Talk:Demographics of England

Same population under Julius Caesar as under William the Conqueror?

1 million both times? So there was practically no growth for more than a millennium? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Demography of England

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Demography of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BUA":

• From List of urban areas in the United Kingdom: "2011 Census – Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 1 July 2013. (needs a more direct citation)
• From Greater London Built-up Area: "2011 Census – Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
• From Tyneside: "2011 Census - Built-up areas". ONS. Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
• From England: "2011 Census – Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
• From South Hampshire: "2011 Census - Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
• From Leeds: "2011 Census - Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 5 July 2013.
• From Nottingham Urban Area: "2011 Census – Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 3 July 2013.
• From Greater Manchester Built-up Area: "2011 Census - Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 4 July 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Demography of Belfast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Misleading ethnicity table

There is a fundamental problem with the first table in the Ethncitiy section, which supposedly tabulates the White and Non-White populations of England & Wales in 1951, 1961, 1966, and 1968. The issue is that the White figures are derived solely by subtracting the Non-White from the total population, even though the Non-White numbers from the cited source - Colour & Citizenship p. 97 - are those from selected Commonwealth countries only, notwithstanding the fact that even these estimates seem on the low side compared to the actual Census data.

In 1951, for example, out of a total population of 43,757,888 (rounded to 43,758,00) 110,767 were born in India, 11,117 in Pakistan, and 5,816 in Ceylon. Given that the table attributes Non-White as 30,800 for India, 5,000 for Pakistan, and 5,800 for Ceylon, this would suggest that the 72% of those born in India were White, but only 55% of those born in Pakistan, and virtually none in Ceylon. It would suggest a starting total of around 86,000 White people born in India or Pakistan in 1951, declining to 70,000 in 1961, and then 68,600 in 1966. The rationale (Colour & Citiznship p. 94) is that in 1961 there were 76,000 people born in India and 6,000 in Pakistan who had British citizenship by birth or descent. In contrast, of those born in the West Indies, West Africa, and the Far East according to the Census, pretty much all are counted as Non-White in Colour & Ctizenship (100%, 100%, and 93% respectively).

Not included in the cited source table were 4,705 born in East Africa, and 3,314 in other parts of Africa. If we include them, the tabulated Non-White total would be around 82,520. The table also excludes South Africa and Southern Rhodesia - 27,437 and 1,690 respectively. Again, these are all Commonwealth countries only.

The next problem is that, in dealing with the majority of Commonwealth-born, there is no accounting for those born in non-Commonwealth countries, which includes:

China = 8,636

Iran = 1,776

Iraq = 1,715

Israel = 1,193

Japan = 1,411

Turkey = 3,337

Other countries in Asia = 14,407

Egypt = 12,180

Other non-Commonwealth Africa = 3,214

That's another 47,869, of which 28,113 were British by birth or descent, leaving 19,756 who weren't, so can reasonably be assumed to be Non-White, bbringing the overall total to approximately 102,275 or 37% more than the 74,500 claimed. That would make Non-White people 0.23% of the total population, not 0.17%. And, again, that's even when we accept the very likely undercounts for India and Pakistan, exclude South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, and ignore visitors from the Commonwealth, Colonies, and Foreign Countries. A proportionate split of the latter would yield around 4,440 Non-White visitors - another 0.01%, making 0.24%.

Finally, there is the very basic fact that the Non-White numbers are derived from birthplace data, and thus excludes Non-White offspring born in the UK.

Obviously I am mindful of WP:OR considerations, but I would suggest that it is wholly wrong to pretend that the source figures accurately reflect the total Non-White population in E&W in 1951, at least. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

1. It's totally reasonable to assume the majority of "Indians" (by birth but not necessarily nationality) in the UK were White, as a great many would be from colonial families who returned, whereas migration to the UK for native Indians was still difficult and rare.

2. Non-White offspring born in the UK would also be fairly negligible given that the Non-White population was so small and actively growing. ~2026-32260-16 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)