Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

white census

How are Arabs, Hispanics, and North AFricans counted as white? That should be changed. 68.126.232.191 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that wikipedia doesn't have authority over the CIA to change it, right? If so, then I'm not getting paid enough. Cburnett 03:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Because Arabs, Hispanics, and North Africans ARE white. They're caucasian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.232.197 (talk) 02:06:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
What the heel is an hispanic anyway? For example And argentinian of German/Italian parents? An indian from Mexico? or a Black from Dominican R. or Colombia?
Please explain!!!!!!!!!!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trelew Girl (talk • contribs) 22:47, June 21, 2006 (UTC)
That's the point, ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing.
The funniest thing is that spanish are considered the same as latin americans, when spanish are so "white" as the rest of white people of north america, and latin americans could have spanish (or portuguese, italian, german...) ancestors or just native american ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.115.28 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Graphs

Lots of good graphs.

Suggestion for discussion. I think we need one good eyecatcher at the top.

I think the three together down lower take up too much whitespace together. I think they should be moved. Also, two are too small to be read. One of the graphs seems duplicated by a "moving" graph below. The text lower down could use some color but maybe not these.

Not sure the 300 million "counter" should take up so much room among the top three graphs, the only one that can be read. Nor the "comparison" to world census, which is okay to mention but maybe too predominant in an article on US Demographics. Its size seems a bit pov (seems to say that the world population is "too" large). It could be smaller and still read IMO. Whether the others would be readable by being made slightly larger is doubtful though. Student7 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe the '300 million' counter should be removed (or moved to another section), and the population pyramid replaced with the one (the 'moving graph' you mentioned) from further on in the article. SamEV (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I know nothing about graphics. Just deleted the 300 million "counter". Couldn't comment it out for some reason, which I would have rather done. The others need to expand a bit. Since there is no pixel count, not sure that is even possible. Bottom Line - not much better off than before! Oh, well...Student7 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the birth rate graph titled, "BR_curve.gif" trying to convey? For one, there are no units on the axes (X is clearly the year, but what is Y?). And the text is difficult to read from the thumbnail. This needs to be updated to be more clear with more discussion, or removed in my opinion.--Deuser (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it needs better labeling, at least. It appears to be a 1965 graph projected to 1969, chronicling a sharp drop in birth rate. Not sure that because it is "old" that it should be deleted for that reason alone. It does seem to serve as a backdrop to a diminished birth rate today which has mostly continued since then (invention of "the pill"). Student7 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Projections

I'm kind of annoyed that wikipedia still has, in the projections section, a sentence that says non-hispanic whites will be only a plurality of the population in 2050 rather than a majority. The major problem with this is that the citation, the source that claims this- is dead. The link is dead. Further, if wikipedia actually kept a tabulation of fertility rates and the number of women above the age of 40 who have never given birth as a percentage of women of specific races, one would see that Hispanics (as a single multiracial group) and blacks (as a racial group alone) have seen a massive decrease in fertility in the past ten years, with the percentages of hispanic and black women who have never given birth over the age of 40 now about equal to the number of non-hispanic white women. The citation that claims that non-hispanic whites will only be a plurality was either dated as being from 2005 or 2008, however as of 2012 the data clearly shows a new population shift. The source from the 2000s was probably a conclusion supported by data from the mid-2000s, when black fertility rates had not been yet updated from the 90s and when illegal immigration was at it's peak. The very fact that even though only 100k illegals have entered the USA in 2011 yet illegal immigration remains a tense issue in the political field shows that if illegals were to return to the 500k per year they were at their height, there would undoubtedly be a massive backlash against anyone supporting illegals. Of course this is only speculation. The main issue I have is that the link claiming non-hispanic whites will be only a plurality is broken, and therefore such information should be removed.

On another note the religious information is from 2001, though it is less likely that there would have been a massive dip in religious belief or a massive shift in the past ten years, there definitely is no reason to assume protestants have not continued their slow decline and catholics have not continued to expand as a result of latin american LEGAL immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.250.239 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL should be avoided, even when made by "someone else." 40 years ago, non-whites were definitely going to be in the majority by 2010. Well, that didn't happen. It is nonsense to project beyond the current day (a projection because we don't really know the population even today)! I suppose after the world ends in 2012, the Martians, or whoever, will get a big laugh out of these non-"statistics." Student7 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you criticizing me or agreeing with me that the section that uses a link from 2008 (before fertility dropped due to the recession) is silly? Because it is silly. Anyway, all the sources I can find on the internet seem to imply once the "echo boom", the children of the baby boomers, come of age the non-hispanic white birthrate will probably go back up, since the current 50-50 parity of minorities to non-hispanic whites is due to the fact that Gen X was much smaller than the baby boom. It also seems that the hispanic and black birthrates will go down, and if the growth rates of the USA during the first two years of this decade remain constant the population of the USA will increase only by 6.3%. Also that link apparently wasn't broken, but it is outdated in terms of demographic data. Anyway I don't care anymore if anyone removes it, but I do think it is inappropriate to use an article from 2008- when the population was experiencing a height of legal and illegal immigration and the birthrate was at it's highest point in 20 years. Especially since the birthrates of African-Americans have continuously declined since the 1990s, and the recent hispanic baby boom was because most illegals are young and were taking advantage of the strong US economy before the housing market crash.76.78.244.35 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, because too many people want it, about projections of populations to today. Those are made by the census bureau but aren't really known, just guessed at. I would like to see projections beyond the current year ended for the encyclopedia.
I would like to see projections to 2050 or some really distant year, over which the projection-makers have no control and appear to be making some kind of political or racial statement, removed from the article. I think editors should vigorously oppose distant projections which are clearly WP:CRYSTAL, unencyclopedic (and nonsensical). Student7 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Health

I wanted to throw in the fact that 35% of Americans who earn less than $15,000 annually in 2009, were obese. Seemed obscure because overall obesity facts were lacking. See http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100630/NEWS02/100629009/-1/EVENT08/Study-Vermont-among-least-obese-states. Save for later. Student7 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious as to why each country demographics includes percent population with HIV? Why not also include a number percentage with colon cancer, breast cancer, etc.? Justthefactsnow (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Justthefactsnow

Definition of "White American"

This edit reverted an edit of mine, saying that "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa" is the definition given in the White American article. The definition from that article reads:

White Americans are people of the United States who are considered or consider themselves White. The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish."

It appears to me that there a contradiction between that articles's definition of the term "White American" and the one given above. I have attempted to resolve this perceived contradiction by adding clarifying information to this article in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

'Cohorts' section seems out of place

The whole section on "Cohorts in the United States" seems out of place for this article (which is already very long without it.) Discussions of generational shifts in attitudes and values aren't generally considered part of demographics. It should be merged into the article on Strauss-Howe generational theory (if there are any parts of it not already in that article), and deleted from here, possibly replacing it with a link. Teri Pettit (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a good idea. We could summarize it here with a sentence or two and point to the (main) article. It is just one theory anyway. Almost not quite crisp enough, and supported enough to be WP:RS material. But nothing to replace it! Student7 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word American (again)

Having the adjective "american" being appropriated and used in a culturally imperialistic way is bad enough. But calling the US population "american people" sets me speechless.~~LtDoc~~

Why? The population of the United States is called the "American people"- the people that constitute American (or US) society. Is this becuase you suspect the using the word American to describe soley the US as being US-centric? SignaturebrendelNow under review! 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not technically descriptive, but that's the common usage. I don't see us suddenly calling ourselves "United Statians" just to give people a warm fuzzy in South or Central America or Canada.
Throughout the vast majority of the world, the word "American" means someone from the US, as unfair as that may seam to many Latin Americans. Its use is so widespread, and has been for so long (well before any of the other North or South American countries gained independence, it is worth noting), that it is really beyond debate. If Latin Americans want to go around referring to themselves as "Americans" then so be it, but they should do so with the knowledge that outside their own relatively small part of the world, the word has a different, more specific meaning (I say Latin Americans because I don't imagine many Canadians would consider themselves Americans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Latin and South Americans do not want to go around calling themselves Americans. Their fervent wish is to have the word *American* expunged from the English language, they will continue to refer to themselves and each other as Mexicans, Brazilians, Colombians,etc. etc. But what really gives them wet dreams is the belief that they will then be able to officially denominate citizens of the U.S. "Gringo". Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.10.69 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fertility Guidelines

Under fertility statistics, the article mentions that our fertility rate range between 1600 children per woman and 2400 children per woman. I do not know the statistics on that or I would have corrected this. If anyone else knows the statistics, could you correct this? Did the writer mean to say 1.6 - 2.4 children for example?Bronzeflame (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Population Growth Rate Discrepancy

In the table at the beginning of the article, the 2010 growth rate is stated as: 

  2010 308,745,538  9.7%

In the "Demographic statistics" section, it is stated as: 

   Population growth rate
   0.977% (2010 est.)

Is this a contradiction, or am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.205.101 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The 9.7% figure in the table is the *measured growth* for the *ten years* ending 2010. The 2010 est. is an *estimated growth* for a *single year*Jsusky (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Population density

Is there a reason why the section on densely-populated cities uses pop. per square km when the table of the largest cities uses pop. per square mile? Funnyhat 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dallas figure was wrong so it was deleted. An incorrect coversion factor was used to convert SQMI to SQKM.

How were the cities that are shown chosen? It is not a complete list in order, correct? If so, Cambridge, MA seems to be missing.

Does anyone know the projection of the Population Density map? Should projection be included on a map like this? It's actually pretty important geographic information.TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The "white" percentage doesn't appear correct

The article says: Whites constitute the majority of the U.S. population, with a total of 223,553,265 or 72.4% of the population in the 2010 United States Census. (no explicit citation), but the Census Bureau says "White persons" were 78.1% of the US in 2010.

An over 5% change in one year wouldn't happen, so I suspect there's a terminology difference that should be eliminated or explained. 24.91.82.29 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Birth Rate" term misapplied to chart

Under "Demographic statistics" the Chart located here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Birth_Rate_in_USA_1934-2004.PNG

is titled "Birth Rate in USA 1934-2004". The Y (vertical) axis contains birth figures numbering in the millions.

The title should read: "Live Births in USA 1934-2004" or something similar.

Jsusky (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mightymights (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion table includes religions with more than 750,000 adherents.

Set the cutoff line wherever you like, but the description says 750,000 and most of the entries have fewer than that. Either edit the table or the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.100.246 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2013 (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)
Blarg, that was already in the text under the "Ancestry" section, so removed the redundancy. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 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)

"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. 76.88.1.215 (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. 76.88.1.215 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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". 76.88.1.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 12 January 2014 (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. 76.88.1.215 (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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 78.232.244.6 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does the 2012 birth rate... table has mixed race people at 9.11% of the population?

Isn't their percentage 2.9%? 187.134.2.105 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In the news

This article has been quoted recently at DailyKos. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very urbanized ?

this article blows, go back and start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.245.73.98 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Can we expand a little on the age ranges? 15-64 is a huge age range, if we could split it into 18-24, 25-35,35-45, 45-55,55-65 would be great. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
That doesn't look like a reliable source by the Wikipedia content guidelines. I'd expect the federal census to report authoritative figures on the issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well go ahead then. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demographics of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Map error - White Non-Hispanic population percentage by state in 2012

The red "White Non-Hispanic population percentage by state in 2012" indicates that Michigan is less than 50% white, but according to www.michigan.gov, the white population is 79%.

[1]

Spartans9981 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that is clearly incorrect. See FactFinder as well. Not sure where/when the error was introduced, but I fixed the table. Will work on fixing the image now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,4548,7-158-54534_51713_51714-261003--,00.html

Total numbers per sex?

It's there for race so why not? There are only ratios atm with which one could calculate these... if one could into math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1E40:12A0:9052:37D8:34DA:3BED (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

2020 US Census Proposal

There won't be "race" in the US Census demographic data, there will be 8 or 9 groups based on ethnic, social and cultural identification. Anyone can mark more than one (multiracial, now multigroup becomes the 10th group). And archaic, possibly offensive and racially charged terms "Negro, colored, Nordic, Aryan, Spanish-surnamed, Oriental, Hindu and South Seas" will not be used at all.

  • White/European/Caucasian (among them Sami, French-Canadian and Scotch-Irish)
  • Black/African-American/Sub-Saharan African (includes Caribbean and Black European)
  • Latino/Hispanic/Ibero-American (includes "Isleno, Chicano, Hispano, NuevoMexicano and Tejano")
  • East Asian (proposal to split into two Asians, with South Asian is its own)
  • Middle Eastern/North African/Arabian (a new category-origins in Southwest Asia)
  • Native American/Alaskan Native/First Nations (including Latin American Indian)
  • Pacific Islander/Polynesian/Micronesian (could include all Oceanian peoples like Indigenous or Aboriginal Australians)
  • And other (different ethnic, social & cultural identities not found in categories) - some data finds a few applicants put down "Confederate/Southern or Texan, Jewish (ethnoreligious), Roma/Romani/Romany (informally known as Gypsies), Mormon/Latter-Day Saints and Wesort/Melungeon/Gullah Islander" for examples. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Census data for race/ethnicity

As @BelAirRuse: does not appear to know how to find Census data on QuickFacts, I will explain it here.

Simply visit the website here, then search for the given state or territory using the search function. All of the data in that table is found in that database. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

isn't that original research? especially since it convoluted race and ethnicity and giving us a faulty picture of demographic makeup. also giving the impression that hispanic is a race category, which it is not listed as by the US census.BelAirRuse (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not OR, because all the data comes straight from the Census Bureau; I just spot-checked and found no discrepancies vs. the database.
Hispanic is an ethnic category, and the section is appropriately titled "Race and ethnicity in the United States", so the table contains both sets of data. If you think that's confusing, you're welcome to propose splitting the table up, though I'm not sure that would actually be any clearer. We should probably look to get a broader consensus of other editors before making a significant change like that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Demography of the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Explain 110% in row sums?

I moved a tag out of a cell in the table about racial breakdown by state, because it really messed up the table cell size. I didn't address the point of the tag, that the rows can add up to more than 100% and that's confusing. Personally, I think the point that "Hispanic" people can be black, white, or Asian has been more than amply addressed elsewhere in the article, and I don't find it confusing that, because there are so many Black Hispanics in Puerto Rico, the row adds up to about 110%. But maybe this needs to be made explicit?Brfoley76 (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demography of the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demography of the United States. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Plurality Map is Useless

The third map in the row of three, "Plurality religion by state, 2001. Data is unavailable for Alaska and Hawaii," is useless because there is no key that identifies what religious groups the colours represent. The only clue on the picture page itself is a cryptic reference to "the bottom of Exhibit 15" -- but what and where is Exhibit 15???

Useless! 2601:645:C300:3189:45DC:444D:B4F4:2DBE (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

Sex ratios

Should "male or female" be changed to "male to female"? As of 2010:

At birth: 1.048 male or female
Under 15 years: 1.04 male or female
15–64 years: 1 male or female
65 years and over: 0.75 male or female
Total population: 0.97 male or female — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8001:57B6:5915:A073:4C9D:3E8F (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of immigration numbers

I don't understand how this page can accurately describe American demographics without including all the relevant data on immigration, and at least a discussion of emigration. This strikes me as a glaring omission. Kimholder (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a section 1.4.1 Immigration and emigration. What information that is not in this section do you think is needed?Skepticalgiraffe (talk)

Average?

The article lists the median age of Americans, but not the average. I would like to see that number as well. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Population projections inadequate, dependent on immigration, plus bad reference

Population projections are dependent on immigration. The US Census bureau has a study where they factor in several different projections dependent on the number of immigrants: high, low, medium and zero immigration. The link you have is useless on my iPad. I’m not very good with making tables with wiki markup... Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Updated the projections and included a better link ... weird that the projections were much different! Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Class

I was wondering if the names of the class came from the sources themselves or had been added by the editor. If added by the editor, I would object to the terms "Capitalist" class (as it is a pro communist POV) and "Underclass" (as it is not commonly used). Toad02 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

Because you did not sign, it is hard for me to determine if you still believe this is an issue on that page. Sikhs aren't currently connected to Hindus in the article, so I don't understand what you mean. Toad02 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Needs Update

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?

I'm confused what exactly you're referring to. Also, that link leads to a 404, which complicates it further. Please sign your posts, as it facilitates discussion and editing. Toad02 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Demography vs demographics

Has there ever been stated an explanation as to why this article is called demography (although the infobox uses demographics), whereas other articles prefer demographics (see Demographics of Latvia, Demographics of India, Demographics of Indiana)? Does it have anything to do with its being an Anglo country (like the UK, Australia... and the Netherlands?)?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I have no idea -- I went ahead and changed it for, at the very least, consistent style amongst articles on this subject. Jasphetamine (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
A look at pageview since dec 21 shows that renaming was a good move. Bravo! Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Updated Immigration Statistics / Information

This section: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission, would benefit by adding a TOTAL at the bottom. I would but don't know how.

Hello, I updated the statistics for the immigration section with more recent statistics.

I removed some unsourced statements and statements not supported by the citations. If I accidentally removed some information that was in a source, or if someone can find a source for information removed, and you think the information valuable, please add it back in with a source.

There are still a couple of statistics for "Net migration rate" that need citations.

I also added a table with information on Type and Major Class of Admission which I thought was useful. I copy edited to remove some redundant information.   // Timothy::talk  23:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:infobox U.S. demographics

Hello. I was taking a look at the infobox and I thought I should add the age structure but soon I found that the Template:infobox U.S. demographics itself lack those parameters and I need to edit the template before I can apply my edits to the article. The Infobox U.S. demographics is useless. It's an incomplete version of the original Infobox. I don't think we need a special demographics Infobox for the U.S. because we already have demographics Infobox and it suits all countries! I am thinking about replacing it, what do you think? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Note on population figure

@EvergreenFir: I have updated the note on the population figure given in the first sentence- let me know what you think. It's very silly to give people unqualified numbers, especially when the US Census measures the US population in a different way than the number given in the first sentence measures it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a similar note in the infobox several months ago that has not been removed- let me know what you think of it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Population, by definition, excludes them. it's a measure in inhabitants, not citizens". If this statement holds true, then the US Census is not a measure of population because members of the Armed Forces overseas and their dependants are being erroneously included in the population. What's more likely: that the definition of the population of a country is loose enough to have multiple similar but different meanings, or that your narrow definition is the only one known to man and everyone who's anyone agrees? Opinions and understandings beyond that in the scope of your limited personal experience actually exist. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Good point regarding Armed Forces. My understanding would be that they are included because their permanent residence is in the USA, despite them not being in the country. These edits look great. Thank you for adjusting and expanding that. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That all reads like WP:original research to me. It may be supportable, but where is the support? Perhaps Mills, Karen (1993), Americans Overseas in U.S. Censuses (PDF), Bureau of the Census (or, if there is one, a similar but more recent publication) might be of use as a reference. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Googling a bit, I also see How Does the U.S. Census Bureau Count People Who Have More Than One Address?. The publisher is prb.org (Population Reference Bureau? I don't know). See New Rule for Deployed Military Personnel in there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that I am not an expert in this field, and I'm primarily interested just because I'm a US Citizen overseas and I don't get into the Census this year (apparently). (I have a very bad temper so sorry for being rude.) I leave this all in your capable hands. Here are a few links Counting All Military Service Members and Their Families US Government Urges Military Families to Participate in 2020[1] [1] [2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a topical expert either -- this talk page section just happened to catch my eye. I think that the point under discussion here is probably too detailed to be within the scope of this article. Perhaps this should be raised at Talk:United States Census, and perhaps the details of changes in census practices re overseas citizens should be mentioned in WP:SS detail articles also in Category:United States Census. More to the point re this article, though, I've reverted the addition of these inline notes to this article; please treat this as a WP:BRD revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Selby, W. Gardner. "Americans must answer U.S. Census Bureau survey by law, though agency has not prosecuted since 1970" (January 9, 2014). politifact.com. Retrieved January 6, 2017. Because you are living in the United States, you are required by law to respond to this survey.

error in File:US counties by population growth.png?

Dane County, Wisconsin is colored red, but it has had over 10% growth from 2010 to 2018. See also the Census Bureau's QuickFacts. What table of data was used to generate the image? 64.246.159.246 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly Incorrect Data in the Introductory Paragraphs

Some mischievious or mathematically illiterate person put this on the data.

"White people constitute the majority of the U.S. population, with a total of about 234,370,202 or 73% of the population as of 2017.[12] Non-Hispanic Whites make up 60.7% of the country's population, though some Latin Americans consider themselves to be fully white on the Census.[12] When this is taken into account, white Americans with no Latin American ancestry make up 52.7% of the population.[13]"

The linked source does not show this. I did not edit it because I don't think I have that power, but it should clearly be removed because it is incorrect as it conflates "white hispanic" data with "non-hispanic white" data for reasons unknown to me.108.48.94.223 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

2 sections for immigration?

2 sections with exactly the same name. 2A01:E0A:234:1660:F9FB:C6AD:23AA:BEFB (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Numbers not adding up

Under "Births and Fertility by Race" in subsection "U.S.-Born People", the values do not add up to 100% in the recent years. This is because of lack of superset data and looks quite awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.99.103 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RACIST DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHITE HISPANIC AND NON-HISPANIC WHITES Part of the article makes a distinction White/Black/Asian/Hispanic as if Hispanics weer a RACE. That is ridiculous. Hispanics CANNOT be compared to "Whites" or "Blacks" because Hispanic is not a race. If you caompare races, then you SHOULD include Whites of Spanish ancestry among them, same way as you include White Jews or White Italians or White Greeks. If White Hispanics are not part of the WHITE section, then Jews and Italians should be also excluded.--213.60.225.183 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Life expectancy dropped due to covid-19

Can somebody update the latest figures? TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

To do:

Ancestry data:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2003 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark357g (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Wouldn't this article be appropriate in the External Links section?

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.66.126 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please correct: Race and ethnicity

To many Asians in US today! No offense!

Race / Ethnicity Number Percentage of
U.S. population
Americans 308,745,538 100.0 %
White 223,553,265 73.4 %
Asian 14,674,252 100 %

It could be also supplemented,like here:

White population of U.S:

Nationality Percentage of
U.S. population
German 16.8 %
Irish 12.1 %
English 9.3 %
Italian 5.9 %
Polish 3.3 %
French 3.2 %
Jewish 2.2 %
Scottish 2 %

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.13.39 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

U.S. demographic table, 1935–2021

Where do the numbers for immigration come from? I don't see a source. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Numbers from US census bureau are different, the numbers in the table should be deleted. United Census Bureau - CPS Historical Migration/Geographic Mobility Tables. Givibidou (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced data, I will maybe include migration rate in the table later. Givibidou (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Twopower332.1938 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Population pyramid in infobox

An edit on August 30, 2022 replaced an animated population pyramid with a static one. I liked the animated one better. Is there a good reason for the change? Twopower332.1938 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Page renaming - Demographics or Demography

This article was recently moved from "Demographics of the United States" to "Demography of the United States". It appears that this was a bold move, without any discussion. As best I can tell, Demographics is the preferred term in American English while Demography is the preferred term in British English. "Demography of the United States" sounds pretty weird to my American ears. Clearly, we should be using American English for this article. This needs to be moved back to Demographics, absent any discussion and consensus for the move. CAVincent (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Update on Population of the United States

This article uses July 1, 2021, and I would like to update it to January 1, 2022. The population as of January 1, 2022 is 332,403,650 according to the US Census Bureau. I do not want to edit it without discussing because the last time I did that, it didn't end well. I also have a population pyramid, but it might be copyrighted as I have found it on the Internet. Allan Polatcan (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to change the number then so long as you change the source within the infobox so it does not link back to the July 2021 figure. If you found the population pyramid online then it would most likely be copyrighted yes. If you are up to it, feel free to create your own population pyramid to update it. Tweedle (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
ok Allan Polatcan (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Should "Vital Statistics" be changed to "Vital Parameters"

The section "Vital Statistics" is misnamed, as the data contained pertains to a population instead of a sample of a population- so it's parameters, not stats.

Relevant

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:200:43aa:1bd:220c:ab0e:8875 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Vital Statistics" is what's used in the cited sources, and I've never heard the term "Vital Parameters". -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1255474757"