Talk:Latin American migration to the United Kingdom

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Desmondlost.PNG

message: User Stevvvv4444 (Talk) created and is the sole author of the following Template:British Latinos (the OR tag is my addition):
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)
thread_title:  Template: British Latinos 

message: 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)
thread_title: TfD nomination of [[:Template:British Latinos]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Total population in infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Main groups section wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh. You should correct that. SamEV (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have done. I've added the OECD figures for all of the groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I agree with you, Larry. There should be not extrapolation. SamEV (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm going to ask about this on the reliable sources noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population estimates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Sienna Guillory 2008.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Argentines in the United Kingdom merger proposal 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  British-born citizens 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics page merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population estimates, revisited 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Hyde Park? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Latin American migration to the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308132612/http://untoldlondon.org.uk/article/workers-liberators-and-exiles-latin-americans-london-1800 to http://www.untoldlondon.org.uk/article/workers-liberators-and-exiles-latin-americans-london-1800
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006142953/http://www.icar.webbler.co.uk/3794/research-directory/caught-in-the-crossfire-colombian-asylum-seekers-and-the-uk.html to http://www.icar.webbler.co.uk/3794/research-directory/caught-in-the-crossfire-colombian-asylum-seekers-and-the-uk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716110000/http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/WP0639-Torres.pdf to http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/WP0639-Torres.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719033333/http://www.untoldlondon.org.uk/article/crossing-borders-latin-american-exiles-london to http://www.untoldlondon.org.uk/article/crossing-borders-latin-american-exiles-london
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uDKJ2T9z?url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vvnKhoUi?url=http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population-by-country-of-birth-and-nationality-Oct08-Sep09.zip to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population-by-country-of-birth-and-nationality-Oct08-Sep09.zip
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095516/http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls to http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074532/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb699.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb699.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074625/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1000.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1000.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074623/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb901.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb901.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074559/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb602.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb602.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712074627/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb903.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb903.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135704/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb0704.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb0704.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135650/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0805.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0805.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135659/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0906.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0906.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324212128/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0807.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0807.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122085138/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0508.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0508.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) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723052659/http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/brazilians.pdf to http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/globalcities/reports/docs/brazilians.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110120728/http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=308 to http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=308
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705094115/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0909.pdf to http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0909.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) 23:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What about the other parts of the UK?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.164.11 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglocentric Article 

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