Talk:Demography of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Religion total[edit]

I'm guessing that .07% or better yet .01% would be a more accurate number for Jedi. This way the total is 100.69 percent, which you can't have and there are more Jedi than Jews. Also, the list order is otherwise largest to smallest. I'm reluctant to change this as I don't have access to the data myself but I hope information that's clearly wrong doesn't stay up too long.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.208.206 (talkcontribs) .

The issue is that Jedi is not counted and published as a 'religion' statistic. I think they are included in 'no religion'. The actual figure is 0.7%, and there are more Jedi than Jews, Sikhs, and Buddhists. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Then the given statistic for "Jedi" is unreferenced and ought not to be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.221.102 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
But it is referenced, and relevant too. -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But if you look at the reference, it doesn't actually have any data to back it up. The footnote on the cited page looks eerily similar to the reference on this page. I'm going to pull it. Please comment here if you revert me. GnoworTalk2Medid wha? 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Luckily there is a choice of references for the 0.7% Jedi numbers:[1][2][3][4] -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornish[edit]

Why would people whose ethnicity was noted as Cornish be listed in 'white other'? Cornish are indigenous to Britain and the Cornish are a British ethnic group. 'White British' surely is any indigenous person in Great Britain of Great Britain, whether they're Scottish, Welsh, English, Cornish or Yorkshireman. I believe that the article is incorrect to distinguish Cornish as 'white other'. Being Cornish does not mean that one cannot also identify as English and certainly not British Enzedbrit 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'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 and Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census 217.134.69.116 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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.217.134.64.161 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

I'm gonna rename this article to "Demographics of England". I think it's better so that we wont have to limit the info to 2001 Census...Lukas19 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Marital status[edit]

Does the census measure divorce, etc?

Removal of POV census material[edit]

Removed POV census material as external limks.

Other material removed that refers to the 'fight for this' etc etc. Very POV.

Removed 'comparison with other countries'. No reference for this was cited, and within it there are a number of assumptions that cannot be clarified without reference. Who is 'indigenous', and is this defined equivalently in each country? It seems perhaps not - for example Swedes are apparently non-indigenous in Finland, according to the note, but white Scots are counted as indigenous to England. (This aside from more thorny issues of babies born to Swedish parents in Finland, and who 'other whites' are that may be classified as indigenous in the uk)

Date of the data[edit]

Presumably this is all from the 2001 Census? Can we have appropriate refs added? Paulbrock 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

map about population[edit]

In this page and in England page, the image Image:England counties population.png is included. My concern is that if extensive data (in that case the total population of a county) instead of an intensive data (like the density of population), the data is strongly influence of how big the counties are . Not surprisingly all the points in the map that are the lighter are in small counties. Then take a county that is very dark, an suppose that (for any reasons, it is just an academic intellectual experiment) tomorrow that county is divided into 100 new counties. How should the map be update? One counties very dark will became 100 counties very light. If we do not consider the borders of the counties an area of the map has became from very dark to very light, without any change in the population.

A map made this way can be useful, in my opinion, next to a table (or list) of all counties ordered by total population. But this is a thing related to the administrative subdivision of England into counties, and it is not about the population distribution.

For an analysis of the population distribution a map that display the distribution would be better. However here a new problem arise. If the density is given by one value for each county (for each county the total_county_population/total_county_area) the map will display the same value for each whole county, while the real population density could be different among carious areas in the county.

This are just my 2 cents, from someone who is not at all an expert in the filed of Demography -- AnyFile 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

129.67.70.53 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)** That map is not the ceremonial (ie pre-1974) counties - Cumbria is there for a starter. I guess it's the modern boundaries, but haven't checked.

Merge with Population of England[edit]

This obvious merge was suggested over two years ago on the Population of England talk page. It has gone uncontested for that period of time, but no one has bothered to complete the merge.

Neelix (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding to what has already been said about the population map, might I suggest that it is a little misleading as the population of the United Kingdom is in excess of 60million yet counties are only labelled as having 2000+ people living in them. I would suggest that there are very few counties in the UK with anywhere near 2000 people living in them and that most counties must have populations in the order of 100,000s and millions of people rather than mere thousands.

I.E. improvement on map needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.229.211 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ceremonial Counties of England, colour-coded by population.PNG[edit]

The image File:Ceremonial Counties of England, colour-coded by population.PNG 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. --12:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Future[edit]

I have removed the section titled 'Future', for the following reasons. The data is from a tabloid newspaper, one that deliberately inflames public opinion by exaggerating figures, such as that. No credible alternative source is available for those figures.

The main point, however, is that it outlines a future that does not take into account the 10% 'Unrecorded', making it flawed under wikipedia's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeroAxis (talkcontribs) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1350-1700[edit]

Where do the numbers for the years 1350 to 1700 come from? They seem to be just made up by taking 2/3 of the level of 1348 and then...? More importantly they are at odds (generally too high) with usually accepted numbers, such as those found in the classic study by Wringley and Schofield [5] (book on Google Books [6]). Or maybe the diff is between England and England+Wales+Scotland?radek (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1350 is a bizarre point to cite. The first reliable benchmark after the Black Death would be c. 1377. 96.241.155.5 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 UK census ethnic groups[edit]

I have once again reverted an IP who chooses to change headings of the table despite pointing out that these are the headings used in the Census and reported by the cite. Repeated requests to come and discuss here have been ignored. Tmol42 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Population in 100 BCE?[edit]

The current figure is far, far, far from typical for Iron Age Europe. 1,500,000 is more than 10/km2! 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is maybe not but it is cited as coming from Francis Prior's book, so suggest you find and bring here an equally weighty academic's work which supports your counter-view and enables it to be properly considered.Tmol42 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lies dam lies and statistics and simple maths[edit]

I came to this page because of a discussion on Talk:English people where I enquired where the figure 42,279,236 came from.

Looking at that figure I realised that AFAICT it is figure that has been derived by a Wikipedia editor and not from a British Government source (as has for example the number for the total 53,012,456) yet to look at the page it seems as if it is accurate to the person. This can not be so because the number is a percentage given to the only one decimal place of accuracy. I have put the figures provided in the given source "2011 Census: KS201EW Ethnic group: local authorities in England" into a spread sheet and run some numbers.

As the percentage is given 79.8% this is open to a margin of error between 79.75–79.84999999 or in numbers between 42,277,434–42,329,916 (diff of 52,482), Or put another way the number is on average only likely to be accurate to about nearest 25,000 people not to the nearest person. So the numbers as presented are highly misleading as there is no indication that the numbers are derived from a reliable sources and are not copied from that source.

Taking the the various measurements give the following totals:

  • 42,303,939.888 derived from 53,012,456 and 79.8%
  • 42,284,218.773 by region, difference 19721.115
  • 42,281,505.597 by county, difference 22434.291
  • 42,278,828.891 by bough, difference 25110.997

To explain this in more detail. If one looks at the first region in "2011 Census: KS201EW Ethnic group: local authorities in England". The data is given for the North East of England.

Region County District Totals Percent White British Total Region Total county Total district Notes
E12000001 NORTH EAST 2,596,886 93.6 2430685.296
E06000047 County Durham UA 513,242 96.6 495791.772 495791.772
E06000005 Darlington UA 105,564 93.7 98913.468 98913.468
E06000001 Hartlepool UA 92,028 96.6 88899.048 88899.048
E06000002 Middlesbrough UA 138,412 86.1 119172.732 119172.732
E06000048 Northumberland UA 316,028 97.2 307179.216 307179.216
E06000003 Redcar and Cleveland UA 135,177 97.6 131932.752 131932.752
E06000004 Stockton-on-Tees UA 191,610 93.4 178963.74 178963.74
E11000004 Tyne and Wear (Met County) 1,104,825 91.5 1010914.875 Districts sum to 1010876.553 a difference of 38.322
E08000020 Gateshead 200,214 94.1 188401.374
E08000021 Newcastle upon Tyne 280,177 81.9 229464.963
E08000022 North Tyneside 200,801 95.1 190961.751
E08000023 South Tyneside 148,127 95.1 140868.777
E08000024 Sunderland 275,506 94.8 261179.688
Totals 2430685.296 2431767.603 2431729.281 a difference of -1082.307 and -1043.985

The North East region is a useful example because compared to some of the others it is quite small. My derived figures have a coloured background and italic numbering. The derived calculated totals for county and district vary by about 1000 from the calculated total figure.

The point of all this is that I think that the different types of figures that appear in this Wikipedia article MUST clear show if they are taken directly from a reliable source or are derived figures and a footnote MUST be given clearly indicating and explaining what the margin of error is for any and all derived figures.

Because of these differences in calculating the totals, without changes similar to the one I am suggesting, I think this article is in breach of WP:OR (see WP:CALC) and so I am going to add the {{Original research}} to the top of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The counts for 2011 given in Demography of England#Ethnicity are in accord with the counts on the KS201EW_Numbers tab of 2011 Census: KS201EW Ethnic group: local authorities in England. Your calculations above appear to be an attempt to work out the absolute values from the percentages given on the KS201EW_Percentages tab, which - as you've demonstrated - is bound to give poor results. That's why the article is using the actual values on the KS201EW_Numbers tab instead. NebY (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are because that is the source that is given for the numbers at the bottom of the table. If another source is being used then that should be clearly indicated with inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It's the same source, the one that is already indicated at the end of the Demography of England#Ethnicity section. You and I are merely looking at different parts of it. 2011 Census: KS201EW Ethnic group: local authorities in England has five tabs: Information, KS201EW_Numbers, KS201EW_Percentages, KS201EW_Ranks and Metadata. The numbers in the article are taken from the KS201EW_Numbers tab. Your figures above are taken from the KS201EW_Percentages tab. As the percentages on that tab are rounded to one decimal place, you get poor results when you try to obtain absolute values from them, but if you look at the KS201EW_Numbers tab instead then you will see a perfect fit. NebY (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)

Where's the rest of the data ?[edit]

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) 13:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demography of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)