Talk:Demographics of the United States
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demographics of the United States article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 A very poor understanding of numbers
- 2 Please correct: Race and ethnicity
- 3 Sikhs are HIndus?
- 4 To do:
- 5 a few fixes
- 6 Appropriate?
- 7 Needs Update
- 8 Just plain wrong
- 9 "Undocumented" vs "illegal"
- 10 More specific ethnic origins
- 11 A source that has population data while the shut down is in effect
- 12 Median household income
- 13 Article needs reorganization and rewrite
- 14 Copyright problem removed
- 15 Density of Orange County - Vermont
- 16 Why does the 2012 birth rate... table has mixed race people at 9.11% of the population?
- 17 In the news
- 18 It is very urbanized ?
- 19 Immigration table made accessible but not pretty
- 20 Sidebar Age Demographic
A very poor understanding of numbers
The article stated that the population "more than tripled" in the 20th century, while the factor of multiplication, (281/76= 3.7) is far closer to four than to three. Therefor, I changed the wording to "almost four". Also, rounding rules would make it four. Put in another way, in absolute numbers: three times 76m is 228m and four times is 294m. The number of 281m is just 13m away from the factor four number, as opposed to 53m from the factor three number. So, we could say 281m is four times closer to 294m than to 228m, 53m/13m, where m=million.
Please correct: Race and ethnicity
To many Asians in US today! No offense!
|Race / Ethnicity||Number||Percentage of
It could be also supplemented,like here:
White population of U.S:
Sikhs are HIndus?
Why are Sikhs considered a subgroup of Hindus?
There are strong links between Sikhism and Hinduism, but also with Sufi Islam and others...
I'm not sure this is an appropriate NPOV categorization, and the original data from the US government does not seem to reflect it, because of what has happened in the early years; the lives of many have been taken and an increase in births has occured;and there is about 6.5% of humans that have come into this world.
a few fixes
I edited the article to fix a few capitalization errors and to make the Non-hispanic White population numbers more obvious.~Dark357g
Wouldn't this article be appropriate in the External Links section?
I believe Phoenix has passed Philadelphia in population.
This article contradicts what National Geographic says about where most of the US population lives in regards to the ocean. Here's the site: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/14/gk2/seascare.html
What's the deal with that?
Just plain wrong
The very first sentence of the article reads: "The United States has a total resident population of 308,838,000." That's nonsense. According to http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html, the population stands, as of 20:25 UTC (EST+5) Mar 10, 2010 (3:25pm EST), at 398,841,456. Unfree (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- According to that same site, the population stands at 308,843,030. Close enough. Make sure you read the footnote for that first sentence. SamEV (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- ??? 398,841,456 ??? Certainly not! That's "just plain wrong". 22.214.171.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"Undocumented" vs "illegal"
We are supposed to avoid euphemisms in our articles. I was wondering why the word "undocumented" was substituted for "illegal." I agree that the "undocumented" person has not had his/her day in court yet. But would you describe (say) x "unsolved murders" annually instead as "x unsolved suspicious deaths?" Or "x unsolved burglaries" as "x unsolved missing items from a locked household." Just wondered how far this would stretch! :) I do appreciate that "undocumented" sounds more "objective," but not sure that level of objectivity is warranted in this case. Were we discussing a particular court case, I would agree that "John Alien apparently undocumented is being accused of illegal entry." But we aren't discussing a specific living person here but a category. Student7 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, one thing is for sure. There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". Immigration is a legal process and "immigrant" is a legal status that must be applied for and received. People will yell and hand-wave about that, but all they have to do is read the law. That the census refuses to identify aliens not legally resident (either having entered illegally or entered legally and allowed their visas to expire), they have intentionally so muddied the waters as to make all statements about "residents" misleading. There is only one line on the entire page that quotes 1 newspaper's estimate of the number of so-called "illegal immigrants" at 10 million. In fact, most estimates range from 12 to 20 million and that severely compromises all statements about total population, citizen populations, and resident populations far more than need be and, since 70-80% of those illegals are Latino or Hispanic, especially so when it comes to cities heavily laden with such illegals. The page contributors seem obsessed with the Latino/Hispanic issue and some distorted sense of political correctness to the exclusion of much more fundamental statistics such as number of single adults vs. married adults. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... The article does not currently use the word "undocumented". The term "illegal immigrant" is used once, in a sentence supported by a cited source which uses that term. I see that DHS/ICE has used the term "illegal immigrant" (see Illegal immigrant who obtained driver's license and passport under another's identity sentenced to prison DHS/ICE News Release, July 24, 2009), and has also used the term "unauthorized immigrant" (See Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 2010) and the Congressional Research Service has used the term "unauthorized aliens residing in the United States" (See Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986, Congressional Research Service, September 22, 2011). If the terminology here is considered important, perhaps the appearance of the term "illegal immigrant" should be footnoted with a clarification that the term is echoed from the supporting source cited, and that U.S. government agencies have used that term and other terms to describe such persons. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Better, just use the phase "alien(s), illegally resident" and be done with it. "Alien" is the proper designation in the law for any foreign national who is residing on U.S. soil, including U.S. territories, legally or illegally, documented or undocumented. "Alien(s), legally resident" is the term of art in immigration law, and other laws including the recent Affordable Care Act, and its opposite, "alien(s), illegally resident", would be the proper descriptor for the opposite - a person, or people, who entered illegally, or intentionally overstayed their temporary visa. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
More specific ethnic origins
This Census 2000 report cites e.g. specific European countries of ethnic origin, rather than simply "White". It would be nice if we could find something similar for Census 2010, or otherwise just add this data. -- Beland (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Found we already had a copy of the 2000 chart, so I added that for now. -- Beland (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
A source that has population data while the shut down is in effect
There was missing population in 1935 to 1940 and an incorrect raw birth number so I searched and found a website that has reliably matched the data in the table we already have here: http://www.populstat.info/Americas/usac.htm Raw birth per 1000 of 46.1 meant a population of 51 million in 1935 and that just couldn't be. Alatari (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Median household income
This edit caught my eye. Googling around, I see that $46,326 is said to be the 2005 figure in some places, and the 2006 figure in some others. The U.S. Census Bureau says [www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/.../h06AR.xls here] and here that that's the figure for 2005. That first Census Bureau source gives the 2006 figure as $48,201; this Census Bureau source, however, gives the figure as $48,451. Either way, 2005 and 2006 seem long ago from the 2013 perspective. This Census Bureau source gives figures of $55,030 (2000), $51,324 (2001), and $51,371 (2012).
I would like to unscramble this in the article and cite sources, but I'm no expert, I'm confused, and I don't have the time. Hopefully, someone more expert and less confused than I will have the time to straighten this out in the article.
Incidentally, I see that the Median household income article gives two identical figures of $29,056 for two different measures of U.S. median household income in 2010. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Article needs reorganization and rewrite
The title is Demographics of the United States, but the general "demographic data" describing the most basic data - i. e., population numbers by age, gender, distribution by age, etc, are buried three quarters of the way through. Instead, the first half-dozen paragraphs are a rambling disorganized text with an illogical litany of fertility rates, comparisons with other countries, total numbers of males and females, definitions of "white" people, etc. Charitably, it's a logical, analytical and rhetorical mess from the get-go that belies a preoccupation on the part of the author with what divides us in the current political debates - i. e., race, ethnicity, religion etc instead of describing the basic demographic facts about the U.S. in a logical and systematic order. I agree with other critics who point out that the author is unfamiliar with the proper use of numbers, when tables and graphs are more appropriate than text, and vice versa. It should be reorganized and edited throughout. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JHE2003.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Density of Orange County - Vermont
The map under the Population density section shows an Orange county density of more than 3000 p/mi². The article Orange_County,_Vermont says 42 p/mi² Has this map been verified ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does the 2012 birth rate... table has mixed race people at 9.11% of the population?
In the news
It is very urbanized ?
Immigration table made accessible but not pretty
Immigration by top countries and by region were previously combined into a single table. This was not accessible because it would make, for instance, the figure for Asia seem to be related to Mexico, as Mexico was in the first column of the Asia row. I've split the tables in two, and now they are accessible. They're not very pretty when they sit side by side so if someone knows how to stack them instead that would be helpful. They need to stay as two separate tables to stay accessible. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sidebar Age Demographic
- This site has a pretty good breakdown: http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/so-how-many-millennials-are-there-in-the-us-anyway-30401/ Bumblebritches57 (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)