Talk:Demographics of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Population figures

I have corrected the population figure for the UK. The article listed a 60,270,708 figure estimate for mid-2004. This figure circulates widely online, and I am not sure where it originates. Perhaps it comes from the CIA World Factbook, which is known for making many mistakes. The only credible source for UK population is the UK National Statistics. On 28 January 2005 the UK National Statistics released the UK population estimate for 1st July 2003 which I have put in the article instead of the 60,270,708 bogus figure. Population estimate for 1st July 2004 is not published yet. Hardouin 12:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See my response at User talk:Hardouin —Cantus…☎ 11:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is my response to him:
I am sorry to tell you that the figure given by the List of countries by population for the UK is utterly wrong. At the 2001 census the UK National Statistics realized that they had predicted a much higher population rate than happened in reality in the 1990s, and so all the population estimates they gave in the 1990s were over estimated. Obviously the US Census bureau still uses these estimates when making their calculations. After long research, the UK National Statistics published new estimates for all the years of the 1990s, and now they calculate their estimates using different methods, which is why they publish them so late (just now we have July 2003 estimates), but at least these new estimates are credible. Check their website for full details. The estimate for July 2003 is 59,553,800, whereas the US Census bureau projection for July 2005 is 60,441,457. If the US Census bureau were right, that would mean a population increase of 0.74% a year in the UK, ranking the UK along with booming Western countries like the US or Canada. Actually, the growth pattern of the UK population is typically European, i.e. extremely slow, not more than 0.2% a year at the moment, so the real figure in July 2005 will be closer to 59,800,000 in reality, or even below. The US Census Bureau projections are completely bogus here. Plus, personally I find it rather imperialistic to have the US Census Bureau decide what is right and what is wrong for the population of all the countries of the world !! At least for developped countries we should base our information at Wikipedia on data from the national statistical offices. Hardouin 12:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Raw data

I've moved some of this from the article until it can be written in properly -- Joolz 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Population growth rate

0.25% (2000 est.)

Birth rate

11.74 births/1,000 population (2003 est.)

Death rate

10.33 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)

Migration

Net migration rate

2.58 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2002 est.)

===Sex ratio at birth

• 1.02 male(s)/female (2002 est.)

under 15 years

• 1.02 male(s)/female (2002 est.)

15-64 years

• 0.99 male(s)/female (2002 est.)

65 years and over

• 0.84 male(s)/female (2002 est.)

total population

• 0.98 male(s)/female (2002 est.)

Infant mortality rate

5.13 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)

Life expectancy at birth

total population

• 78.05 years (2001 est.)

male

• 75.7 years (2001 est.)

female

• 80.4 years (2001 est.)

Total fertility rate

1.73 children born/woman (2003 est.)

Graphs

File:Ukdemographicsage.PNG

from ONS data

File:Ukdemographicscountry.PNG

ditto

...are always nice. How about these? Potentially others for population change over time etc. Mark Lewis 23:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a good idea! Is it possible to make the lines a little sharper though? -- Joolz 23:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Done Mark Lewis 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

jedi knight

Removing reference to this in the table, it has no official recognition and is little more than a joke entry. I realise that it has 'comedic' value to some people so it warrants its own wiki page, but including it with serious demographic data diminishes the credibility of the page.

I'm not sure it is for you or anyone to decide what is and isn't a religion, and you certainly shouldn't belittle any religion by saying it diminishes credibility. All religions are about as credible as each, they all believe in some form of magic.

Ethnicity breakdown

I am just interested in why it is that white ethnicity doesn't get it's own hyper-link/breakdown as the other groupings do. Surely at least some of the individuals who register this ethnicity (white) were not born in the UK. What proportion of the white population of the UK was actually *born* in the UK? Would Eastern Europeans, German/Polish immigrants, etc... be counted as white (or, rather, would they register themselves as white?).

How much of the white UK population is American/Canadian, etc...?

This would just be an interesting question (I'm sure that it would have political and social ramifications in our 'globalised hub').

yes, german, polish and eastern europeans are white, and they consider themselves as whites. Do you know that whites people in Canada, USA and Australia come from white europeans ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.90.135 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The White part of the ethnic breakdown would certainly benefit from subcategories to show how many are from elsewhere (especially the EU). The figures immediately prior to ethnic breakdown (country of origin) shows several million from the EU. LeapUK (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS statistics?

Why doesn't this article list numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS? All the other articles on demographics of European countries seem to list those statistics. --Grace 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Moser Report (1999) commissioned by the Secretary of State in June of 1998, states that illiteracy in this country is 20%. I think that the un-referenced figure of 99% literacy, needs reconsidering and replacing with 80% and an appropriate report siting. 129.67.71.25 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

White british?

That was the term used on the census form as far as I remember, with ethnic English, Welsh, Scots and Northen Irish all grouped into the same category. 77.96.241.169 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you nuts? Britian is very much a White country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.113.75 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Breakdown

I have my suspicions over the number of non-white Britons listed here - 3958,159. On the page British People it clearly states that there is over 10,000,000 non-white people living in Britain. The data on this page appears to be drawn from the 2001 census, and it can be assumed that the figure on the British People page is an estimate. However, if we are dealing in estimates, is it realistic that the non-white population of Britain has more than doubled in under seven years? Doubtful: It needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSDR (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it states on the British people page that there are ~50 million people identifying as "white British" and ~10 million people identifying as belonging British born of any race or ethnicity. Clearly there are considerable numbers of "white" people in the UK, who are "British born," but who do not consider themselves British. Many of these may be Irish, or Polish, or French etc. Or are you claiming that one needs to be British to be "white"? Alun (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I think many believe white = white british and others = non white, weird people...

Celtic languages

1.5 million speak scots! Absolute rubbish!

           Is it more ?  Is it less ?  What IS your point ?   Just curious...   RobinClay (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"Although Celtic languages are rarely spoken in Wales" What ? I work in Gwynedd around 75% of my public facing work is through the medium of Welsh !!

And what about the Church in Wales ? Disestablished don't you know ! Rowan Williams was the first Archbishop of Canterbury to come from outside the Church of England ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lleifior (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment in the introduction suggests the article's authors don't realise Welsh is a Celtic language. This is, to say the least, extremely odd. (And isn't Manx a Celtic language, too? If Cornish is listed, why not Manx?) --81.98.100.51 (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Literacy

This article blithely asserts, without a citation, that literacy is 99%. In that people can speak one language inaccurately, spell vaguely and punctuate barely, maybe they are. I'm sure the CIA ESTIMATES that like most Euro countries, we are completely literate. But to just say that every one is as literate enough to get an A in A-level English while submitting an exam with no elementary mistakes, which is a pretty bloodly low standard, is clearly complete rubbish. Manual labourers may not need to be literate, but it is quite wrong to say that they are when they are not, and to imply that the state education system is churning out bilingual novelists by the million because it is so wonderful.--79.72.178.25 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not keen on "The United Kingdom's extremely high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870" - as it says on List of countries by literacy rate, this figure is actually not based on collected data, but is an assumed figure: "In calculating the Human Development Index (HDI), a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for high-income countries that do not report adult literacy information." This should also be mentioned here. Saint|swithin 06:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Numeracy!

Age group	Population		%
	Male	Female
0–14	5,560,489	5,293,871	15.3
15–64	20,193,876	19,736,516	65.1
65+	4,027,721	5,458,235	19.6

OK top line > 10 million. Bottom line < 10 million. Top line > bottom line. But 19.6% > 15.3%. Therefore table is junk. Rich Farmbrough, 08:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Found the vandal... sigh. Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

The top Population Pyramid graph is also wrong. The Y-axis runs 0-4, 10-14, 20-24 - either the captions are wrong or alternate bars are missing. BioImages2000 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In search of a Population Datafile

I'm mainly on the Welsh Wikipedia, and I'm looking for a good, simple datafile of all UK towns and villages with population figures and maybe one or two other fields such as number in work, religion. I will then create stubs. Can you point me to such a database, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

English popuation

I want ask this if white british population is %85,6 of UK and english population is %83.6 of white british population(acording to cia factbook) (58 789 194 * (85.6 / 100)) * (83.6 / 100) = 42 070 487.9 (2001) English population is 42 070 487 42070487/ 58789194*100= 71,5615985 English population is %71,5 of UK population. Is it wrong? what's your opininon? cia factbook says %92 white which of%83.6 english but in wikipedia %85.6 white british %5 other white why cia factbook did not count other whites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.142.232 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity Needs Updating to 2011

The 2011 census has been available since July yet the ethnicity section shows figures from the 2001 census, way out of date. Twobells (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Only some basic information on population totals was published in July. The more detailed 2011 information, including ethnicity information, will be published over coming months. More details here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Population pyramid - incorrect scale? Missing data?

The population pyramid scale seems to be wrong. It progresses 0-4, 10-14, 20-24 etc. Has the 5-9, 15-19 etc. data been accidentally omitted or is the scale wrong, i.e. should it be 0-9, 10-19 etc. instead?

I apologise if I'm missing something and the pyramid is correct. Regardless, I would have no idea how to fix this so could someone else do it? Forfica (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a simple explanation, the axis of the graphic listing ages only includes the alternate age ranges all the way up.Tmol42 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Over estimation of population growth

The UK population increased by 3 million in 30 years (from 1972 to 2003) and then by 3 million again in just 8 years (2004 to 2012). Given that the latter was led by wars in Somalia, the collapse of Yugoslavia and the expansion of the EU, which are likely to be one off events (or more or less one off events), where/how/why is there any evidence that the population would grow as much as predicted in future years? Surely it would go back to the former slow levels of growth? 2.11.75.211 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Only uninformed people make predictions; informed people make projections, based on what has happened in the past, and official projections taking into account the 2011 census have not yet been produced. Most population increase comes from natural change (more births, fewer deaths) rather than inward migration. There are obviously great uncertainties as to the relative desirability of the UK as a place to live in the future, and whether that would lead to more or less inward migration, or more or less outward migration. The picture is very uncertain; the only certainty is that all predictions, and projections, will be proved wrong. There is a rough (albeit out of date) indication of the range of variability here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The UK's extremely high literacy rate

I am not endorsing the validity of the claim of 99% literacy, but this is clearly what was meant before someone decided to vandalise this article by substituting 'homosexuality' for 'literacy'. Hardastarboard (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You can sleep easy in the knowledge that according to the CIA 99% of all us Brits over 15 are able to read and write. That still leaves some 530,000 who cannot and far too many for the 21st century. I have added a cite from the CIA World Book.Tmol42 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes everything is relative. Rejoice in literacy for everyone and perhaps do not say 1% is far too many, after all they don't have a choice it is a crime not to send children to school. If they are breaking the law then we cannot be responsible for everyone. Or we could but then everyone would have to like Germany have ID cards I'd suggest and stiff penalties for illegal labour, not very British is it. But perhaps it should be. Shami was very interesting on that point the other day. A state cannot try to improve matters for people it does not wish to detect, nor when they do not wish to be detected, but perhaps they could be given a 'better society' these are difficult questions. - Adam37 Talk 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "..it is a crime not to send children to school" - not so, see Home education in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Piccies of Education (PEACOCK)

A word, if you don't mind? Education should not be lovingly displayed with pictures of the finest architecture of Scotland and England. Perhaps a more applied approach could be taken. I would have no qualms with the interior of the largest library picture and a typical D&T, engineering, construction, arts or sciences training picture instead.- Adam37 Talk 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

National Identity

Is there any data on National Identity? If so could this be included. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is for England and Wales - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-ethnicity.html#tab-Geographic-distribution-for-national-identity- but I don't know about Scotland or Northern Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm surprised that no-one has yet created National identity in the United Kingdom, given it was covered in the 2011 census. I'm not going to start an article (I find the ONS website utterly impenetrable and user-unfriendly) - but the information is there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The history section is all about what is useful to the state

It is aimed at the state's point of view. However, it would help to have more on what is useful to the public, and to historians, among others. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting rename

This article was moved to Demographics of the Unted Kingdom after having been listed as an "uncontroversial" move[1] at WP:RM without any notice on the article talk page or discussion anywhere. As discussed at WT:WikiProject UK geography#"Demography" being changed to "Demographics" as a section heading such a change is by no means uncontroversial and all editors discussing such changes there are in agreement that Demography is correct for UK articles. I have reverted per WP:BRD. NebY (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This makes no sense

How can we have a map that represents foreign population in thousands? For example 200 thousand foreigners in India would not even show anywhere, whereas 200 thousand in Namibia is 10% of the population. Secondly what language is this written in: "Due to question and response category differences in the country specific ethnic group question asked in the 2011 Censuses of the UK, some responses are not directly comparable, so a high level classification which is common to all census analyses was used by the ONS to standardize the composite data for the United Kingdom." ? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Demography of Birmingham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

LGBT

I have made a couple of changes to this section.

I have corrected the reference to figures from the 2011 Census to refer to the Integrated Household Survey (which was where the original reference correctly linked). I also reworded that part of the text to (hopefully) make clear that these were estimates based on a sample survey.

I have also restructured the section so that the first figures quoted are the IHS ones mentioned above. This is not because I have a particular interest in the IHS, but because these figures are more recent than the other figures quoted in that section, and that we have a reference to the initial source of the figures (while the 'government figure' also cited in that section is referenced only to a newspaper report which does not itself link to the original source). I have also added a comment based on, and referenced to, a report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I'm aware that the effect of the restructuring is to weaken the implication that the LGBT population makes up 5-6% of the population - this wasn't my intention.

(Finally, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so if I'm making any mistakes with how I'm doing things, please tell me !) Pl 1939 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Structure and Updating

It seems to me that this article has a couple of weaknesses as it stands. The first is that some of the figures quoted are out of date. The second is that it reads, to me, as a concatenation of unrelated sections rather than providing a coherent account of the topic. I plan to address the first point by adding more up-to-date figures where I can find them. Once that's done, I would also like to (cautiously) address the second point, but would welcome any thoughts or counsel before attempting that. Thanks. Pl 1939 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have updated figures in a few sections now. In updating the Projections figures it seemed to me that this would read better if the information was subsumed into the main Population and Age Structure sections - I hope that this is reasonably uncontroversial. However, it does link to another question I have with the article as it stands which is whether it could be criticised as a data repository. I have removed a table which set out the old projections figures (though we could add the figures back in as rows of the table in a reworked Population Change over Time table) but also have doubts over some of the other tables - in particular the Vital Statistics Table. On the one hand, that is exactly the sort of information I would have wanted in an old-style encyclopaedia: on the other, it seems to me more sensible just to provide links to where people can find the detailed data. Any thoughts? Pl 1939 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think parts of the article are probably in conflict with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It's understandable that there are quite a lot of statistics in a demography article, but there should be more of a balance of descriptive text and tables than there currently is. That vital statistics table is probably a good candidate for removal (it's also unclear what the source is, unless I've missed something). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Population update

I will be updating the mid-2013 population figures to mid-2014 which were published by ONS on 25 June 2015 'greensl7'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensl7 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Greensl7. It's good to have someone from the ONS contributing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demography of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129070446/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2010/aa2010final.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2010/aa2010final.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Live births in England and Wales by country of birth of mother and father

I propose to substantially trim this section down to about once sentence which states "73% of lives births in Englnad & Wales in 2014 were to British-born mothers." This sentence can probably go in the fertility rate section, rendering this section redundant. There's a couple of key reasons I propose this:

1. The information is not representative of the whole of the UK. Additional tables for Scotland and NI would be required, which brings me onto the next point.
2. This is far too detailed. Where possible prose should be used over tables and I think a simply summary of the percentage born to UK-born parents and perhaps a few of the key foreign-born countries will suffice.

See Demographics of Croatia and New Zealand as good examples, where the use of tables is limited to key statistics and graphics are more frequent. Jolly Ω Janner 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I am partially responsible for the data being posted here, due to my comments on 178.217.194.100's talk page. It would be good to track down equivalent data for Scotland and Northern Ireland, as I suggested there, but the level of detail in the table is a bit over-the-top (note WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Some information on the main regions of origin of foreign-born mothers and fathers might be worth retaining. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The tables are excessive and overwhelming, quite out of proportion to the rest of the article. As well as the problems mentioned above, the year-by-year figures are not helpful; there's little overall variation of any significance, but the poor reader who wonders why annual figures are presented has to struggle to discover that. NebY (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there seems to be agreement, are you happy to go ahead with this, Jolly? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done, the landing page for the source contained a nice summary page by the ONS which I have followed in our summary. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work, Jolly. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

population densities

The statement " Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world at 256 people per square kilometre, due to the particularly high population density in England." is not quite true as 1.9 billion people live in higher densities than the UK. See List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density Itullis (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the population densities in the opening paragraph has to be incorrect, if there are 5200 per sq km there has to be more than 2000 per sq mile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:4200:4F23:5195:55FA:EB79:AD13 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

current population estimates

Looks like a good article, to this first-time reader! Would like to see the major current population estimates moved into the table, right next to the latest older official census numbers. Also, please add graphs of change over time of total pop and the major sub-units.-71.174.183.90 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the population data ?

If you go to similar pages, for e.g. France or Germany, the population data is given year by year from 1900. THIS page only gives it every ten years, the years of the Censuses. RobinClay (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether that data exists for the UK, RobinClay. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

When I read this page a few months ago, vital statistics were tabled with data for every year since the start of the last century like the demographic wiki pages in most countries, I don´t know why someone took it off --Pgros (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article previously contained these statistics going back to 1960 (not the start of the century), but these were unsourced and were therefore removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

An IP editor keeps deleting references for population by country of birth data and adding unsourced data, as here. I've checked the 2013 data that is being added against the ONS estimates for that year, and it doesn't match. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this material and it shouldn't be reinstated without a source or discussion here first. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Demography of 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110509143114/http://cekern.ucdavis.edu:80/Custom_Program573/History_and_Lessons_of_Potato_Late_Blight.htm to http://cekern.ucdavis.edu/Custom_Program573/History_and_Lessons_of_Potato_Late_Blight.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823030816/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu:80/historyonline/irish_potato_famine.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/irish_potato_famine.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407081220/http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/censusresults/release2a/rel2A_NationalIdentity_detailed_Scotland.xls to http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/censusresults/release2a/rel2A_NationalIdentity_detailed_Scotland.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003010910/http://www.humana.org/Article.asp?TxtID=223&SubMenuItemID=183&MenuItemID=43 to http://www.humana.org/Article.asp?TxtID=223&SubMenuItemID=183&MenuItemID=43
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001010736/http://www.topuniversities.com:80/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/ to http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312034628/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo of George Monckton-Arundell's family

Removing this photo because it appears to have almost nothing to do with the demographics of the UK. Monckton-Arundell isn't mentioned anywhere in this article. And the demographics of the UK aren't mentioned anywhere in Monckton's own separate Wikipedia article. I hope it wasn't placed here as a depiction of a typical British family. That would be quire inaccurate, as the UK is now quite a diverse country in terms of ethnicity, nation of origin, etc. Monckton-Arundell was a nobleman married to another member of the nobility. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Genetic shifts vs quasi static genetics

How does one reconcile, in the article, references showing that 80% of the British ancestry unchanged over the last 12,000 years (which has valid references) vs purported extreme genetic changes due to migration from Anatolia and other parts of the Mediterranean over the same period, also backed up by valid references? (for example ) Pcauchy (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

We wait for reputable academic sources to discuss it, then we report what they say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing History - The Celts (pre) Roman Britain - Population.

Update required - Short section should be added before Roman Britain to include Britain's native Celts and pre-Roman/ Celtic migrations, culture/ heritage. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:340A:D62D:7A47:FE55 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)DD