Talk:United States Census Bureau
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 2000 Census
- 3 World War II Japanese-American internment
- 4 Race and Hispanic origin
- 5 Name
- 6 Directorship
- 7 Censuses vs. surveys
- 8 inferior defartment
- 9 Budget
- 10 New FactFinder Might Break Links In Wikipedia?
- 11 Estimates are not recordings
- 12 2010 Losses
- 13 Census regions and divisions
- 14 Regional map
- 15 Merge proposal (Aug 2013)
- 16 No mention of Obama moving overseeing of bureau to White House in 2009?
- 17 Divisions of the United States
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump:
Throughout the articles on US cities and US states reference data are provided from the US Census. This fact is usually indicated by a statement such as 2000 census.... Should this not be 2000 Census (a proper noun) and an article developed for this significant event? Marshman 19:22 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- If someone wants to make such an article, I can have the rambot do a mass replace to link to the article. For consideration there is already an article on the U.S. Census Bureau which might contain all the information needed (instead of a specific article for the 2000 census). This article is, however, already linked to from the city/state/county articles. -- Ram-Man 02:26 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
World War II Japanese-American internment
Which is not to say it has not happened. Census information was used to locate Japanese-Americans to be put in internment camps during World War II. Events like this and a general distrust of government by most Americans has hampered the Census Bureau's task in recent years.
Have you got a cite for this? I think you're confusing the Smith Act, and the FBI's CDI, and other forms of government information on citizens with the census. I don't doubt that the census is (or could be corrupt), however I don't see any references for this in my research.
~ender 2003-10-27 15:36:MST
- Holmes, Steven A. (2000-03-17). "Report Says Census Bureau Helped Relocate Japanese". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-08-21. The Census Bureau withheld individual information, staying within 13 USC, but did provide block-level crosstabs showing where to find concentrations of ethnic Japanese. Rklear (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Race and Hispanic origin
I have a question: who are the people considered white? I heard and read that Portuguese and Spanish aren´t considered white, but Latinos. Is that true?14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)a.
Portuguese and Spanish are not races. The Census Bureau's use of the term "Hispanic" refers to a person's ethnic origin. Persons of Hispanic origin can be of any race.
- Portuguese speakers (from Portugal, Brazil, Cape Verde Islands) are not considered "Hispanic" by the Census Bureau. "Hispanic" applies to people from countries where Spanish is the predominant language or their descendants. Hispanics can be white (Spanish, Mexicans), black (many Cubans) or Asian-American (Filipinos). Rklear (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition, race is self identified. Even when an enumerator is completing the form, he would put down whatever race the respondent said. Even if the race the respondent selected seems to be wrong, you'd still use it. And of course, if you fill out the form yourself, you put down what you want.Wschart (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a citation that Bureau of the Census is still an official name. It seems that in the late 1990s and early 20th century "Census Bureau" is being used. gidonb 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the fast response, Bkonrad! Please note that in publications since the mid 1990s the Library of Congress refers to the publisher as US Census Bureau instead of the the US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The author name was changed in all cases (that is also for publication long before the mid 1990s) to US Census Bureau. Perhaps it is better to say " something along the lines of "in US law code" instead of "officially"? The article name seems not be unofficial. Just a thought. gidonb 14:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There were mentions of Charles Louis Kincannon as "soon to be replaced" and that Steven H. Murdock as the incoming director. For the first, the phrasing implies that his leaving is involuntary, which I think is unnecessarily biased unless there is some documentary evidence to the contrary. For the second, Murdock was nominated for the position. The nomination is currently still in a Senate committee. While there are no indications that his nomination will face any opposition, if we keep the factoid in the article, it should be phrased to indicate the actual status. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Censuses vs. surveys
Someone just added "Economic Census" to the "Ongoing surveys" section of the article. Ideally the various censuses the Bureau conducts should be broken out from the surveys, with a section perhaps mentioning the differences between the two. I'd do it myself but it's just not something I can get to right away. Rklear (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- "In 1902 the temporary Census Office was moved under the Department of Interior, and in 1903 it was renamed the Census Bureau under the new Department of Commerce and the Interior. The department was intended to consolidate overlapping statistical agencies, but Census Bureau officials were hindered by their subordinate role in the department.["
- There should be a chronological list of which department, 1777 - 2010.
- Why subordinate?
- There should be a Mona_Lee_Locke article, Results 1 - 10 of about 13,100, Susan_Goodman_Komen_Foundation, < http://mahalo.com/mona-lee-locke >.
- I would imagine its budget fluctuates depending on whether a decennial census is in progress, but I'm not sure. Tisane (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
New FactFinder Might Break Links In Wikipedia?
I'm not sure if this will break references and links in USA city / state / fed level articles that reference the U.S. Census Bureau page called FactFinder. There will be a new FactFinder 2 that will replace the current one. See http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/aff2.html for this statement "Please note that the current American FactFinder will be discontinued in the Fall of 2011. At that time, any deep links into the discontinued system will no longer work." --- Sbmeirow (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert. However, I don't think this is a big problem. Needing to link to the new FactFinder will be a minor issue compared with the need to update all of those articles to include the 2010 Census data that will start rolling out in 2011. :-) --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I received the following response: Thank you for using American FactFinder. FactFinder 1 will be shutdown in late fall of 2011. To help with the transition to FactFinder2 we have published a guide on how to link into the new system. The guide is called How to Build Deep Links into the New American FactFinder. It can be found below the tutorials on factfinder2.census.gov . Please let us know if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Jeremy Melissari, American FactFinder Staff, US Census Bureau. The guide is located at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/AFF_deep_linking_guide_v1.0.pdf • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Estimates are not recordings
Census estimates are not "recordings" of the population, they are educated guesses as to what the number would be if there was a recording.
Please do not use the word "recorded" with estimates. Only use "recorded" with census counts.Ryoung122 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A source I have points out that the total loss for the 2010 census that ineffectively used the Harris handheld devices, cost about US$3.5billion. This is something good to point out in contrast to what's there at the moment ("Projected savings are over one billion dollars."). Sources: Jean Thilmany, “Don’t Count on It,” CIO Insight, May 2008; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Significant Problems of Critical Automation Contribute to Risks Facing 2010 Census,” March 5, 2008 which is cited in: Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2007). Management information systems: managing the digital firm (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education page 551.
Census regions and divisions
I don't see where this information is cited. The previous citations 13 & 14 do not list these divisions. What's the source for this subsection? Wikipedia:Verifiability aephyx (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh hey, we could take . -- Beland (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, we already have File:Census Regions and Division of the United States.svg; adding this to the article. Yay, answering my own question. -- Beland (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Merge proposal (Aug 2013)
- the current article is a stub, expansion potential is low and notability of the website itself is marginal at best.
- I do not want to see the content disposed of but rather incorporated into this article.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, I would support merging it as suggested. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG and falls within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
No mention of Obama moving overseeing of bureau to White House in 2009?
That was a pretty major and very controversial move. All the more so now with the news that unemployment data from the bureau likely was falsified in 2012 before the presidential election. JayHubie (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- @JayHubie:, please provide reliable sources verifying the above statement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Divisions of the United States
While I understand that the United States Census Bureau is a credible source, I don't like the way that so many US Region articles are slanted towards the Census's definitions, including South, Southwest, West, and Midwest. Northeastern United States does a better job at it than the Census-biased articles (at least on its map), I think. The maps and definitions used should not be solely dependent on the Census. Changes should be made to reflect the wider regional definitions, in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)