Talk:2010 United States census/Archive 1

Archive 1

Affect on Congressional Representation and the Electoral College

I was thinking that maybe someone might add a section on the predicted outcome of the census as it pertains to Congressional reapportionment and the Electoral College. I've seen some stories about it on the web, so I know there are some out there...--WinOne4TheGipper (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think such a section at this time would be in violation of the Wiki is Not a Crystal Ball policy. Jon (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not as long as the population estimates were reliable. The formula for determining apportionment is set in statute, and there are resources using population estimates to estimate the gains and losses. So long as the underlying population estimates are from a reliable source, it would be reporting the what experts currently expect based upon science and math. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I live in Massachusetts and we are dreading this census because there are talks that we might lose two of our ten representatives. There is certainly enough fact at this point to seperate it from a Crystal Ball. CSZero (talk)

Well, maybe if you people had some more kids, you'd grow fast enough to keep your reps. Just kidding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary to repeat it here, as the information is at United States congressional apportionment. A link to that article should suffice. -Rrius (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New york would be 29 electoral votes

i have just edited it, 31 subtracted by 2 is not 27

The article (Wikipedia and reference to Washington Post article) both describe House of Representatives #'s, not electoral college ones.--Pdurland (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Homeless

(Placeholder) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.220.194 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial and Some Other Race in the same category

Multiracial Hispanics used the option "Some Other Race" in the 2000 Census, so the next 2010 Census should include Some Other Race, Two or more races and Multiracial in the same category.--79.154.37.79 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

I question the relevance of ACORN to this topic. I further question what in the world it has to do with Marketing. 71.222.183.138 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By reading the reference for the section, one can see that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now was one of the many, many organizations the Census has used to publicize census participation in various areas. When the ACORN scandals blew up, the Census cut ACORN lose, because some people get touchy about answering personal questions anyway, so the Census is very picky about their own integrity. --Closeapple (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Major Changes"

In the "major changes" section, the article correctly states that there won't be a long-form version passed out this time, but I specifically remember the Commerce Secretary saying that ethnicity (ancestary) wouldn't be included in the short-form this year, and this article seems to say otherwise. That is, unless you're using ethnicity solely to mean to include hispanics. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Scan would be nice

It would be nice if somebody with the right sized scanner (census papers are larger than 8.5x11 as far as I can tell) could get a complete scan of this year's census and upload it at Commons as a .djvu file. Is anybody able/willing to do that? upstateNYer 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

doesnt the envelope mention something about for private use only? and that youll be fined if you dont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.156.123 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That refers to improperly using the goverment-paid postage, not to the copyright of the form, which is the work of a federal agency, and therefore public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When Does it End?

I'm wondering because I want to know when my city's current population will be available. 66.31.9.250 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Great question! Look for the answer in a few minutes... AV3000 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the total population will be on the president's desk in December 2010, and the data needed for state apportionment will be presented to the states in March 2011. From that, I would gather that city information will be available no later than March 2011 (the reapportionment info is exceedingly detailed data used to set district boundaries, so the more general info should be available by then). I would guess that the city information will be publicly available by then, but that is only a guess. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

Now that we have seen the actual census form, this section seems to be out of date. As it turns out, If a gay couple share an apartment, it is up to them to determine what their relationship is. One of them fills out the Census form (or talks to a live enumerator) this person becomes the "Responder" in census terms. In the second question (dealing with how others in the house are related to the responder) it is completely up to the responder to determine the relationship. The responder may list his gay lover as his husband or as his unmarried partner as he thinks best... the census bureau accepts this answer and will not pass judgment on it. I would suggest that we simply remove the section. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just incorporate what you just explained? -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be Original research. I know it to be fact (due to the fact that I am a follow-up enumerator, and they told me this in my training) but that is not good enough to pass WP:V and WP:NOR. I don't have a secondary source that I can cite. Thus, while I can challenge the accuracy of the current language I can not suggest it be replaced with something else. All I can do suggest that the section be cut as being "out of date". Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually see our Census form, so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but could the wording of the form or lack of instructions be used for support? In any event, just deleting the section seems wrong. Perhaps updating it by saying that no separate question appeared or the like would be good enough for now. -Rrius (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The changes look good to me. What the old language was refering to though was not the stage of people (or the live enumerators) filling in the census form, but the error correction software that will be run on it during processing. (In 2000; the software used considered it an error if someone of the same sex checked married to person #1 and it then proceeded to "fix" the data. At the time that old language was written the original source did not know if the validation software for 2010 will consider it an error or not. We'll know a lot more after the 2010 census numbers are released.) Jon (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

Would there be any problem, any "copyright issues", with presenting the content of the 10 questions within this article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading from my form:

1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
2. Were there any additional people staying here on April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1? Mark all that apply. [Checkboxes for children, relatives, non-relatives, people staying temporarily, none.]
3. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home - [Checkboxes for owned with a mortgage, owned free and clear, rented, occupied without rent.]
4. What is your telephone number?
5. What is Person 1's name? [last, first]
6. What is Person 1's sex? [male, female]
7. What is Person's age and Person 1's date of birth?
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? [checkboxes for "No", and several for "Yes" which specify groups of countries]
9. What is Person 1's race? [checkboxes for 14 including "other"; the "controversial" one says "Black, African Am., or Negro".]
10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else? [checkboxes for "No", and several locations for "Yes".'

For additional Persons 2 through 6, question 5 is repeated as question 1, questions 6-10 are repeated as questions 3-7, and question 2 asks "How is this person related to Person 1?" with 14 checkboxes, including "Husband or wife", "Roomer or boarder", "Housemate or roommate", "Unmarried partner", "Other nonrelative", and 9 options for types of relatives. For additional Persons 7 through 12, it asks for name, sex, age/DOB, relationship to Person 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The content of the census form, including the wording of the ten questions, is a work of the United States government and in the public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for internal workings of Census (NRFU operation)

So, "NRFU" is the part of the Census where the Bureau sends people out to addresses that didn't send in their form (stands for Non-Response Follow-Up). It's the knocking door-to-door stuff that's happening right now.

Anyway, the point is I found a source if anyone wants to write about that: the Employee Handbook

--Qwerty0 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for same sex marriage and the 2010 census

If you google "same sex marriage 2010 census" you will immediately find many conflicting articles whether or not same sex marriages will be counted - from normally reliable media sources. A cited source, preferably from the census bureau itself is needed. Dmm1169 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the Commonwealth of Virginia has a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage or any legal construct thereof. Therefore, the information in this section is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.198.50 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. AV3000 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is allowed to be marked (and will be counted) as married, even if it is not legal. The Census enumerators are not permitted to disallow what people believe to be true. This comes from first-hand experience beign an enumerator as well as talking to enumerators. I'm not going to change the article though, because I don't have an official online reference to point to. --The User Ed (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed content about political opposition

I don't agree with this edit, as it constitutes the removal of newsworthy and relevant opposition to the Census. Tisane (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 U.S. Census will not be available to the public untill the year 2087. No census can be totaly released to the public untill more than 90% of the people on the census are deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.26.37 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF??? --71.131.153.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

71.188.26.37 was referring to the individual replies, not the aggregated statistics... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Important question

I think a lot of readers want to know when the data will be out. Anyone know? Agendiiis (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To which data do you refer to? The apportionment population numbers will be available by December 31, 2010. Other data becomes available in the following months.... SilverWoodchuck47 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When will be able to see the "results" of the census?

When will be able to see the "results" of the census? And where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.182.237 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

edit: something else I wanna know. How can we be sure that the data is not manipulated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.182.237 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is coming soon. I've heard Dec 21, but also Jan or Feb 2011, anyway it is soon. see http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/aff2.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams as a source for claim that Census advertises towards stereotypically politicized audiences

I've seen the claims Williams makes in the Washington Post article, and while the fact that the marketing efforts of the census are sourced, the claims that they were done to attract a particular audience (especially one whose members tend to be on one side of the political spectrum) need a better source. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot to update articles?

So the 2010 Census results have started to be released (see press release), with everything scheduled to be released by April 2011. Is anyone aware of a bot under development to update articles with current statistics? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Total Count off?

This page reports the total US population as: 308,745,538. Prying at the raw data files, by summing the populations at the 'County' level (SUMLEV = 05, CHARITER = 00) I get a grand total of 312,471,327, the difference of 3,725,789 coming from Puerto Rico. Is this page in error, or is there something funky about how we treat Puerto Rico? Torrenal (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#States_and_territories (scroll to bottom of section), it looks exactly like Puerto Rico was excluded from the total listed on this page. Why? 174.29.225.114 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Counting of illegal immigrants "controversy"

Shouldn't it be noted that the Constitution specifically requires counting of all people, not citizens, in the United States, and thus it's necessary to include illegal immigrants since they are, by definition, in the United States? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently added the part of it being required in general, since that information isn't as readily available as it should be and so a lot of people don't think it is required (simply because they don't want it to be and can't find the proof that it is required). The issue of requiring all people is another interesting issue. It not only pertains to illegal immigrants, but it also pertains to citizens of other countries who don't think they have to participate in the U.S. Census because they aren't U.S. citizens. --The User Ed (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it make sense to apportion the seats in Congress / Electoral College based on a census count of all people when some states (Arizona perhaps?) may have more illegal immigrants who can't vote? And if Republicans didn't fill in their census then surely the overall effect could be to lose elected representatives? Would be good to include this in the article if someone has done the research elsewhere otherwise it would be OR. 94.174.92.245 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

From the beginning, the census included women, children, slaves, non-citizens, etc., regardless of whether they could vote or not (excepting Indians "not taxed" -- i.e. not really under U.S. central government authority -- a category which has been extinct since 1924). AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

From Portal:Current events/2011 December 15 ...

• The 2010 United States Census shows 1 in 2 people are classified as low-income or poor. (Associated Press)(NPR)(CBS News)

Also see Economy of the United States and Economic history of the United States#Disintegrating Economy: An Ongoing Crisis ... 99.181.130.155 (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be the main census covered in this article which determined that, since it didn't collect economic data. Maybe it was a sampling survey... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Column for state's proportion of U.S. population and change since last census

I think this should be added to the state population change table, as it's the only way to make sense of the fact that all of the states but Michigan that lost congressional districts had still gained in population. Per WP:CALC, this shouldn't need additional citations but can just be calculated from the given populations of the states and the U.S. as a whole. Any objections? postdlf (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that electoral vote changes should be listed to the far right as a supplementary column, as taken from the sections earlier in the article. Duplicated information really will be presented in a different light and contribute new information overall (-T.N. (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC))

Hand Held Computer (HHC)

The named article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 January 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into this article (2010 United States Census). This action will be taken promptly, probably starting tomorrow. Please consider assisting in the mergerion and discussing if necessary. Buster Seven Talk 01:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 United States Census. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714082232/http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/2010_TQA_Agent_FAQs_english.pdf to http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/2010_TQA_Agent_FAQs_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124054026/http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_table1.pdf to http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_table1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1955923%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110330064242/http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=F93690A8-C29C-7CA2-F22FCD1FB0842DD4 to http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=F93690A8-C29C-7CA2-F22FCD1FB0842DD4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110528071135/http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=E98B9E79-C29C-7CA2-FE04261B98D69D26 to http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=E98B9E79-C29C-7CA2-FE04261B98D69D26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)