Talk:United States Census, 2000
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] MLA chart
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)
[edit] Wyoming addition
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?
Who knows... who knows.... who knows...
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezomgweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezomg
[edit] Why was this page moved?
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)
[edit] Question about ancestry and citizenship
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)
[edit] Errors in city estimates revealed by 2000 census
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)
