Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom

message: I've had to make ammendments to this - it seems to have been a bit hijacked by someone who has bought too much into simple 'constant variables' models of demographics. Predictions of White Minority are unlikely to come true this century, and our population being "replaced" is even more silly. The ethnic minority population will continue to rise as a proportion - by perhaps 2 - 3% per decade for the coming decades, although this is unlikely to continue beyond mid century due to declining birth rates amongst minority groups and a slow down in immigration. So from just over 8% minorities in 2001, maybe about 10.5% by 2011 and perhaps 20 - 25% by mid century. In any case the concept of "White British" is pretty dubious - many people defined as such have ancestry overseas, for instance Irish, Italian, German, Jewish etc.
===My response===
Perhaps you didn't read the references. I can recommend this one:  Immigration and ethnic change in low fertility countries - towards a new demographic transition. 2005 (PDF) 
“I've had to make ammendments to this - it seems to have been a bit hijacked by someone who has bought too much into simple 'constant variables' models of demographics.”
I did not “hijack” the section as you so emotively claim. If you read the above reference you will see that the model that I am using for these predictions (Version 2 for the UK) does not assume constant variables, but rather probablistic (the most likely) variables.
“Predictions of White Minority are unlikely to come true this century, and our population being "replaced" is even more silly.”
Allow me to quote the abstract verbatim: “Any population with sub-replacement fertility whose numbers are being maintained, or increased, by net immigration, is bound eventually to be replaced by a population of immigrant origin” This is a matter of common sense surely?
“The ethnic minority population will continue to rise as a proportion - by perhaps 2 - 3% per decade for the coming decades, although this is unlikely to continue beyond mid century due to declining birth rates amongst minority groups and a slow down in immigration. So from just over 8% minorities in 2001, maybe about 10.5% by 2011 and perhaps 20 - 25% by mid century.”  Do you have any sources for these assertions?  If so I would be grateful if you could direct me to them.  One model used by Coleman and Scherbov suggests that ethnic minorities will make up 35% of the population by mid-century, a percentage in line with predictions for most other Western European countries.
From your additions to the article:
"Firstly, since these predictions were made, (they were made in 2005) the white British birthrate has risen leading to higher natural population growth.”  The model used takes into account the increase in the white birthrate (with the TFR increasing from 1.66 to 1.85) “Secondly, ethnic minority population growth is likely to slow due to a decline in immigration from the peak years of the early 21st century,” the model takes this into account (relying on GAD predictions) “and through declining fertility amongst established immigrant groups” The model takes this into account.
“Assuming a constant white birth rate” No, it assumes an increase in white birthrate, which is why I wrote it.
There is a reason why the Demographic Transition section is the most referenced of the whole article.  It is because I expected it to be controversial.  I nonetheless feel it is factual. I feel that your amendments to it have decreased its accuracy.
I accept that the predictions may not come to fruition (if immigration is heavily constrained or ceases). They are nonetheless the most likely course of events.  As you have provided no demographic data/references to back up your amendments, I have reverted them.
Romper 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic Transition and Beyond

message: Perhaps you didn't read the references. I can recommend this one:  Immigration and ethnic change in low fertility countries - towards a new demographic transition. 2005 (PDF) 
“I've had to make ammendments to this - it seems to have been a bit hijacked by someone who has bought too much into simple 'constant variables' models of demographics.”
I did not “hijack” the section as you so emotively claim. If you read the above reference you will see that the model that I am using for these predictions (Version 2 for the UK) does not assume constant variables, but rather probablistic (the most likely) variables.
“Predictions of White Minority are unlikely to come true this century, and our population being "replaced" is even more silly.”
Allow me to quote the abstract verbatim: “Any population with sub-replacement fertility whose numbers are being maintained, or increased, by net immigration, is bound eventually to be replaced by a population of immigrant origin” This is a matter of common sense surely?
“The ethnic minority population will continue to rise as a proportion - by perhaps 2 - 3% per decade for the coming decades, although this is unlikely to continue beyond mid century due to declining birth rates amongst minority groups and a slow down in immigration. So from just over 8% minorities in 2001, maybe about 10.5% by 2011 and perhaps 20 - 25% by mid century.”  Do you have any sources for these assertions?  If so I would be grateful if you could direct me to them.  One model used by Coleman and Scherbov suggests that ethnic minorities will make up 35% of the population by mid-century, a percentage in line with predictions for most other Western European countries.
From your additions to the article:
"Firstly, since these predictions were made, (they were made in 2005) the white British birthrate has risen leading to higher natural population growth.”  The model used takes into account the increase in the white birthrate (with the TFR increasing from 1.66 to 1.85) “Secondly, ethnic minority population growth is likely to slow due to a decline in immigration from the peak years of the early 21st century,” the model takes this into account (relying on GAD predictions) “and through declining fertility amongst established immigrant groups” The model takes this into account.
“Assuming a constant white birth rate” No, it assumes an increase in white birthrate, which is why I wrote it.
There is a reason why the Demographic Transition section is the most referenced of the whole article.  It is because I expected it to be controversial.  I nonetheless feel it is factual. I feel that your amendments to it have decreased its accuracy.
I accept that the predictions may not come to fruition (if immigration is heavily constrained or ceases). They are nonetheless the most likely course of events.  As you have provided no demographic data/references to back up your amendments, I have reverted them.
Romper 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My response

message: Whilst I still maintain that the section represents the most likely outcome, I accept that there could be a need to temper it by pointing out that very radical changes to the variables would provide different outcomes.
Perhaps something like this may suffice:
Two majors driving factors  in this demographic transition are higher birthrates and different population age structures amongst minority groups when compared to the indigenous population.  The most important factor however is immigration.  The prediction envisaging a median date for whites being a minority of  2085 assumed a net immigration rate of 157,000 for 2005 (It actually turned out to be 185,000).  It assumes that net migration will fall to 147,000 per annum by 2050 and remain constant at that rate until in end of the Century.  This is similar to predictions by the UK Government’s Actuary Department.
Obviously these outcomes are not set in stone.  Should immigration (the only variable even nominally affected by government policy) be heavily constrained or even cease, then the third demographic transition would slow down or perhaps even eventually cease.  This outcome, however, is considered ‘a very unlikely one’.
Romper 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Second Thoughts

message: During the 2001 Census, the census forms for Northern Ireland had different ethnicity tick boxes to the other parts of the United Kingdom.  They only had one tick box category to relate to all whites (obviously being the “White” category).  This presents difficulties in breaking down the White group on a UK wide basis.  Official ONS publications therefore do not do so, thus presenting an inaccurate picture of the ethnic make up of the UK.  I had initially assigned all of the Whites of Northern Ireland to the “White British” category so that the UK wide data looked like this:
White British: 52,039,195 - 88.5%
White Other: 1,423,471 - 2.42% 
White Irish: - 691,232 - 1.2%
In retrospect this may have been a mistake as technically Northern Ireland is not a part of the island of Britain and therefore it could be argued that none of it’s population could be considered “White British”.  Moreover it could be politically contentious to categorise all of Northern Ireland’s Whites as British.  It could be equally politically contentious, however, to categorise them all as “White Irish”.  Thus I have gone with the only other option and assigned them the status of  “Other White”.  The UK wide data now looks like this: 
White British: 50,368,207- 85.67%
White Other: 3,094,459- 5.26% 
White Irish: - 691,232 - 1.2%
Romper 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Irish Whites

message: User 81.78.144.112 correctly points out that in the 2001 Census 37,000 people ticked the “Other White” category and wrote in Cornish.  The ONS, however, would merely have re-categorised these people as “White British” in the published Census figures.  Thus in order for the figures given in this Wikipedia article to be correct, either the “White British”  group needs to have its number reduced by 37,000, or the figure given for the Cornish group needs to be removed.  As Cornish was not an official Census category for ethnicity in 2001, I propose the latter course of action.
Romper 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'The Cornish were recognised by the government's ONS as an ethnic group on the 2001 Census - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes, code 06 - but they have been invisibilised in previous censuses. They are an indigenous national minority of the United Kingdom and possessors of a recognised minority language of these islands under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. If the UK government has made legal undertakings with the Council of Europe to take "resolute" action in support of this language, how on earth is it going to measure its compliance with international legal obligations with respect both to this language and to the people associated with it, if it does not include relevant tick boxes in forthcoming censuses ? - please see - Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box. 217.134.68.72 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In answer to the above, I believe that the 37,000 who identified as Cornish, first had to deny being British by crossing out the British option, then write in Cornish in the "others" box. You are correct that the ONS would have merely re-categorised these people as "White British" in the published Census figures. Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census 217.134.64.161 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Individuals who wished to list their ethnicity as Cornish in the 2001 census would have had to tick the Any other white background and write in Cornish.  This would have meant that they could not tick have ticked the box British under the section White. This could be construed requiring them to deny their British identitiy.  Persons who did so would be classified as White British in published census data. The above matter arose from someone adding the ethnic group Cornish (with an accompanying figure of 37,500) to the bottom of the figures given for the 2001 census.  This made the figures incorrect as the 37,500 people were effectively being listed twice, once as White British and once as Cornish.  As Cornish was not a published census category for ethnicity in 2001, the entry ‘Cornish’ was removed.Romper 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding the 37,000 figure but I'm going to remove it because there is no source provided. I've tried to find one online but the only places it seems to be mentioned are in petitions to have Cornish included in the 2011 census. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish People

message: The first sentence describes Britain as a multi-ethnic society with lots of ethnic groups, then goes on to describe ethnic minorities.
If it's an article about ethnic groups, why isn't the largest ethnic group - the english - mentioned either first or at all in the same way as the various minorities?
If it's an article about ethnic minorities, then why is it describing Britain as a multi-ethnic society made of groups? This implies that Britain is a multi-ethnic state along the lines of Malaysia, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. Britain is in fact a state with majority ethnic groupings in each constituent nation, and a range of mostly recently arrived minority groups.
This article is in danger of sounding like it's promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy of those who believe immigration is a good thing - by (mis)describing the country as a multi-ethnic state like Belgium, Bosnia, or Malaysia, it becomes it, because policies are made to serve needs that have been politically an socially engineered on the basis of false premisses informed by this kind of insidious misinformation.
87.113.75.231 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV & accuracy 

message: Well the very begining is a bit sus The United Kingdom is a multi-ethnic society, having a number of ethnic groups. The United Kingdom is a state, it is a political entity that has little relation to the ethnic groups that compose it. There is no such thing as a UK ethnic group. One might argue that there is such a thing as a British ethnic group, but this is not a political entity, and many non UK citizens may well claim membership. Alun 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think somebody pretty much lifted from here  some while back. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because the majority of Jews arrived 1885-1905.  And perhaps because their distinct religion prevented their assimilation. Whilst I too would not regard the Huguenots as an indigenous group it is pretty clear that they no longer constitute a separate ethnic group in the UK. I don’t think they should they be listed as an extant ethnic group in the article. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Huguenots were non-indigenous.  They were absorbed through gradual intermarriage.  British ethnic history is largley a story of large influxes of migrants from overseas that became assimilated.  The same is probably happening with the Black communities in the UK, given the very high levels of intermarriage there.  The assumptions drawn from the article has become skewed because it has only looked at imnmigration, rather that what happens to the descendants of those immigrants.  Those descendant rarely remain in existance as monolithic groups, but disperse over a period of generations, intermarry, and blur into the local population. This process often takes centuries.  The indiginous population is continually changed in nature (although often subtley) by that process, and never actually reamins fixed. That's been happening since the Ice Age, and will continue to happen in the future, as waves of immigration continue (as they always have).  The word 'indigenous population' is misleading, as the population has continually changed over time. Indigenous as of what point of time? 83.67.215.251 15:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I think a large Germanic contribution to the indigenous population is certainly a possibility  so I think we should stick with describing Britons as those present prior to the 12th Century. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Alun 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic bias

message: The use of the term "indigenous people" will strike many readers of this article as misleading or simply bizarre, since the term is typically reserved for peoples living in traditional ways that are highly tied to their land and climate. Also, as has been discussed above, the British population (I mean, the canonical groups of Scots, Welsh, Irish, and English) are the descedents of multiple waves of immigration, that were not indigenous at the time they arrived! I am stumped on a better term that is not a clunker like "Groups descended from inhabitants of Britain before the 15th century" or racially-charged/racist like "British of North European stock/heritage." Any ideas welcome. Zavtrakat 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The use of the term "indigenous people" will strike many readers of this article as misleading or simply bizarre" - why should it be? The Basques are more "indigenous" to their area, than the Maori are... simply by virtue of the length of time they've been there. --MacRusgail 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can never understand what leftists' opinions on this are... They claim that the romantic invasions/volk movements never happened, and therefore we are all descendended from the original stone age settlers whos' ethnic character or linguistic heritage is conveniently a complete unknown, having no links to modern Germanic or Celtic peoples. But then you hear them claiming that "we are all immigrants" and that we are descended from invading barbarians who replaced previous inhabitants! Which is it?? --86.135.126.195 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigineous People

message: For the following reasons -
* "British" is not an ethnicity.
* A number of Irish reside in the United Kingdom, because it has held onto 2/3 of the province of Ulster.
* The so called indigenous groups do not get much of a look-in in this article.
* No mention of Channel Islanders or Manx who migrate to England frequently.
* A distinction must be drawn between ethnic groups which have been here for a substantial amount of time, e.g. Jews, Romany and those who have arrived mostly in the 20th century.
* Are Jews an ethnic group or a religion? Certainly, the varied backgrounds of different Jews in the UK mean that they are ethnically different. An Italian Sephardi doesn't have much in common with a Lithuanian Ashkenazi. --MacRusgail 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The most important and significant cause of this was the passage of the British Nationalities Act 1948. By this act citizens of the Empire were allowed to migrate to the United Kingdom. Many people from parts of the then Empire arrived in Britain.
Complete Untrue. Citizens of the Empire ALWAYS had the right to settle in the UK, there was no barrier.  The 1948 Act does no such thing. As a result I'm deleting it. Indisciplined (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Nationalities Act 1948

message: Why is there no mention of Thai people living in the UK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.89.149 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British Thai People 

message: :Image:Brixton Tube 2006-04-22.jpg and :Image:Tesco metro manchester.jpg
Sorry, I don't see any direct relevance of the images to the article? TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially about the first one. So I removed it. SamEV (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both should probably go. I don't see how the Tesco one is any better than the first. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image relevance? 

message: The majority of the article at present is taken up by the country-of-birth population table. The problem with this is that country of birth and ethnicity aren't necessarily about the same thing. Many (all) countries are home to multiple ethnic groups, both "indigenous" and immigrant. The same goes for :Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. Any suggestions for how we deal with this issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, someone added the country-of-birth table to the foreign-born population of Great Britain, 2001 article, so I removed it from this one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity versus nationality and country of birth 

message: "In 2001 ... the total Black population was 1.2 million or 2.2% of the population" - I think whoever wrote this is confusing the statistic for England & Wales, where the black population of is indeed put at 2.2% , and that of the UK as a whole, in which the population is 2%  - or does someone else have different statistics?  Dom Kaos (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical confusion

message: There has been some comment above regarding the various ethnic groups that form what gets classified as 'white british' on the census forms. This information needs to be moved into the main article, which doesn't mention this at all. But I think we need to develop it here first:
===Anglo-saxon groups===
These are the Jutes, Angles and Saxons that invaded the south of England. Blond hair.
===Viking groups===
These are the vikings that invaded the north east of england. Blond hair also.
===Celtic groups===
This is the earlier population that was invaded by the germanic peoples. Red hair.
===Normans===
This is the french/norman population that invaded in 1066. Black hair.
===Racism===
There still exists some form of racism against the celtic and germanic groups. Red haired (celtic) people are often the subject of insult. And many jokes exist about people who are blond (anglo-saxon and viking). No such insults or jokes are normally directed to those with black hair, representing the ruling class of normans. Also, this norman class to this day own more land than any of the earlier ethnic groups to live in the UK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.8.183 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic groups of UK

message: There still exists some form of racism against the celtic and germanic groups. Red haired (celtic) people are often the subject of insult. And many jokes exist about people who are blond (anglo-saxon and viking). No such insults or jokes are normally directed to those with black hair, representing the ruling class of normans. Also, this norman class to this day own more land than any of the earlier ethnic groups to live in the UK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.8.183 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: The article states that "The 2001 UK Census classified ethnicity into several groups: White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Chinese and Other." Then in the next section says this "According to the 2001 Census, the ethnic composition of the United Kingdom was:White British, White (other), White Irish, Mixed race, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other Asian (non-Chinese), Black Caribbean, Black African, Black (others), Chinese, Other"
I know that English, Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish were also official ethnic categories decided for the 2001 census. Why are they not mentioned anywhere in the article? 109.152.82.175 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say you "know" is at variance with the information in the linked article on Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom, which states that: "There have been calls for the 2011 national census in England and Wales to include extra tick boxes so people can identify their ethnic group in category A as Welsh, English and Cornish (at present, the tick boxes only include British, Irish or any other)."  Reliable sources on this would be welcome.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being referred to I think are the self-declared descriptions of ethnicity that if written on the 2001 census return were interpreted manually and allocated to one or other of the officially accepted ethnic groups by the census team when returns were received. So they were not 'official categories' as you pointed out.Tmol42 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Group classification for 2001 census 

message: I have just deleted a newly created table on ethnic group populations. This table comprised what appears to be a synthesis of data from a variety of sources and as such it is inappropriate and miisleading to create a comparative analysis based presumably on a mixture of historic census estimates and forward looking mid-year projections derived via different sampling methods. There are no citations provided and it also contained data apparently from  the 2011 census which as it is yet to be published must be erroneous.Tmol42 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of  comparative data for ethnic group populations 

message: According both to the ONS spreadsheet cited and other ONS sources, the number previously cited here was inflated almost 10 times to above half a million! ONS state numerous times on their website that the number is more like 58,000. (Actual number now on the article).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkula (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gypsy/Traveller numbers

message: There has been a trend in page naming to move to pluralised titlings:
Pluralised titles currently include: 
British Cypriots, British Indo-Caribbean people, British Iraqis, British Moroccans, British Pakistanis and British Turks
Non pluralised titles currently include:
British Asian, British Bangladeshi, British Jamaican, British Nigerian, British Tamil, British Indian
Another route (that seemed to me to be suggested in the lead text of the British Tamil article) would be to use the format presented in :Category:British people by ethnic or national origin so as to present: "" which I think is less ambiguous.  An illustration of issues of a potential ambiguity of titling is arguably demonstrated in the navigation page: British Korean which presents a list of disambiguated topics with content as:
British Korean or Korean British may refer to:
*Koreans in the United Kingdom
*British people in North Korea
*British people in South Korea
*North Korea-United Kingdom relations
*South Korea-United Kingdom relations
*Eurasian (mixed ancestry) people of Korean and British descent
A similar format to the Koreans in the United Kingdom is adopted in Austrians in the United Kingdom, Brazilians in the United Kingdom, Canadians in the United Kingdom, Poles in the United Kingdom, Somalis in the United Kingdom, Sudanese in the United Kingdom 
In all these cases except for the last the plural is used.
In other nationalities a differently sequenced title format is followed as seen in the article titles Korean Americans, Korean Australians and Korean Canadians. 
As far as ethnic origins are concerned, within the context of Britain, a "British Asian" person is regarded as a "British person" with a British Asian ethnic background.   Out of context "British Asian" is ambiguous presenting nothing more than two adjectives in sequence.  However a title such as British Iraqis presents an adjective before a noun which, I think, would most naturally indicate that the people are Iraqis that, in some way, have British characteristics or a British ancestry.  In relation to guidance at WP:AT that "" the current situation immediately fails to unambiguously achieve the first part and, at the very least, it is also at risk of failing the second.  Even if we are only to consider :Category:Asian people of British descent we find plenty of content that could easily generate an article.  
There has to be a coherent and descriptive way forward and I think that in many if not all cases that the "" format (or something similar) would work.  GregKaye 09:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this issue, Greg. I agree that we can certainly do better than the current situation. That said, I wonder if we need to distinguish between well-established terms such as British Indian, British Pakistani and British Bangladeshi, and those terms that appear to have been made up for article-naming purposes such as British Moroccans? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you.  I think that the central difficulty here is that the only pluralisation of British (Brits) is not in common usage at least not in regard to descriptions of people.  My issues with terms like British Indian is that they were used in contexts such as on forms.  I don't think that they describe complete subjects and are, to me, akin to dictionary descriptions - and yet not.  I don't know if I have got my head around this yet but I think that these kind of terms are best hyphenated.  This issue was brought to my attention by  in a thread Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 17#Ethnic groups in the US in which category descriptions such as "African-American society" are proposed.  The question that I think is raised is, British-Indian/British Indian what?  Also phrasings like "British Indian" can appear in a range of contexts but not, that I have seen, on their own. GregKaye 00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with hyphenating them is that (from my reading of it), that doesn't reflect common usage in the UK. I think that it's the "Indian" that requires being make plural rather than "British", because for whatever reasons the latter tends to come first in British usage. I agree that "British Indian" sounds like an adjective in search of a noun, but I think "British Indians" works fine, and is certainly widely used in sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralisation of ethnic group titles perhaps as "British people of <x origin> descent" as per Categories 

message: Your page appears to focus on the subject of ethnicity in the UK almost exclusively focussing around the criterion of genetic determination. This is unscientific and highly selective to say the least. Completely inadequate. Ethnicity is understood by academic researchers according to a complex of different criteria. Your page requires substantial revision, accordingly. Also you are deleting my insistence on making the necessary "genetic" qualifications to sentences. Greengauge121 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific about the changes you would like to see, and any reliable sources you would like to see cited.  Much of the article deals with officially recognised categories of ethnic groups, as set out in the census.  A single reference to "genetic" research is all that is required in that case.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate criterion for definition of "ethnicity" 

message: Could anyone explain what happened to the data on the ONS website? For instance, where can I actually view the interactive ethnicity map?  And is there any data available for territories smaller than local authorities, like wards? --John A. Collins (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic groups in 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823153515/http://old.ethnos.co.uk/what_is_britishness_CRE.pdf to http://old.ethnos.co.uk/what_is_britishness_CRE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823153440/http://old.ethnos.co.uk/decline_of_britishness.pdf to http://old.ethnos.co.uk/decline_of_britishness.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reverted the addition of material on self-reported Cornish identity from the section on attitudes to multiculturalism several times. That section is about surveys of attitudes to multiculturalism and surveys of visible minorities' sense of national identities. The article should cover Cornish identity, but that section is not the right place for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That material covers how a sense of national identity differs between white and non-white people, whereas the material you are adding is just about how many people consider themselves to be Cornish. This belongs somewhere else in the article (perhaps in a new section on national minorities?). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see. Indeed, it does specifically talk about ethnic minority respondents in Wales and Scotland. My bad. I thought it was generally about national identity. Yes, I would be happy to introduce a new section when I have some time. Thank you. --KartvelianCelt (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've added the beginnings of a section at Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#National minorities. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornish identity 

message: Many of the newer ethnic groups in the UK are heavily concentrated in certain localities: often those previously occupied by earlier migrant groups.
Africans, Asians and Afro-Caribbeans tend to be found mainly in urban rather than rural areas. They are often concentrated in certain wards of towns and cities, either from their own choice or that of housing providers and employers. Consequently harsh policing and intolerant locals may be found in the countryside and genteel county towns more than in the inner cities.
South Asian communities in Britain often originate from only one region. For example, Leicester has a large Indian community who are mainly Hindus from Gujarat. Punjabi Sikhs have their own locations. Malayalis are most numerous in Newham and Croydon (both in London). The Pakistanis are mostly from Mirpur in Azad Kashmir. The Bengali Muslims are mainly from Sylhet in Bangladesh. However the South Asian graduate professionals seem have to come from all over those countries, unlike the working class. 
Due to the Empire and Commonwealth, the Chinese in Britain came mainly from Hong Kong and the Greeks and Turks used to come mainly from Cyprus.
Some communities are more dispersed: e.g. the Tamils, who are alleged to mostly come from one town in Sri Lanka. 
Certain nation-wide industries have high proportions of particular ethnicities: e.g. restaurants and takeaways for Chinese food (Hong Kong Chinese) and Indian food (Bangladeshis).
Less visible minorities may also be localised. The French are most numerous in London. Italians used to be numerous in Luton. 
Other European nationalities are also heavily represented: Polish is said to be the language with the second largest number of speakers in the UK. 
I don't have up-to-date figures for any of this, but they are often in the newspapers and it should be possible to find the statistics on-line. NRPanikker (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations of Ethnic Groups 

message: Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check date values in: |access-date= 

message: I thought we were going to talk about the Anglo-Saxons (English), Scots, Welsh, Irish, and others here, along with the more recent immigration of Indian, African, etc. ethnic groups. Myrnamyers (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses these groups to some extent, but could certainly be improved. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups?