:CfD if you have the endurance for the screamfest; else follow the path of least resistance and merely delete the names from the article. Done talking. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't entirely solve the problem though, would it, because there is still the issue of the statistics, which include non-citizens, and we can't really change that. I increasingly think a move to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom would be the best solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, perhaps it is impossible to please everyone, but we can't shirk the responsibility to define this group, and removing the names and pictures is no substitute for that. And since this is the central article, this is the ideal place to decide that issue - well, it's the second most ideal place, after the Wikipedia policy pages, that is...
Larry, "Latin Americans in the United Kingdom" (wasn't that a previous title?) would be an assault on the Britishness of the very citizens you insist are the true Britons with Latin American ancestry.
I submit that the answer is 1) as ever, WP:NPOV: we cite every important definition, and 2) Wikipedia conven... er prevailing practices at Wikipedia (sorry, Larry. I almost wrote that word you hate). But doesn't the article adhere to both already? SamEV (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, I can see that "Latin Americans in the United Kingdom" is also problematic when you look at it like that. I have no problem with the word convention - see, I said it. Not sure what the convention for the name of such articles is though since there seems to be a mix: Britons with Latin American ancestry, Polish British, Americans in Britain, Canadians in the United Kingdom, Spanish migration to Britain, and so on. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply in the next section. This one is getting too long. SamEV (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Larry, of 122 pages and subcategories in Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, here's a full accounting and the forms of the titles of the articles and subcategories relating to ethnic groups (some are not; more below):

  • 24 are in the form 'X British' (including the general articles "White British" and "Black British")
  • 20 'British X' (including "British people")
  • 19 'X Briton(s)'
  • 1 'Briton(s) X' ("Britons with Latin American ancestry")
  • 6 'X in the UK'
  • 2 'X in Britain'
  • 10 + 3 (these three are categories) oldest groups: Cornish people, Welsh people, Gaels, Scottish people, English people, Ulster Scots people, Ulster-Scots (cat), Irish Traveller, Irish Travellers (cat), Scottish Travellers, Scottish Travellers (cat), Anglo-Irish, Gibraltarian people
  • 1 the "Anglo" article
  • 2 in the form 'Anglo-X people'
  • 15 in the form 'X migration to Britain'. These articles are not exactly about ethnic groups, but about a historic process (migration). I don't consider them appropriate substitutes for true ethnic group articles.
  • 12 groups with titles that do not refer to the UK, but which were included because they have sections about their communities in the UK, or whose inclusion seems entirely inappropriate or random: Albanians, Brazilian diaspora, Desi, Greeks, List of Jats, Malays in Egypt, Martha and eve, Persian people, Roma people, Somali people, South African diaspora, Tamil diaspora
  • 7 general articles on UK demographics and census: United Kingdom Census 2001, Demography of England, White Other (United Kingdom Census), Other ethnic group (United Kingdom Census), Immigrants to the United Kingdom, Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day), Census 2001 Ethnic Codes

So here we have 72 articles specifically about UK ethnic groups of what could be called more recent, immigrant origins (as opposed to the older British groups, or "indigenous British groups", as some might prefer; let's not make a federal case out of this terminology), with titles that refer to the UK, and 63 of them are in the form 'X British', or 'British X', or 'X Briton(s)'. Obviously, the inclusion of "British" or "Briton(s)" in the titles has overwhelming prevalence. SamEV (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the counting. In light of your comment about 'X migration to Britain' articles, it would probably be a good idea to re-word the opening sentence, which is about migration to Britain. Also, would Latin American Britons or British Latin Americans not be a better title since this seems is the only article with 'ancestry' form? Cordless Larry (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. Its original title was Latin American Briton. Then user Cop 663 changed it to Latin American migration to Britain (hence the opening sentence), to which I replied by renaming it to the present title, as a compromise. SamEV (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I think we should rule out British Latin American since that could be taken to mean Latin Americans of British ancestry (and indeed is already in use for that). Latin American British or Latin American Briton sound better to me. In the meantime, I'll also have a go at re-drafting the opening line. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Larry. As you can see, I've just moved it back to basically the original title.
As I said already, whatever we know of the data we present, we should say so: guesstimates, all residents included, citizens only, etc; whatever the case may be. If you want to write of how there are no consistent definitions for "Briton" and thus for "Latin American Briton", go ahead, too. SamEV (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template: British Latinos

[edit]

User Stevvvv4444 (Talk) created and is the sole author of the following Template:British Latinos (the OR tag is my addition): {{British Latinos}} I believe this is a completely OR template. Does anyone wish to comment at Template talk:British Latinos? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:British Latinos

[edit]

Template:British Latinos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — The Ogre (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

The articles Argentines in the United Kingdom, Brazilian British, Colombian British and Cuban British should all be merged into this one, as they are very short. Cop 663 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Cop. You were (almost) right to rename the article. But I think each subgroup should retain its own article. What's the harm? SamEV (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the harm in merging them? It might encourage collaboration among editors working on these articles, which are at present stubby. Cop 663 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth the risk? :->
But seriously, they're not all that stubby. But that's a judgment call that each of us has the right to make for himself. SamEV (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, I have helped create many of the articles in question, they contain a signifacant amount more of information than the Latin American article, which despite easily summarises the other ethnic groups, it takes away identity, the countries of Latin America have many similarities and many differences (i.e. ethnic groups - Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and Caucasians vary throughout country as well as language - the majority of Latin Americans actually speak Portuguese not Spanish, due to Brazil's large population). I agree with Cop 663, what harm is there in keeping Argentines in the United Kingdom, Brazilian British, Colombian British and Cuban British, they are certainly an improvement on just being contained in the Latin American article. Also the Wikiproject table at the top of this page states 'This article is part of WikiProject Latinos, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Latinos and Hispanics on Wikipedia', surely keeping the current articles as they are would help achieve this. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is that this page, Britons with Latin American ancestry, has nothing in it really, just a list of links to other (stubby) articles. If we merged those articles into this one (obviously keeping separate sections for each individual country), suddenly we'd actually have some content on this page. Just a thought. Cop 663 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There really isn't enough material in the individual country articles. My impression of living in Lambeth, where there is quite a large Latin American population, is that it really tends to be one community rather than lots of little ones based on exact national origins (though it might be good to have the input of a Latin American Briton here).Indisciplined (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if more information was found for this article, it would be find. There is no harm in keeping this article how it is, other ethnic groups in the UK have their own articles (Italians, Jamaicans etc), I suggest this, and the other Latin American articles remain as they are, as some are very different cultural wise. The main Latin American Briton article should remain, as should this (it could be compared to the Black British page and the Nigerian British page). Please consider keeping it as it will do no harm, and will help expand knowledge of the UK's ethnic communities. The Cuban Americans have an article, so why should the Cuban Britons not, it is a cultural as well as historical refrence, and needs to remain to be as it is. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.114.11 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have added enough noteworthy information on the Brazilian British article to allow it to stay, it is certainly an extremely important ethnic group in the UK, with over 60,000 Brazilians in London alone, and almost 150,000 in the UK as a whole. There are many articles representing smaller ethnic groups on Wikipedia which remain. The Brazilian British community really needs to be noticed, as it is a significant and growing one in the UK, just read the first paragraph on the article 'The fourth largest Brazilian diaspora on the planet!' Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merging template from the articles in question, because there seems to be more people opposed to merging than in favour of combining them. There seems to be little progress or reasoning behind merging them, and I believe it would be best to keep the articles as they are as they all contain relevant information that helps distinguish each community, as most other ethnic minority communities in the UK have been. Thank you. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total population in infobox

[edit]

My last edit was saved prematurely, as I was typing my edit summary. What I was writing is that I understand your point, 90.210.101.121. However, the figures have to add up. One says 76K South American immigrants; the other says 100K UK-born. That adds up to 176K, not 250K, or 500K. So change the other figures, preferably - certainly! - with sources. Then change the total to reflect that. SamEV (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main groups section wording

[edit]

The main groups section starts with "The Latin American category comprises...", which leave me wondering, according to who? The article already establishes that there is no Latin American category in the census. Can anyone suggest a better wording, because "category" sounds somewhat more official than what is subsequently described. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SamEV (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population estimates

[edit]

User:Stevvvv4444 has usefully provided a reference to an OECD spreadsheet that has data from the UK census for each country of birth. However, the data don't support the estimates in the article at all, so I'm not sure why it's being used as a reference. Actually, I think it's more reliable than any of the guesstimates that we currently have, so we should update the page accordingly. For example, the article states that there are 60,000-80,000 Chileans, but the reference says there are only 5,131. Obviously this doesn't include UK-born Chilean Britons, but I'm confused as to why Stevvvv4444 is using the spredsheet as a reference when it clearly doesn't support the estimate. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OECD is a very reliable source, so its data should *definitely* be included. But no reason to remove the guesstimate, which we already identified as such. We don't have to reconcile the discrepancies; just present what each source states. SamEV (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's just that as it stands, we have the OECD reference supporting the guesstimate. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You should correct that. SamEV (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have done. I've added the OECD figures for all of the groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I combined two sources to create a guestimate for population figures for each Latin American group. The OECD article gave how many people were born in each country in 2001. As for example 8% of people born in Latin America in 2001 were from Mexico, I used the 8% of the boundaries 700,000 to 1 million ethnic Latin Americans to find out how many Mexicans are currently likely to be reciding in the UK. When I estimated the number of Brazilians it came between 169,000 and 240,000. The official guesstimate of 200,000 is bang in the middle. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. There are two problems with this as far as I see it. One concerns methodology and the second concerns Wikipedia policy. Methodologically, it might not be the case that the proportions are the same for country of birth as they are for ancestry. Some groups may have higher birth rates, for example, or if they are newer to the UK may be more heavily represented in terms country of birth than they are in terms of ancestry because they haven't been in the UK as long as more established groups. The second problem stands regardless of whether your methodology is correct or not and concerns Wikipedia's policy on original research. The policy states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments". I think that this rules out coming up with your own estimates. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all of the estimates that appear to be original research, leaving the ones specifically mentioned in the Buchuck article. I've done the same at the individual group articles, such as Chilean Briton. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does nobody have a source for larger say Mexican and Chilean populations, I believe the previous esimates where much better, as when each individual Latin American British group's population is added together, it is around 500,000 people of the official combined estimate?!?!?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.100.13 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that there is nothing 'official' about the 700,000-1,000,000 estimate. It's from a source which readily admits that it's based on guesstimates. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Larry. There should be not extrapolation. SamEV (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 700,000 - 1,000,000 figure was a ludicrous estimate based on an unreliable source. There are slightly more than 85,000, but certainly not a million. The true figure will be around 200,000 - 250,000. I suggest that we remove this unreliable statistic immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.217.196 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that the estimates be removed. If you read the article that they come from, it states that they are guesstimates (which on its own raises questions for me) based on data from embassies, community centres and refugee groups. These organisations may all have incentives to over-estimate populations, for instance for funding purposes. I'm also unsure whether the article meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, Larry, and anonymous. The guesstimate is, if nothing else, more recent than the 2001 census. It's also clearly labelled as a guesstimate, so I doubt that a significant number of readers would be misled. And thirdly, do you really want to make Stevvvv cry? :( SamEV (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to make anyone cry but Wikipedia policy comes above not wanting to upset people. I just don't see how the estimates meet the reliability criteria. The author appears to be a singer and poet, which I don't think makes her "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask about this on the reliable sources noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commenter seems to support my and Stevvvv's stance. Nor do I know how else we could address your concerns. The guesstimate is even in italics and unbolded now. Do you propose any other solution than removing the info? SamEV (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I wouldn't exactly cry if people disagree with me, but I believe the guesstimates are the best we have, I don't believe they are overestimates in a modern Britain (and if it was changed to the Latin American birth place in 2001 - 85,000 - this would be 100 times more innacurate than the guesstimates), as even the Guardian states that the Latin American British population is one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the UK. It is certainly possible to have this many Latin American people in the UK (around 1% of the population). The website ce3rtainly isn't biased to making the Latin American British population look larger than it actually is, as Untold London has information on every ethnic group in the capital. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying. The advice at the reliable sources noticeboard is helpful, although I was hoping to get a more general and definitive view on whether guesstimates are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Perhaps we can just reword the text to be more in line with the suggestion there, i.e. "According to the Census there are...However, a historian, X, writing in Y, estimated that there are as many as...". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who commented on the reliable sources noticeboard is now suggesting that the estimate shouldn't be included in the infobox, only in the text. What are people's thoughts on this? Only one person has replied there, which isn't ideal. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since there's been no reply, I'm going with the view here and removing the estimate from the infobox. I'll leave it in the main text though. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Sienna Guillory 2008.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I know it proved controversial above, but I'm going to suggest moving the article to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom again. This would avoid the problem of the title being a neologism and also reflect the contents of the article better since not all Latin Americans in the UK are British. This also follows a recent trend of articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom being renamed in such a way. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that all of the nationality groups linked to from this article be merged here. The reasons for this are as follows:

  • The individual articles contain very little information (especially if unsourced material is excluded).
  • The summaries of the individual articles on this page often contain almost as much information as the articles themselves, but aren't referenced. Merging would keep all of the information in one place and would ensure it was all referenced.
  • Some of the groups might not be notable enough for their own articles, as demonstrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuelan British.
  • By merging the articles together, we can have one good article in place of several mediocre ones.

What do other people think? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: but weak. I don't see a big difference between redirects into sections in a large article and a lot of small articles - same content, just structured differently - but generally prefer the larger articles because they invite comparison and browsing: readers get interested in things they were not looking for but stumbled upon. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge: This is just another way of user Cordless Larry trying to get rid of as many ethnic group articles as possible and combine them in to one, fair enough that he has reasons for it such as lack of information within the articles, but I think it has recently been proven by the major improvements with Bolivians in the United Kingdom which is one of the smaller Latin American groups in the UK, there are also large numbers of Chileans, Argentines, Mexicans etc in the UK, and these articles should definately remain how they are, and could easily be improved. People are still in the process of improving these, which has already been discussed in a discussion a few months ago. There are significant differences between each group, particularly with the Hispanics and Lusitanics, and it is unreasonable to put all people in one group. Would you create an article with British people, Russians, Turks, Icelandic people and Spaniards and call it Europeans - No. The differences need to be established and the articles should remain how they are. If anything information from Latin Americans in the UK should be put in to the other articles. Some of which I have already stated to be worthy of staying (Bolivian British which has seen a lot of effort put into it as well as Brazilian British and some others). Please don't reply by saying that this discussion isn't about deleting the articles, because it is obvious that you would just like one article to cover them all. Please consider keeping all. If not keep the nationality articles and merge Latin Americans in the UK into them. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am trying to get rid of the individual articles in this case, yes, but not the information in them. I just feel that it would be better to have all of these groups (which aren't ethnic groups, by the way) together in one good article. I feel a bit insulted that you suggest the proposal "is just another way of user Cordless Larry trying to get rid of as many ethnic group articles as possible". This was actually suggested to me as a better option that deletion, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if any offence was created, but I still stand by the fact that these articles should stay. It is omportant to distinguish nationalities/ ethnicities with their own pages and there are considerably large amounts of article a lot, a lot worse and pointless across wikipedia (e.g. Jamaicans in Switzerland). Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge:All ethnic groups are notable and unique. They should have their own articles. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Argentines in the United Kingdom merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that Argentines in the United Kingdom be merged here, as suggested in the article's AfD. There is very little material in the article but what there is could usefully be included here under the Argentines heading. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RSN

[edit]

There's currently a discussion concerning this page on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gabbe (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British-born citizens

[edit]

I removed mention and depiction of British-born people. The article's focus is overwhelmingly on immigrants from Latin America. Those who are not immigrants don't *have* to be included just for the sake of including in some article. It does tremendous violence to their status as BRITONS to include them in this article, a fact that doesn't seem to bother some who've been quite active here.

Let the British born who are of Latin American ancestry go without an article for now. SamEV (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's a good idea. It's a problem with all of the "X in the United Kingdom" articles, however, and isn't unique to this one. A more general solution would be welcome, but I'm not sure what it would be. Perhaps one answer would be to rename the articles (again!) to something like Latin American migration to the United Kingdom or Migration from Latin America to the United Kingdom. That way, the title doesn't presuppose the identity of the people mentioned in quite the same way. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics page merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we merge Demographics of Latin Americans in the United Kingdom into the main Latin Americans in the United Kingdom article. The article both discuss the demographics of the Latin American community in the UK and I can't see much sense in having two articles doing that. The demographics article goes into more depth, but merging them would make for a better overall article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I did a quick merge altering the layout of the article etc, it makes more sense to be included in this article which was lacking information. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Moved

[edit]

I moved the article for these reasons:

1) the article states that UK-born people fall under its scope 2) it depicts UK-born people 3) it includes, in the infobox, the figures of "700,000 - 1,000,000+", and states that these are the "Est. number of Britons of Latin American origin"; i.e. not "Latin Americans" in the UK, but "Britons" 4) the sentence "According to the 2001 UK Census, at least 62,735 Latin Americans in the United Kingdom were born in their respective nations of origin." That means that most of the 700K-1M are UK-born 5) conclusion: the article is now mostly about UK-born people and should be titled accordingly. Even if not, the new title has the advantage that "Briton" can mean "resident of Britain", and "of Latin American origin" can be read in such a way as to not strictly imply that the person is a foreigner living in the UK; it can mean "of Latin American descent".

SamEV (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. While the article states that the 700,000-1,000,000 figure includes British people of Latin American origin, the source used doesn't say this. I'm also worried that most people will understand "Briton" to mean a British citizen, which is what is implied at Briton. I'm also aware that the previous title was also problematic, though. How about my suggestions above about something along the lines of "Latin American migration to the United Kingdom"? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out my first attempt at a reply and will try again. An article about migration is fine, but it's no substitute for an article about people. In fact, it's possible to have one of each for the same group. SamEV (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although I don't think we have enough reliable material for two articles in this case. I was thinking that a migration article could deal with people, given that the presence of British people of Latin American ancestry and Latin Americans in the UK is the result of that migration, and would also resolve the name issue. A further problem is that we don't really have any reliable sources on British people of Latin American ancestry (the best we have is articles that are a bit unspecific about whether they're including UK-born people or only migrants). I'm not sure that we can deduce that the majority of the supposed 1 million are British-born simply by subtracting the census figure, given that the argument seems to be that the census undercounted people born in Latin America. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The migration article doesn't resolve the basic problem, which is this: Per widespread practice at Wikipedia, it is OK to include foreigners living in UK as Britons on the basis of residence. However, the reverse is not true: it is not OK for Britons to be included as foreigners in the UK, their own country. That's what calling them "Latin Americans in the United Kingdom" does: it implies that they're foreigners. An article about migration would do the same.
So I'd rather we create a separate article for those who are UK-born. What's "enough reliable material"? If we have enough for one sentence then we have enough. It would be called a "stub", and those are allowed at Wikipedia.
I don't have a problem believing that there may have been an undercount. But of such a magnitude? I can perceive a 5% undercount as sort of normal. I'd even accept 50%, though I'd have serious questions about UK census-taking. But can you provide evidence that 100,000s of Latin American-born people were missed by the census? I.e. evidence that the undercount was several hundred percent! Because that is what it would take for most of the 700K-1M to not be British-born. SamEV (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article called Latin American migration to the United Kingdom would solve the problem because it would avoid the question of whether to refer to the people in the article as British, Latin American or both by not naming them in the title. It would not imply that they are foreign, but simply that the presence of Latin Americans in the UK and British people of Latin American ancestry is the result of historical and contemporary migration from Latin America. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of undercounting by the census, your argument relies on the 700,000-1,000,000 estimate being accurate. I doubt that because the source itself describes it as a "guesstimate". What we need is a more reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this title: "British population of Latin American origin"? SamEV (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would also avoid taking a stance on describing people as either British or Latin American and seems to be an inclusive enough term to incorporate both recent immigrants and British people with Latin American ancestry. I think I still prefer "Latin American migration to the United Kingdom" but I would be willing to accept this new suggestion if others think it's a good compromise. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of responses here, I've boldly moved the article to Latin American migration to the United Kingdom, per my rationale given above. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with that. I've just removed the images of native-born Britons and consider this matter resolved. SamEV (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population estimates, revisited

[edit]

With the new 2011 data providing a substantiated estimate of 186,500, there is no longer any reason to keep the "700,000 to 1,000,000" guesstimate, which has proven to be wildly inaccurate...and, frankly, the guesstimate should never have been included at all, as it was based on nothing credible whatsoever. One can talk about "rapidly-growing" populations, but the idea that the Latin American population in the UK ballooned from ~80,000 in 2001 to ~700,000 in 2008, as was implied above, is incredible. (When you consider the annual immigration figures, it would have meant that a full fifth of all immigrants to the UK were Latin Americans, which is not very plausible.) At any rate, we have real numbers now, and any and all statistics extrapolated from a poet/booster's made-up "guesstimates" need to go. 98.26.182.144 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park?

[edit]

"Hyde Park had the highest number of South Americans". How does a public park have the highest population of South Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.62.205.219 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latin American migration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Latin American migration to the United Kingdom. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Latin American migration to the United Kingdom. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglocentric Article

[edit]

What about the other parts of the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.164.11 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_American_migration_to_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1208105235"