Talk:Peruvians in the United Kingdom

Population figures

I've changed the population figures used in this article. For an explanation, please see the Latin American Britons talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Peru Earthquake Wiki

From the article:

"This [lack of Peruvian impact on British culture] is possibly down to the Peruvian community in the UK being relatively small, but also the lack of communication within what some Peruvians see a non-existant community. Opinions vary on the current situation of Peruvian relations within the UK, but many (particularly in the capital) seem to think that Peruvians in the city seem so divided. For example, after the 2007 Peru earthquake, instead of one group being created to help raise money for those affected, several charities sprung up across the city in aid of this. Although this could also be advantageous, it does again highlight the lack of communication between the Peruvian community. Also several organisations such as the Runnymede Trust have helped to promote certain Latin American communities in the UK, through providing knowledge on culture, history and demographics statistics, however there have yet to be any such major publications to be produced."

All of this is sourced only to the Peruvian Earthquake Wiki on Wikia, which as a wiki does not count as a reliable source (and even besides that, the thing about lack of a Peruvian community and the earthquake seems to come from the opinion of one woman in London). Is there some other source we can use to support this? If not I don't believe that it belongs in the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it all because it's clearly in violation of the reliable source policy. Also, statements such as "the Runnymede Trust have helped to promote certain Latin American communities in the UK" are nonsensical to anyone who knows anything about the Runnymede Trust. It doesn't "promote communities", whatever that might involve, it conducts research on, and supports, multiculturalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Stevvvv4444 has asked me for comments on the recent expansion of this article, so this is a list of my thoughts as and when I get the chance to review the article:

• I have a problem with the statement, "In general the Latin American population in the UK is thought to have seen a huge increase over recent years to number between 800,000 and 1 million (including those of ancestral descent)". Although the estimate cited is indeed much higher than the census figure, I don't think the reference supports the view that there has been "a huge increase" in the population of Latin Americans in the UK "over recent years". It could be that the census undercounted, or the estimate is too high, or both, but there are other explanations than a rapid increase in the Latin American population. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, already edited and reworded so no unsourced assumptions are made. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article includes the sentences: "There are also a select number of restaurants in the UK that serve specifically Peruvian cuisine, one notable example is Tito's in central London, which is a café ajoined by a formal restaurant. Some of these restaurants are amongst the only places in the country where Latin America's Inca Kola can be purchased". The reference supporting this is an entry for Tito's on a community website. All it feature is a picture and the restaurant's address. This seem to be nothing more than advertising to me, and does nothing to establish its notability or that it is one of the only places that sells Inca Kola (or indeed why this is worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia). I will remove the text now. If anyone has a good alternative reference then please feel free to make use of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I also have an issue with the ethnicity section. At the moment, it lists the composition of Peru's population by ethnicity, and then states that it is unknown what the breakdown for Peruvians in the UK is. So, in other words, it says nothing about the ethnicity of Peruvians in the UK. Is there any point in including this information then? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced by the ethnicity section either: what does it mean by 'the breakdown is not known'? Presumably it is 'known' in the sense that the information is there in the census waiting to be found. If it means no-one has searched the census for it I think we'd need a source to say that; if it means we couldn't find the information then I don't see that it belongs in the article. With this and Larry's comment in mind, I've removed the section from the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ethnicity is an important factor, especially for a country such as Peru, I know that the data doesn't show the exact breakdown of Peruvians in the UK, i was unable to find any such source, but surely it should be mentioned that Peru is a diverse region and not all emmigrants belong to the same ethnic group. Also I read somewhere that British Peruvians (Peruvians of British origin) decreased in numbers as many decided to return to the UK meaning there could be significant numbers of Peruvians in the UK actually of British origin. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be mentioned, providing that a source can be found. See WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the culture section is supported be a (mistitled) reference to a document about Colombians in the UK. Since this makes no mention of Peruvians, I don't see how it constitutes a suitable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. It would help support the 'similar to other Latin American' bit (though even then comparing it to just Colombians is fairly thin) but there's currently nothing at all to support the statement about Peruvians. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll remove the section then, since the second sentence is also unreferenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The population section states "In 2000 and 2001 respectively 117 and 105 Peruvians were granted British citizenship, whilst the 2002, 2003 and 2004 figures stood at 185, 175 and 180 respectively. Currently 2005 data is unavailable from the Home Office, although it is known that 130 and 220 Peruvians were granted British citizenship in 2006 and 2007 respectively". It is untrue that 2005 data is unavailable. It's all available on the Home Office wesbite, here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you have tried opening the 2005 link you will find that it doesn't work. If it does for you, feel free to retrieve data from it. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's funny - it works for me. The figure for 2005 is 230. Since we now have eight figures perhaps it'd be best to have a little table, something like:

Peruvian immigrants to the UK by year

Year	2000	2001	...
Number	117	105	...

Alternatively, we could give just the average and range for the period. Any thoughts? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented the table. I may also turn the data into a graph and see how that looks in the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the table's caption because the data is about Peruvians gaining citizenship, not the number of Peruvian immigrants arriving each year. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The history section states: "The exact history of Peruvian migration the UK is unknown". I presume that this simply means that the editor who added it does not know the migration history of Peruvians, and therefore that the sentence doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit summary that the figures don't seem to be directly comparable, but perhaps there's some way we can use the information anyway? While of course Great Britain != UK information on the demographics of the former should give at least a 'ball-park' approximation to the former. Can we include the information and make it clear which bit refers to which part of the UK, do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should perhaps replace it with a percentage of the Latin American total calculated from the OECD spreadsheet. Also, the original statement was wildly inaccurate. 4,066 is not "just under 5,000" when you consider that the numbers are relatively small. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. And I was confused by that 'just under 5,000' thing - at first I thought it must be talking about a second figure but I had no idea what. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, just under 5,000 was a little vague, but the percentage was taken from how you said above. How many significant figures do you deem appropriate. 2? 10? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the number of significant figures is the problem, so much as the fact that 4066 to any number of significant figures is not 5000. 'Just over 4000' would be clearer, I think. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peruvian 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/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
• 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

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) 16:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)