Talk:2000 United States Census

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

MLA chart[edit]

In our chart of languages here, which relies on the MLA website as a source, we combine French and French Creole. I have no opinion as to the validity of this, so I just wanted to point it out here.

I mention this because a reporter from the BBC doing a story about languages spoken in the US was confused by it. I added a note in the article about this, and wanted to ask here if we really think this is valid. I have no personal opinion.--Jimbo Wales 12:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does a page covering Census 2000 list something from another organization? I found a reference on the Census Bureau's website that has different percentages. See this table.--rmarquet

Why, indeed? If this is not Census data, it doesn't belong here. A link to some place which does contain it would be quite appropriate. For now, I'm going to stick a notice on the page and think about what to do with it or wait for someone else's ideas. Gene Nygaard 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The figures in our article don't seem to agree with those on the MLA website either. For example, we show 59.85% for Spanish or Spanish creole, but they have 64.5% for Spanish. The MLA website does claim to use the 2000 Census figures, and they seem reasonably close to the figures from the Census Bureau's website (but not identical). But I don't see any reason to mention the MLA in this article at all. How about we remove the existing text and MLA figures, briefly summarise the Census figures, and refer people to Language Spoken at Home (U.S. Census) for more detail? -- Avenue 11:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming addition[edit]

The capital of Wyoming is Cheyenne with a 2003 estimate of 501,242 citizens. It is located in south eastern Wyoming.

Why was this added under the discussion of nation-wide statistics?

Why was this page moved?[edit]

The correct name for this article is "2000 Census" or "United States 2000 Census". I believe "2000 census" (small "c") is incorrect - Marshman 03:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes it is true, I have seen them all

Was there any discussion as to moving this page? There must be thousands of pages linking to United States 2000 Census, which seems to be a far more accurate and descriptive title for this page rather than the current U.S. Census, 2000 which seems to be a far more cryptic shorthand description. If there was any issues with the previous title or if there was any discussion of the issue, where is it???? Not here! Alansohn 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The page was moved to make it consistent with many similar pages. For example, U.S. election pages, such as U.S. House election, 2000, U.S. Senate election, 2000, and U.S. presidential election, 2000. —Mark Adler (markles) 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This page should be moved to United States Census 2000 (no comma), as it officially called "Census 2000". — Reinyday, 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What redirects here[edit]

2000 United States census,United States 2000 census,Census 2000,United States 2000 Census,U.S. Census, 2000,2000 United States Census,2000 U.S. Census,2000 census (USA),U.S. Census of 2000,2000 U.S. census,United States census, 2000,2000 Census (US),United States Census (2000),2000 Census (United States),2000 Census (U.S.),2000 Census (USA),2000 census (US),US Census 2000,2000 US Census,United States Census 2000 and U.S. Census 2000

Just thought you ought to know... Rich Farmbrough, 19:14 1 November 2007 (GMT).

Question about ancestry and citizenship[edit]

Does anyone know in the 2000 census when data states for example There were so many people of a certain ancestry, whether or not citizens of other countries are counted in the data? I noticed that there is a question about one's citizenship status, and was just curious to find out if the figures provided are overall figures including everyone from a certain ancestry background or just some people. This is probably a stupid question but were census forms mailed to everyone no matter what their citizenship or legal status is or only say to permanent residents and citizens? Thanks! [unknown user]

<rant>I think the census bureau is afraid of alienating illegal aliens. They don't press too hard on questions about citizenship status.</rant>[unknown ranting user]
Every known mailing address in the US gets a census form; it's been that way for decades. Follow up attempts starts when after a reasonable amount of time an address doesn't return one. In addition, for 2000 anyone could go online and print a blank short form and certain public locations printed a few stacks of blank census short forms as well. As for ancestry and race, for a completed form, the census bureu takes the person who filled it at his or her word. Note that ancestry was only on the long form while race was on the short one, and for 2000, only 1/6th of the forms mailed out were the long ones. During the aftermath, the census bureu noticed a much higher response rate for the short forms than the long forms and so will make adjustments based in part on the reasoning of those who didn't fill out the long form. (News accounts at the time reported that the most common reason given for failure to return the long form was it's long length and the second most common personal offense taken at one or more questions for being too nosy.) Jon 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Errors in city estimates revealed by 2000 census[edit]

What would be a good way to mention the at times gross errors (underestimation) of populations of several cities from 1991-1999. An egregious example was for Indianapolis, which was underestimated by some 50,000 people by 1999, if the 2000 census count is anything to go by? These estimations were used for many policy decisions. In the case of Indianapolis, the Census bureau stated that city population was essentially unchanged for the entire decade. Dogface 04:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is the best location for that because this one is about the 2000 census, not the 1990s estimates and besides which underestatimation and overestimation is hardly unique to the 1990s, but has gone on for decades. They are after all estimates and not offical counts and so they'll always be errors in a free society. Jon 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex couples[edit]

The last sentence of this entry was removed as unsourced and contradictory: "However, only about 25% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are in shared-household partnerships at any one time, according to non-Census surveys.[1] For every same-sex couple tallied in the census, there could be six more homosexual un-partnered individuals who wouldn't be counted as gay."

It's not unsourced, it's just simple math that builds upon the urban.org survey statistic of how many homosexual men are in partnerships: 25%. If 25% is an accurate figure for the entire nation's gay male population (I could find no better source), then for every 8 gay men, 6 would not be counted as a member of a same-sex partnership in the Census. That makes 6 uncounted gay men in addition to each tallied male-male partnership. The same calculation for gay women yields only 3 uncounted single lesbians per lesbian partnership as their partnering habits are apparently 40%. I'm putting the deleted sentence back in but editing it to make it reflect both male and female numbers. Binksternet 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I would like to move the US census articles to improve their names. The reason stated above for using the current name, "United States Census, [YEAR]", is that it makes the names more like election articles. It is hard to see the virtue in that. It is unlikely to be searched for unless you happen to know what the article is called. The US articles are the only ones that use this format (note that the other countries use the comma in their election articles). Canada and some others use "[COUNTRY] [YEAR] Census", the UK uses "United Kingdom Census [YEAR]", and some others use "[COUNTRY] Census of [YEAR]" or "[COUNTRY] Census ([YEAR)". The Canadian version has on its side that more articles exist with that format than the others and that it includes the format most people would use in common speech: "[YEAR] Census". The UK has the benefit of being similar to the current version and of using the formulation used by the Census Bureau in its marketing since the run up to the 2000 Census. Finally, the "(YEAR)" version follows general MOS guidelines. -Rrius (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your proposal, except that solving the reader search problem could be accomplished with a redirect. At any rate, if enough redirects are pointing to the target information, it doesn't really matter what the actual article name is. Make it conform, if you like. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to have the actual article name be at least one of the most likely searches; it eases use of Wikipedia resources, among other things. Do you have any preference as to which format to use? -Rrius (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with your point, Rrius, that a better name is needed. I suggest [Year] [Country] Census, therefore: 2000 United States Census.—Markles 10:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposal to simply remove the comma from the title makes a lot of sense. The main advantage of this is that it's the title used by the census itself. Additionally, the format [COUNTRY][census][YEAR] is probably the most common usage. Anyone who uses the name of the country in its name will be using that as the primary distinguishing characteristic. It's also important to consider whether and when Census is a proper noun and capitalised. It would help to have some references for the name of these things, as that's what we should be using. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think individuals still use "1980 Census" and that "Census 2000" was part of the Bureau's marketing effort to increase response rates. In other words, it was a branding. It does have some common usage, though, and will probably increase in usage as we approach the next one. -Rrius (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the week ends with no change to the list below, I will probably move the page to United States Census 2000. I am reluctant to do so, however, because all three votes are weak support. I think part of the reason is that most of us realize the page should move, but do not have a clear preference for where to send it. To help solidify our opinions, let's talk priorities.

  • How important are the Wikipedia naming convention guidelines? They would suggest "2000 United States Census" or "United States Census (2000)".
  • Do we care what's most common in other countries? "United States 2002 Census" would be in line with more articles, but "United States Census 2000" would be close.
  • Does how we say it matter? Bearing in mind that this affects all Census articles, I think people say either "1980 Census" or "Census of 1980". That leads to "2000 United States Census", "United States 2000 Census", or "United States Census of 2000".
  • Does the Census Bureau's usage matter, despite being new? If so, "United States Census 2000" would be most appropriate.

Looking at this list, notwithstanding my vote below, I would be between "2000 United States Census" and "United States 2000 Census". Anyone else have thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of votes[edit]

Keep format as is: United States Census, 2000

Change to 2000 United States Census

Change to United States 2000 Census


Change to United States Census 2000

  • -Rrius (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) weak—I could go for any of the changes up here.
  • -weak support Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • -weak supportMarkles 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • -Neutral -Dr who1975 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter because redirect takes care of it

  •  
  •  

Add more here.

Conclusion[edit]

The was strong support for [YEAR] United States Census and weak support for United States [YEAR] Census and United States Census [YEAR]. There was no support of doing nothing. As such, I am moving the year-related Census articles to [YEAR] United States Census. -Rrius (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

When is the next census?[edit]

When is the next time they release a new Census on everything? How often do they do it is my question.. Smuckers It has to be good 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on the very first (and bolded) link to United States Census and find out. Also, note that talk pages are meant to discuss the article (issues, improvements, etc), and are not general discussion boards. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiracial[edit]

The 2000 cencus states that just 2.4% of Americans said that they were multiracial. This means two things.

1. The census is not worth a penny.

2. How sad it is to be multiracial and ignore it in the US.

Anyone knows that multiracial people, literally speaking, objectively speaking, are probably already a majority in the US. It is funny that they identify as black, Hispanic, white, and ignore the fact that most of them are in fact multiracial. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.0.63 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold Results[edit]

It seems every census result currently on Wikipedia between 1930-1990 (inclusive) includes the population numbers for each state, as well as the rank, while 1920 shows only the rank. Why aren't these numbers provided on this census' Wikipedia article, preferably in the same format? panth0r (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the 2000 Census page so not the right page for your question. However I noticed that the reference (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1921-02.pdf) on the 1920 page contains the population figures (in fact contains all the figures for 1860 through 1920). So feel free to add them to the article yourself and improve Wikipedia for everyone. Rmhermen (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant that the raw population results (like those from 1930-1990), should be added to the 2000 census page. Sorry for any confusion and I'll take a look at the page you suggested and add them after finding out how :-). panth0r (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just took a look at the document you suggested, and that appears to be from the 1920 census, so it seems my language was more confusing than I'd thought. What I meant was a chart, for example, like the following:
1990 U.S. State Population Rankings
Rank State Population
1 California 29,760,000
2 New York 17,990,000
3 Texas 16,987,000
4 Florida 12,938,000
5 Pennsylvania 11,882,000
6 Illinois 11,431,000
7 Ohio 10,847,000
8 Michigan 9,295,000
9 New Jersey 7,730,000
10 North Carolina 6,629,000
11 Georgia 6,478,000
12 Virginia 6,187,000
13 Massachusetts 6,016,000
14 Indiana 5,544,000
15 Missouri 5,117,000
16 Wisconsin 4,892,000
17 Tennessee 4,877,000
18 Washington 4,867,000
19 Maryland 4,781,000
20 Minnesota 4,375,099
21 Louisiana 4,220,000
22 Alabama 4,041,000
23 Kentucky 3,685,000
24 Arizona 3,685,000
25 South Carolina 3,487,000
26 Colorado 3,294,000
27 Connecticut 3,287,116
28 Oklahoma 3,146,000
29 Oregon 2,842,000
30 Iowa 2,777,000
31 Mississippi 2,573,000
32 Kansas 2,478,000
33 Arkansas 2,351,000
34 West Virginia 1,793,000
35 Utah 1,723,000
36 Nebraska 1,578,000
37 New Mexico 1,515,000
38 Maine 1,228,000
39 Nevada 1,202,000
40 New Hampshire 1,109,000
41 Hawaii 1,108,000
42 Idaho 1,007,000
43 Rhode Island 1,003,000
44 Montana 799,000
45 South Dakota 696,000
46 Delaware 666,000
47 North Dakota 639,000
x District of Columbia 607,000
48 Vermont 563,000
49 Alaska 550,000
50 Wyoming 454,000

For most years 1930-1990, it seems to be the main or only object on the page, yet it is unusually absent from 2000, and it probably should be added. In fact, when time allows, I'll be happy to post a version for 2000 on this talk page and someone more capable than me can subsequently place it on the page for 2000. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panth0r (talkcontribs) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

PNGs appear faulty[edit]

Neither of the PNG's would open in my browser, or download. I suspect they are corrupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.234.23 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).