Talk:United Kingdom Census 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Statistics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Metal?[edit]

Should we have a small section about the fact that more than 20,000people are planning to write down "Heavy Metal" as their religion? 88.104.8.240 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


The obvious one is the Jedi thing. Nearly 400,000 people in the UK wrote it as heir religion in the 2001 census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.159.185 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy?[edit]

Yikes, frightening stuff! Oh hang on, surely counting the number of bedrooms is, er pretty basic housing information, and asking the age and sex of people staying overnight sounds eerily reminiscent of 'Persons Present'. Have I missed something, or would this just be a squalid little article trying for a bit of rabble rousing, and not in any way resembling a reputable reference? Pterre (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Balance of article[edit]

With the census just 3 weeks away I was expecting to find a better article. Don't get me wrong what is written is very good and interesting but the article definitely needs expanded to include details of the Scottish and Northern Irish censuses (sp?). Also if there's going to be the logo at the top shouldn't we have all 3? And a paragraph on some of the notable differences (if there are any) would be very interesting. Scroggie (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycott section is inaccurate[edit]

The section on groups boycotting the census seems inaccurate. Neither Stop the War Coalition nor Ekklesia is in fact promoting a boycott. See my blog post about this: http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/3017/who-is-boycotting-the-uk-census/ Peterkirk (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British Humanist Association[edit]

There should be a section in here addressing this campaign [1] Luconst 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have twice reverted an edit which is about the British Humanist's Associations complaint about the format of the 'religion questions' in the 2011 census. The statements are suported by a citation from BHA's own website [www.campaign.org here] which is the website of the BHA and as such is a primary source and does not lead the requirements of WP:RS. I am sure there will be at least one secondary source about the issue raised by the BHA but the slant of the edit will need to be written from a neutral perspective as per WP:NPOV without the reference to the BHA site. I will not revert again as this would breach WP:3RR but would hope instead it is amended to meet Wikipedia requirements.Tmol42 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I see a cite from the BBC has now been added but if you check this out it does not support what the edit says. Yes its easy to Google a cite but any old site about the BHA and the Census will not do it needs to be one that supports wat is said The cite from the campaign site of BHA has been left in. If nobody else wants to put this right I will rephrase in due course.Tmol42 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Results[edit]

When are the results due out? As of February 2012 this article still has no reference to the results of the 2011 census, and UK geographic articles still quote population information from the 2001 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.228.167 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated the article with the latest release dates.  —SMALLJIM  20:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Broad brush results have started coming out today, as scheduled. [2] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin[edit]

It seems odd that there is no mention of the huge public opposition to the involvement of Lockheed Martin having a role in the census. Or the fact that many ciizens refused to complete it - or completed it in a way that meant Lockheed Martin's computers couldn't read it, with the intention of reducing their profits by forcing them to pay people to read the responses..? 193.113.57.161 (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, firstly the Lockheed Martin contract award issues are included under Production heading and secondly the opposition was not huge, nor it turns out did any more than a handful or so of people refuse to complete the forms or do so in a way to cause any admin difficulties.Tmol42 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Number ?[edit]

So is there a Number of how many people live in the UK, that has been postet in June or July 2012? No further details, only the number?!

Greetings from Germany, Berlin -- Kilon22 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The first release says "On census night the population in England and Wales was 56.1 million, 53.0 million in England and 3.1 million in Wales". Scotland is counted separately - I haven't seen numbers for Scotland yet. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Local authority data[edit]

Quick question, does the United Kingdom not count local authority populations? I keep seeing references being made to "estimates". I guess I'm just a bit confused as to what exactly was released on July 16. I know that even counts are technically estimates, but is the ONS data released on July 16 a count or a formulated estimate? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Census data -> Wikipedia[edit]

Now that the main data release has happened, we're trying to figure out how to incorporate it into Wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography FlagSteward (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading parish 'boundaries'[edit]

The Office of national statistics has the 2011 census data presented in a different way to the 2001 census.

I wrote them the following email:

Here is a queer thing.


The map at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDomainList.do?a=7&b=11120794&c=bitchfield&d=16&g=6482018&i=1001x1003&m=0&r=1&s=1366828291601&enc=1&domainId=58&census=true
clearly shows Boothby Pagnell inside the parish of Bitchfield and Bassingthorne.



But according to SKDC, they are separate:
http://moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk/mgParishCouncilDetails.aspx?ID=411
http://moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk/mgParishCouncilDetails.aspx?ID=410



Your own site gives them separate in 2001
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/viewFullDataset.do;jsessionid=0JhQR4dTql4Lx8ZQGGgnvXm4g6YvnyJ4B7rC7ZylPq13m9n249J4!-1346669638!13668262

59859?instanceSelection=03070&productId=779&$ph=60_61&datasetInstanceId=3070&startColumn=1&numberOfColumns=4&containerAreaId=790460&nsjs=true&nsck=true&nssvg=false&nswid=1024
So is it your map that is wrong?

The reply I got back was

The parish guidance at

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=census2011onness/geography/parishes/parishes-and-communities.htm provides an example of a similar instance that you report under the '...The boundaries for my parish/community don't look right compared to previous versions..' sub-heading.



Producing data for small areas, such as villages, can be problematic, not least due to the small populations often living in a village there is the risk of disclosure. In addition a villages can vary immensely in nature across the country so are difficult to define statistically.



To address the issue of disseminating data at small area level, the concept of Super Output Areas (SOAs) was devised. Details of SOAs and their rationale can be found here



http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=aboutneighbourhood/geography/superoutputareas/soafaq/soa-faq.htm
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=nessgeography/superoutputareasexplained/output-areas-explained.htm



While the intention was that SOA geographies were meant to be stable, population changes arising from the 2011 Census meant that some new geographic entities had to be created and some existing ones merged, please see the PDF report at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/census/report--changes-to-output-areas-and-super-output-areas-in-england-and-wales--2001-to-2011.pdf for more details.



For 2001 Boothby Pagnell parish was associated with the Output Area (OA) E00133659, for 2011 due to the changes in the above report it was now associated with a new OA E00169422 this has changed how Boothby Pagnall is represented statistically. The maps within Neighbourhood Statistics are to show statistical dissemination only, they are not intended to provide a definitive geographic representation of a particular area.



The parish guidance at http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=census2011onness/geography/parishes/parishes-and-communities.htm provides an example of a similar instance that you report



I hope this helps, apologies for all the links, unfortunately it is quite a complex subject that does not fit easily into a single email.

What I took to be 'Parish' data, under the 'Parish' selection button, is really 'Our own things a bit like Parishes, but really SOA groups. We name them after actual parishes..--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)