Talk:Demographics of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

300 million date

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Fact-Finder population clock, the U.S. had an estimated population of 298,173,150 at 02:44, 24 Feb 2006 (UTC), and was adding people at about 4.8 per minute. Assuming linear increase (which may be underestimating for even this short a timeframe — I'm not sure how the clock works), we should hit 300,000,000 at 09:58 on November 15, 2006 (UTC). We might set ourselves a reminder to start watching the clock in late October to prepare to update the estimated population to that milestone figure. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it'll be on the news. Cburnett 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: as of 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC), the clock read 299,793,387 and was increasing at a rate of 6.0/minute. New ETA for 300 million is therefore 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC). I'm betting it'll be a bit sooner, too, since the clock rate is increasing slowly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what should be the last update before the official announcement. With the clock currently running consistently at 5.33 more people per minute for the past 7 days, I project we'll cross 300 million on 17 October 2006 at 11:44 UTC. Since the clock seems to be updated only once every 10 minutes, it may show the crossing as late as 11:54 (allowing for round-off errors). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment

I don't know where the April estimates are with Hispanic unemployment at 14 percent, but the BLS numbers I found for 2005 had it at 5.3 percent, and the September Pew study has it at 4.9 percent... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltroll (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Literacy cannot be 99% in America. Here is quote from Wiki on America - "The United States also has a low literacy rate compared to other developed countries, with a reading literacy rate at 86 - 98% of the population over age 15.[89]" [1]

Literacy cannot be 99% in America. Here is quote from Wiki on America - "The United States also has a low literacy rate compared to other developed countries, with a reading literacy rate at 86 - 98% of the population over age 15.[89]" [2]

principle of most surprise?

This article greatly violates the Principle of least surprise.

Things I expect to find in the inro

• Total US population (esp. being as I was forwarded here when searching U.S. population)

This should probably be the first thing mentioned.

• Male vs. female population
• Life expectancy

Things I did not expect to find

• Ramblings about the low number of people living near the ocean (wtf?!)
• Characterizing population growth rate as "slow" (how about some numbers?) accompanied by musings about immigration.

What's with this article... I've seen some POV dumps before, but on this article??

c'mon... 71.70.209.212 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that 15% of the US Population is on Food Stamps.

Literacy Rate

http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories_story_078135610.html

Quoted from above link: The report says the district's functional illiteracy rate is 36 percent and the nation's 21 percent.

I'm not sure how there can be such a large discrepancy between what's listed in this article and what's mentioned as a quote from the DC education agency. Sure, some of it will be accounted for by different metrics (ie being able to read a sample text, and being able explain orally what is written vs knowing that those 26 things are letters, and being able to name at least 15 of them).

It seems too large a discrepancy to be purely a metrics issue. Perhaps some areas of the US government are so complacent about literacy ("everyone I know can read") that it simply isn't questioned when published as a fact?

If illiteracy is really that big of a problem, complacency isn't an option at all.

Does anyone actually know how these figures are produced, though? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.105.172.181 (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs serious work: San Antonio does not have a population of 22 million people

What's going on with this article? San Antonio obviously doesn't have a population of 22 million people, inside or outside city limits. --Nate Silva 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article and other articles with dry demographic data are frequent targets of prank edits by folks who like to randomly change the numbers. When you see a problem like this, there's a good chance that someone has recently tweaked the numbers, as 198.170.169.241 (talk · contribs) did by changing "1,256,509" to "22,256,509" and then "promoting" San Antonio on this basis. (That's more than they normally do. In my experience, they usually just insert extra digits into numbers and make sure the result has balanced commas to disguise the prank.) To paraphrase the famous saying (usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson but probably originating with John Philpot Curran), the price of editing liberty is eternal vigilance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Graph multicolred?

Is there any reason the graph is multicoloured?--Hugh7 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, why is it multicolored? The green to red in biased against US growth. Some one find another graph.

Chicago's Population

I reverted Chicago's population from nearly 4 million (city limits) to what was on Chicago's Wikipedia page...if someone feels it was incorrect to do so, change it in account that you got the information from a reliable source Jfcr3wp 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The majority of population growth in the United States is now attributable to immigrants and births to immigrants"

This seems doubtful - my best estimate, from rough graphs, is that no more than a third of population growth is due to immigrants. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I say take that out. Aaron 21 June 2007.

Nearly two-thirds of Canada’s population growth comes from immigrants, according to the 2006 census, compared with the United States, where about 43 percent of the population growth comes from immigration.

However, it's not clear if this means immigrants alone, births to recent immigrants, or births to any foreign-born. --JWB 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Urban" population of the US

The statistics on what percentage of the population is living in "urban" areas is misleading. The US Census Bureau uses a definition of "urban" that does not match the way the word is commonly used in discussion, leading most people to believe that a large majority of the US population lives in or near large metro such as the Boston/NY/Philidelphia/Baltimore/DC corridor, Detroit, Chicago, LA, Houston, etc, etc, etc.

In reality, many of the people classified as "urban" live in small towns far from any metro area.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html#urban

In 1950, the urban definition was changed to include the following three categories: (1) incorporated cities, towns (except in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin, for the reason noted above), boroughs, and villages with 2,500 or more inhabitants; (2) unincorporated territory in the "urban fringe" of cities of 50,000 or more population; and (3) unincorporated places of 2,500 or more inhabitants defined by the Census Bureau. The changes from the 1940 definition were designed to improve the classification of densely settled unincorporated territory and were made in conjunction with the first delineation of urbanized areas. Urbanized areas were defined generally as cities with 50,000 or more inhabitants and their surrounding densely settled urban fringe, whether or not incorporated. (Urbanized areas differ in concept from metropolitan areas, which were also first defined in 1950. In general, metropolitan areas were defined as cities with 50,000 or more inhabitants, their counties, and surrounding counties which had a high degree of social and economic integration with the core. Metropolitan areas thus included urban population not contiguous to the core as well as rural population.)

Changes in the urban definition since 1950 have been relatively minor. Starting in 1960, the Census Bureau defined unincorporated places not only outside urbanized areas, but also in unincorporated territory in the urban fringe of urbanized areas.

This needs to be included in the main article in some way.

69.95.253.101 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

San Antonio is Southern?

Now I know cities in Texas like Houston and Dallas are usually considered southern cities, but SAN ANTONIO? San Antonio never really had much of a southern culture, and there's a significant growth in hispanic number, and I always considered the city to be more of a Southwestern city. (Gameguy662 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Largest cities population

The list of largest cities have populations that are fairly different, but still within the same ballpark, as those found at other sourcs such as List_of_United_States_cities_by_population. Most notably, Los Angeles is listed as having 4.3+ million people rather than 3.8+ million, and Chicago 3.1+ million instead of 2.8+ million. I could replace those numbers but it's possible that the higher numbers are due to recent estimates or city amalgamations. Hypertall (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Social Class

In the section on social class, the number $350,0000 is obviously a mistake. Should it read $350,000 or $3,500,000? -Athaler 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

-- -Same question here. What is the number "350,0000" supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.222 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That has been there since the revision as of 03:48, June 15, 2007 introduced the {{Social class in the US}} template. It appears to be a typo in that template. I have made the obvious correction. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with ancestry from a Latin American country or Spain

Does this mean that a person from Brazil that speaks Portuguese is also defined as a hispanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. OMB: "The term "Hispanic" refers to persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish cultures."[3] So nothing about Brazil. SamEV 06:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Brazil was in South America. So according to this definition, it should be included.149.217.1.6 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, Brazil was not one of the "Spanish cultures". SamEV (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In Latin American Studies, the term 'Hispanic' is commonly asserted to descend from British colonial racial slurs for the residents of Hispaniola under British rule (and is therefore generally not preferred, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spic_(slur); it does not have a clear NPOV 'referent.' One might wish to recall that US law also defines pi as 3.0, and is not the final authority on such issues. However, the OMB Standards document referenced above by SamEv notes that, for the very limited purposes of what US Executive orders mean in "ethnic classification," the term "Hispanic" has been changed to "Hispanic and Latino." As already noted, SamEv also contradicts him/herself: "to... Cuba, Central and South America... so nothing about Brazil." Brazil is in South America and much of its population descends from Carribean populations (eg the people the British colonials would have termed 'Hispanics.') Regardless, the clumbersome locution "Hispanic or Latino" seems to encompass all of the Latin Americas, 'whatever that may mean.' KenThomas (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

KenThomas, please note that not only are Brazilian Americans not explicitly mentioned in the definitions, they're also missing from detailed Hispanic or Latino population reports: [4], [5]. How is that a contradiction on my part? Other links you might find interesting are [6], [7]. As to the Caribbean ancestry of some or many Brazilians, what's the connection? The US is a sovereign nation. Britain's definition of Hispanic does not apply here. Moreover, those are Brazilians now, whatever else they were called in the past, by whomever. As for the origin of "Hispanic", the Spic (slur) article makes no mention of Hispaniola. And btw, Hispaniola was never under British rule. SamEV (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Denominations

You need to fix the demography that shows Christian denominations, as Mormons/Latter Day Saints are not considered Christians. They are a branch off of Christianity that changed many of the beliefs, and are outside of mainstream Christianity.

Mormons are considered Christians, just not Protestants. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

false precision for 300 million mark

This quote seems to be an example of false precision: "The total U.S. population crossed the 100 million mark around 1915, the 200 million mark in 1967, and the 300 million mark in 2006 (on Tuesday, October 17)." The Census Bureau's PopClock may have registered 300 million on October 17, but that is an extrapolation of the number counted in the census, not the exact number of people living in the country. The Bureau admits that the census fails to count several million people 1990 Census Bureau, Census Undercount Background Information. That margin of error is much too large to pin the event to an exact month, let alone day. Cephal-odd (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

wili-nilly changes and unsupported figures

This page just popped up on my watchlist,with an unsupported change in the population of Los Angeles from 4,018,080 to 4,324,526 and of Chicago from 2,833,321 to 3,158,790 These changes were not accompanied with corresponding changes in the population density figures, but it was a revert — perhaps the change being reverted did not adjust those figures. I note that the text introducing the table where these changes were made says, "For more details see the "American Fact Finder" at the Census site.[8] Looking at that site, I see that this page gives the population of Los Angeles as 3,773,846, and this page gives the population of Chicago as 2,749,283.

Has anyone here ever wondered why so many people complain that the information in Wikipedia is crap? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted two suspicious edits for seven reasons: 1) the edits did not point to any source, 2) the info seemed incorrect to me (it shows LA losing population), 3) there were no edit summaries, 4) the author was an IP, 5) s/he modified long-established info, which I assuemed had been vetted by other editors, 6) the recent history of vandalism to the article, 7) I counted on the IP's repeating its edits, but with citations this time, if they were indeed intended in good faith. I admit I didn't verify the accuracy of the info I was restoring, but given the circumstances found it best to give it the benefit of the doubt over the new info. I must say that other than the Race and ethnicity section, I'm not all that familiar with this article. SamEV (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my grumpiness above. It was a product of frustration overflow at seeing yet another example of unsupported figures in a WP article which, when checked against the cited supporting source, turn out to differ from the figures given in that cited supporting source. I didn't intend to criticize your revert specifically — the unsupported figures which appear to be out of agreement with the cited supporting source didn't come from your revert.

I'm not sure what the figures in the article mean anyhow, or where they come from. In the Current U.S. population section, the article says, "For more details see the 'American Fact Finder' at the Census site.[9] " The table which follows that gives (for example) a figure of 8,143,197 for the population "within city limits" of New York City. this page at the cited supporting source doesn't mention anything about city limits and gives a "Census 2000" figure (8,008,676) and seven yearly estimate figures. None of these figures match the figure in the article. The article gives New York a population density of 10,194.2 persons/km². Dividing 8,143,197 by 10,194.2 gives a land area of 798.8 km² for New York. The List of United States cities by area article disagrees, giving the land area of New York City as 788 km². That article says, "All data is provided by the United States Census Bureau and is current as of 2000." Perhaps land area info by city is available from the Census Bureau, but I haven't been able to find it on their web site. I would do some work to try to straighten this out, but don't know where to start. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all right, Bill. I feel the same frustration, too, sometimes. I'll take a look at the rest of the article and see if I can help, problably beginning on Thursday. SamEV (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

San Antonio

How did San Antonio drop off the list of the ten most populous cities?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

it appears to be number 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.186.215 (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Table Be Fantastic to Add to this Article

involve a 50 year rolling (i.e. would be updated by a single year when the relevant figure comes out for the subsequent year, and the earliest year in the table could then be deleted) year-by-year tabulation of the estimated US population. If necessary, you could include multiple columns to take into account different measures (e.g. how an introductory discussion of inflation measures sometimes includes separate columns for different inflationary measurements, e.g. CPI vs. Wage adjust, etc.)

This would give wikipedia a comparative information advantage against its rival sources and it is a relevant piece of information to include in an article such at this. If it is linked somewhere in the mess of tables and charts, I certainly couldn't find it. And such information ought to be featured prominently anyway, not buried in a cross-reference somewhere.

The information is absolutely out there, but no one has taken the time - or at least no one on the internet (it can be found it books) - to put it all together. Anyone game? [I checked in the 'Demographic History of the US' article - not available there either]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.188.208 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 

Why are 'White" Americans counted as White? They are not White.

AMERICANS ARE NOT WHITE!!

What is important is phenotype and culture and the US is a Western Country where the English speaking Anglo majority has been assimilating minorities for centuries the same way the UK assimilated the French speaking Normands or Spain assimilated the German speaking Visigoths and also Arabs. ASSIMILATION is the essential concept as French sociologist Emmanuel Todd wrote in his book "The Destiny of Immigrants". In fact, it is amazing the rate at what Japanese-Americans in California are being assimilated becoming White and Anglo-Saxon after marrying for decades with Whites the same way it happened with a great part of so called Native Americans who after decades of marriage became White being completely assimilated.

We can say that the overwhelming majority of Spanish have German ancestry because Visigoths mixed for 300 years with the Latin majority....the same probably will happen to Hispanics in the USA: they will be assimilated like the Goths in Spain or the Normands in England becoming Anglo-Saxons as hundreds of thousands have already done (Cameron Diaz, Jessica Alba, Bob Martinez, Rita Hayworth...)

If assimilation fails the result is just Secession as happened in Kosovo when Albanians became the overwhelming majority or in Texas when Anglos became the overwhelming majority. Sooner or later the result is Secession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.148.59 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Americans are not White!!! They could call themselves Martian if they want. So-called "white" Americans, according to their own one-drop rule, are not White and have never been White:

Genetics

In European Americans from State College [in Washington D.C.], the west African and native American genetic contributions are low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively).

(Shriver et al., Hum Genet, 2003)

As to their European blood, many Europeans are not White either:

The Tat-C haplogroup was observed at significant frequencies in each of the southern Middle Siberian populations studied. Surprisingly, it reached its highest frequency in the Siberian Eskimos and Chukchi from the Chukotkan peninsula. The Tat-C haplogroup was absent in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk region populations that have maintained greater geographic and/or linguistic isolation (e.g., the Udegeys, Nivkhs, and Upriver Negidals) and was only detected in the populations likely to have had recent contact or shared origins with the populations of southern Middle Siberia (e.g., the Okhotsk Evenks, Ulchi/Nanai, and Downriver Negidals). Because the Tat-C polymorphism originated on a Y chromosome containing the DYS7C deletion (haplogroup 7C), which was present only in the Middle Siberian Tuvans, Buryats, Tofalars, and Yenisey Evenks, the Tat-C haplogroup probably entered the Lower Amur and eastern Siberia from southern Middle Siberia. This conclusion is consistent with the previous hypothesis that the Tat-C and 7C haplogroups arose in central Asia and migrated west to northern Europe and east to Chukotka (Zerjal et al. 1997).

The network of Tat-C and DYS7C haplotypes revealed that the ancestral Tat-C haplotype (7C[11-11-10-10]) was found only in southern Middle Siberia, indicating that this Y-chromosome lineage arose in that region. Moreover, the limited microsatellite diversity and resulting compact nature of the network indicates that the Tat-C lineage arose relatively recently (Zerjal et al. 1997). The absence of the Tat-C haplogroup in the Americas, with the exception of a single Navajo (Karafet et al. 1999), along with its high frequency in both northern Europe and northeastern Siberia, indicates that the Tat-C lineage was disseminated from central Asia by both westward and eastward male migrations, the eastward migration reaching Chukotka after the Bering Land Bridge was submerged. Both the M45 and Tat-C haplogroups have been found in Europe, indicating both ancient and recent central Asian influences. However, neither of these major Middle Siberian Y-chromosome lineages appears to have been greatly influenced by the paternal gene pool of Han Chinese or other East Asian populations (Su et al. 1999).

(Lell et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2002)

   Tat-C Frequencies

Yakuts..........87% Eskimos.........61% Chukchi.........58% Finns...........55% Buryats.........52% Tofalars........47% 
Lithuanians.....47% Lapps...........42% Estonians.......37% Maris...........33% Latvians........32% Nenets..........30% 
Tuvans..........18% Chuvash.........18% Russians........14% Ukrainians......11% North Swedes.....8% Gotlanders.......6% 
Norwegians.......6% Poles............4% Germans..........3% Armenians........3% Slovakians.......3% Danes............2% 
Belarusians......2% Turks............1%

   7C Frequencies

Nenets..........50% Tofalars........47% Tuvans..........28% Buryats.........15% Maris...........17% Czechs...........6% 
Estonians........4% Russians.........4% Finns............2% Yugoslavians.....2% Cypriots.........2% Poles............1% 
Slovakians.......1% Turks............1%

   (Kittles et al. 1998, Rosser et al. 2000, Dupuy et al. 2001, Wells et al. 2001, Lell et al. 2002 and Puzyrev et al. 2003)

So, stop pasing off as White and face up to the fact that you are a mixed people.

NB: (Posted as Response 3/9/06) Everyone is a 'mixed people'. The odds are good that all such terms represented in this/these survey(s) fail to accurately represent genetic sub-groups, and are a constructed terminology with little or no basis in reality which has been implemented solely for 'ease of use'. The lesson: Don't blame individuals for their terminology; and society won't change unless it becomes convenient or necessary. Besides, odds are also good that the ideas and institutions which gave rise to this terminology are gone or defunct (like eugenics) and that the terminology will change as modern techniques (genetics) develop better terminology. These changes take time, and these terms represent such a trivial point of existence that the exasperation embodied by the above commentary is unnecessary. (But the statistics are interesting.)

The more you spread race heatred against White people, the more White they become.

I removed this line from the article "The American population is therefore only around 60% pure White European(180 million people)", because it seems to support notions of "purity" that are problematic to put it mildly. Not least among the problems is that I suspect a fair number of Americans (esp. those with pre-Reconstruction roots in the US) have black and native ancestors that they are unaware of. Besides, Europeans aren't exactly "pure" white either, there have been plenty of interaction with other races over the centuries. I'm not arguing here against the use of racial categories "white" or otherwise, and I'm not particularly afraid of anyone's hatred (or heatred!) of whitey, just pointing out that racial categorizations don't merit any sense of "purity". As it is, I think the article gives a fair sense of American ethnic distribution and also the difficulties in getting any solid definitions or percentages. 171.159.64.10 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As another response, "white" in this context is a grouping of ethnicities—just like "black" includes all dark-skinned people of African descent. Of course it obscures distinctions. Heck, in the Census Bureau definitions, "Asian" doesn't even distinguish between Chinese, Indian, Filipino, etc. I'd say the Middle Siberian tidbits posted above are substantially less of a big deal than lumping such disparate "Asians" into one category. I agree with the basic premise, that "white" is a misleading label, but on the other hand, it's not any more misleading than any other label. The above poster is correct about terminology—these are just groups that sometimes make discussion easier, and to that extent are useful. For example, in saying "Historically in America, blacks have faced prejudice and hostility from whites", whether the blacks came from Nigeria or Kenya and the whites from England or Poland isn't really an important distinction.

Also, I apologize for editing another user's post, but I changed the formatting on the provided statistics for readability. —Ryan McDaniel 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

All U.S. Census Bureau statistics are self-reported: they reflect how the people see themselves, not any kind of exact scientific defintion. Funnyhat 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says that there are 700 million whites in the US. I'm changing it to 70 million just so its not so grossly over the current population alone. I don't have time to look into what it really is. Would someone please correct this?

This was part of a 3-edit vandalism ([10]) by 24.248.163.216 (talk · contribs). I've just reverted the remaining changes they made and left a warning on their user talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

State the current population, please

This article links from the topic "population of the United States". It would therefore be extremely useful if this article actually *stated* the population of the United States in the opening paragraph. As it is, this cross-linking is absurd and frustrating.

Thanks!

[CMB 86.10.189.9 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)]

Age Structure

Is the age structure of the US important enough to have it's own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Better Sortable Table (example: Religious Affiliation)

I suppose this is an issue wider-spread than, and not intrinsically related to, the topic of US demographics, but as can be seen in the numerical columns of the "Religious Affiliation" table, the numbers sort by the value of the first number rather than the entire number. As an example, when sorting from highest to lowest number in the "Membership (thousands)" column, 97 is listed as greater than 879. Can this be fixed? ThosejaunesJDS 07:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with ethnic groups in the United States

I think this should be added also, there is alot of problems in the United States concerning with ethnic groups and other social problems and its economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.191.64 (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gender

The article breaks down the population in many ways but not by gender. How many females are there in the US? How many males? Seems like a basic distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"White" vs "European"

The problem with substituting these terms is Europe also has people from Spain who are regarded as Hispanic but also are European..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.155.114 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GLB

It seems to me that the subsection on GLB is a bit WP:UNDUE considering their numbers. And the list by cities is not done elsewhere, as, for example, Southern Baptists, or Mormons, or veterans, or whatever.

A more important point, is that most breakdowns count everyone, not just a minority. So "race" includes whites, "religion" counts atheists (though I don't think the first section did), "age" counts all ages, not just seniors. My point being that heterosexuals should be included as well and the subsection should be entitled "sexual orientation." To do otherwise is, IMO, WP:POV and WP:BIASed in displaying statistics. Similarly, if cities must be presented, then heterosexuals should be included there as well. Student7 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And another thing. Do we allow the "Little Church of Jesus Christ" to say that they have 1 million members and that they have grown at 30% a year? Then why are we saying this about GLB? Anyway this tends to what I call the "Law of Small Numbers." Which suggests that if small groups grow at the enormous rate they are reporting today, that by 2100, everyone will belong to the "Little Church of Jesus Christ" or (in the real case in the text, that every person over the age of 11 will be GLB. Assuming they give kids a little time before 12 to make up their minds of course.

Having said that, I do like to see some figures on percentage growth or shrinkage when it contains the entire demographic: percentage change by age (children/seniors growing?). Or if birth of children by sex deviates much from norm (e.g. are many fewer female babies being born in China - or in the US - apparently due to aborting "useless" females?). So tracking percentage increases may be justified in some cases for the entire demographic. But they don't mean much for small groups. Student7 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And a third thing, which involves all statistics presented at this level - should there even be a breakdown by city at the national level? It would seem to me that the breakdown should be by state, not city. A breakdown by city would be proper at the state level (for example, Demographics of California).

Also, it seems to me, that this failure to include the entire demographic blithely skips single-headed "families", and POSSLQ families (Unmarried heterosexuals). Most likely, being the inner city (for this demographic, the editor has most likely chosen city limit boundaries. I usually have trouble with editors who go well beyond the city boundaries to prove some obscure point. Well, not here anyway!  :) single/POSSLQ families either outnumber or come real close to equaling heterosexual married couples. So the real statistics for San Francisco would probably read more like: 45% single and POSSLQs, 40% married. and 15% GLB, considerably below the figure reported in the article. Skipping the entire demographic enables the presenter to exaggerate his WP:POV. Not a good idea IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead should specify total resident population, and accurately state growth rate

The lead cites the following reference: "Table 1: Monthly Population Estimates for the United States: April 1, 2000 to November 1, 2008 (NA-EST2007-01)". U.S. Census Bureau. 2007-12-27. Retrieved 2009-01-10.. The cited table distinguishes between several different numbers: total resident population, total resident population plus armed forces overseas, total civilian population, and total civilian noninstitutionalized population. I think surely the lead must be concerned with the total resident population; if so, then that should be clarified.

If the total resident population is indeed what is meant, then there also seems to be a problem with the numbers. The cited table shows an increase from 302,687,241 to 305,548,183 over the one-year period from Nov 1, 2007 to Nov 1, 2008. Plugging in the numbers, I find that corresponds to an annual growth rate of 0.95%, rather than the listed 1.01%. Just in case I'm missing something, I'm not going to change the number right away. But unless someone can explain this apparent discrepancy to me, I will change it. Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. It's done. SamEV (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh... you know what, Kevin? Now I remember why I chose not to specify a type of population (a column) months ago: because all of them show the same relative increase for the Nov 2007 to Nov 2008 period. (Sorry I missed the fact that 1.01% was wrong, though.) I decided to let readers choose the column. Do you think we should specify a column (i.e. keep this recent change) or not specify? (i.e. put it back as before) Despite my original choice, I'm not all too sure of the answer, so my question is genuine. SamEV (talk) 06:58; 1 March 2009 (UTC), 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Having received no response, I went ahead and modified it to read: "Accordingly, the United States Census Bureau shows an increase of 0.95% between November 2007 and November 2008 for the population (resident or otherwise).[9]" So it's somewhat of a return to the previous version, but does address your concerns, Kevin. SamEV (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed this until now. By my calculations, the 2008 vs. 2007 increases for November range between 0.89% and 0.90%. I calculated the increase in 2009 vs. 2008 for all columns for all months, and see that the results range between 0.85% and 0.89%. The "Resident Population" alone has the same range. I've changed this to read, "The United States Census Bureau shows population increases ranging between 0.85% and 0.89% in months of 2009 vs. 2008.". I've also changed the URL in the cited supporting source to give a choice between Excel and CSV formatted tables. If there's good reason that this should be limited to that column or otherwise altered, feel free to change it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bill.

The source you provided is updated, so maybe that explains the discrepancy.

"I calculated the increase in 2009 vs. 2008 for all columns for all months". Better you than me! :)

Actually, I got the same numbers for the month-on-month, 2009 vs 2008 comparisons for the resident population column. I like the changes you made. SamEV (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"White" vs. "European"

I've just reverted edits by an IP that changed all instances of "White" to "European." This has been discussed before (e.g. here). In addition to not being backed up by reliable sources, the edits in question introduced red links in the article (breaking this link: White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans by changing "White" to "European"). Before making this change again, I think editors who support it should show citations to mainstream published works that use the term "European American" to the exclusion of "White." -- Æk (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you are the gentleman who did that. Yes, that IP was, in fact, me. Although I can understand the conflict with the differentiation between Hispanic and European (although, for all intensive purposes, Spain is located in Europe), I thought that since the term African American is used rather than Black, it would only be politically correct to use the term European American rather than White, which would be derogative in this context. In addition, it doesn't make sense to use terms that refer directly to specific enthicities, and then use the term White, referring to a skin color. Mainstream media shouldn't have anything to do with this. It should be about social and political correctness. Keep in mind that in the nineteenth century, the mainstream term for a Black American was very offensive. At the very least, it should be changed to Caucasian American.

The content doesn't obey political correctness or the media usage. We use "White" because that's what the group is called officially. Please take the time to examine the sources from the Census Bureau. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Census undercount

The article presents a good summary of data from the U.S. Census, but seems to imply that those data are more accurate than they are. Several sources estimate that the census failed to count several million people. I think the article should mention that large margin of error, and shouldn't portray the census's estimate as the country's exact population. Cephal-odd (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

With the very casual attitude of the counting, it is also real easy to be double counted. Kids away in school, people moving from one place to another temporarily, or even permanantly, and being counted in both places. Of course, the mayors don't complain about that! I would suspect that overcounting is about a prevalent as undercounting, but the latter definitely gets the headlines. Which goes to show how much you can depend on the media or politicians for anything.

BTW, do illegals aliens have to be counted? They comprise a substantial minority of six or seven states. What about legal ones? Student7 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources cited above does estimate that about three million people are counted twice, but six million go uncounted, resulting in a net undercount. Regardless of the amount of the error, these discrepancies show that the error in the census is large, and that stating the population to the nearest thousand is false precision. It would be more reasonable to say the population is about 310 million. Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether legal immigrants or visitors are deliberately counted? Are illegals deliberately counted? Student7 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

More Wikipedia bias

Of course Wikipedia has to put the percent change next to religion, in attempts to show off their growing atheist population.

Too bad you're dying. Get over it. And your lame ARIS polls can't save you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.16.29 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Population density

Shouldn't the section on "Population density" also give the population density of the whole US? --128.6.62.110 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity graph

The second listing is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.59.52 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

Shouldn't we include those aborted in the birth and death ratio?

The government doesn't keep statistics on that. See Talk:Death. Durova 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Surgically-removed fetal tissue does not constitute a person any more than a surgically removed lump of cancer tissue constitutes a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A successfully fertilized egg will in fact grow into a human being by means of detailed codes of DNA, which causes unique differentiated cell division. Cancer consists of undifferentiated cells that increase in number by cell division, but unlike normal cell division, a cancer cell does not respond to "contact inhibition"; they do not ever cease dividing, which leads to a growing mass of undifferentiated cells. To say that a growing human being is the same as an undifferentiated mass of unstoppable rapidly diving cells leads one to believe you are quite uninformed on the subject. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a political forum for you to spew your falsehoods on two very distinct biological processes. I felt the need to clarify that cancer cells dividing and a fertilized human egg are not "one in the same" as you seem to want people to think. By the way, just so you don't wrongfully judge my intent, I believe in letting a woman choose, but that has nothing to do with why posted this comment. The sole reason was to dispute your unrealistic statement. 69.140.130.96 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer is "no," for lack of reliable US Census information, if nothing else. Any more discussion needs to be carried over to the editors' personal pages. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For Scientology, Number of Clergy is "1" ?

A table indicates that the number of clergy for Scientology is 1. Is that right? Seems implicitly contradicted by the following in the Scientology article: "Ordained Scientology ministers may perform such rites. However, these services and the clergy who perform them play only a minor role in Scientologists' religious lives." TresÁrboles (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Population density (2)

An editor has made an observation, using referenced material. It is still WP:OR because an editor made it and not a qualified observer. Why, for example, was Germany selected as a comparison? A referenced editor would have some good reason. We are also more dense, than, say, Russia. Should that be mentioned? The answer is "no"! Not unless it is made by an academic source. We are not here to make up articles and insert interesting observations on our own. That is writing, not editing. We are supposed to edit. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A statement that 150 (check the count at List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density ) sovereign countries (including every European country except...) have greater pop density is mathematically derivable, however. --JimWae (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong with the info. I only asked him to source it so there would be no unsourced content in the lead (and because s/he added it and I didn't feel like looking for the source myself at that moment). SamEV (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not doubting the truth of the matter. It's an observation from a large list of data. Why those particular choices? Let's say I have a list of heights. I "observe" that JimWae is "taller" than SamEV. Whatever made me choose those two people out of the whole list? It is not than I am wrong. It is just the question of why that comparison? If, on the other hand, Forbes magazine had said "Wow! X is taller than Y! Who knew?!" Then it becomes germane and is usable. But we don't interpret data, which is being done here and is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I fail to see any harm in it, I agree that it's kind of arbitrary. Also, I agree with Jim that we should mention the population density and its ranking. SamEV (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay to mention density standing in listing of nations of the world. But it is arbitrary and therefore WP:OR for an editor to select a country at random to compare it with. This must be selected by some WP:RELY source and therefore selected for a scholarly reason and not to demonstrate that the US is more/less dense than some country with whom someone has an axe to grind. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Hispanic category needed?

Hispanics are all originally white caucasians (from Spain) so why is a separate category needed? It makes no sense, otherwise there would need to be a separate category for almost every country on earth. If we take Mexicans for example, most are a mix of white caucasian and native American. There only needs to be a "mixed race" category, which most Mexicans and other hispanics would fall under. Davez621 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As in all matters, we are obliged to follow statistics and official counts/definitions on this, many of which are driven by political issues/biased agendas and political "correctness." We have no choice, in this, as in many other matters, all of which are either dependent on a biased government or a biased media. There really are few "unbiased" sources out there, aside from a few academic publications. Our main concern is being careful in what we use from them. We can't avoid them. Student7 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

74% White or 79% White?

Why are two figures given? Under "Race and ethnicity", it says that whites comprise 74.8% but in the very next section, "Projections", the census projection of 79.5% is used. That's a pretty big gap. One of the figures has to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj2000 (talk • contribs) 05:12, March 7, 2011

As to the numbers,

• The Race and Ethnicity section reports 2009 figures characterized as the U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2009, citing two supporting items from the 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. See [11] and [12].

Figures for 2009: 100 * 229,773,131 / 307,006,556 = 74.84%

• The Projections section speaks of a comparison of Census Bureau population projections for the years 2010 and 2050. See [13]

Projections for 2010: 100 * 246,630,000 / 310,233,000 = 79.5%

You're speaking of 2009 figures at around 74% and projected estimates for 2010 at 79.5%. It is entirely reasonable that these figures differ. Neither figure is necessarily incorrect. Also, even if one or both figures are incorrect (or untrue), please note the lead paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Request Current Data

We just had a 2010 census. Can we get some current data here??? Starting with: 2010_United_States_Census--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Projections vs WP:CRYSTAL

I appreciate that the US Census Bureau is into the WP:CRYSTAL business. But why do we have to use their material? It seems fatuous IMO. "Going to reach 1 billion by 2200", "3 trillion by 3000." These are invariably wrong as different people move in (and out, which is seldom reported by the media). They originally projected that blacks would take over the US by 2050 or so. Then abortion came along as did Hispanics, and suddenly Hispanics are going to take over.

All nonsense. IMO we shouldn't be using anybody's WP:CRYSTAL projections. Let's just report counts, which is hard enough and leave extravagant projections for the future to the reader. Student7 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Population density

An editor added a comparison of population density which was probably not inaccurate. But it was WP:OR. Need a reason for comparison. The one I have usually seen is with the Netherlands which has a high density, but maybe a more normal one is necessary. The point being someone with an npov needs to select comparisons. Not us. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unwed Mother Births

>17% Asian mothers, 29% white, 53% Hispanics, 66% Native Americans, and 72% black.

Just what? I, I don't understand how someone got a number of 200% of the population.76.78.246.59 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Tildes

They are not supposed to be added. 17% of Asian mothers, etc. Student7 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

High density should mean cities

Not sure how to word title, but an IP placed this in the article where it was properly reverted:

"Residing in a suburb does not automatically suggest an urban location, which is one of the reasons there is a difference between the words urban and suburban. Secondly, there are suburbs with as many rural characteristics as urban, as in some "cities," the city limits surround farmland, or vast areas of open space. While there have been trends towards urbanization in the search for jobs and revitalization of certain cities, simply because suburbs grow in population, and often annex rural areas, does not make them "urbanized." Density levels should determine urban areas, not exaggerated and ever increasing boundaries, or suburban encroachment into rural areas."

I kind of agree with this remark, but what can you do? There are federal government benefits (apparently) for being in an MSA. In the US, we are stuck with these. In rural Vermont we have two Burlington MSAs, one overlapping the other. And a micropolitan SA including Canaan, Vermont which is in the literal boonies. But we have to follow the government in this. If there were a WP:RELY source that disagreed, we could start including those, as well.

This is a case of someone being 100% correct, but not having solid citations that would corroborate the statement. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

une 2011 (UTC)

13.13 Nationality

American - mean all Americans(North and South) from Argentina to Canada. It should be written United States American or North American(but that id mean Canadian as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.67.158 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RELY reference that says Canadians refer to themselves as "Americans" for example? Student7 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. In English, American and America are scarcely used as anything but in reference to the United States of America and its citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.71.149 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's My Poor Massachusetts?

I noticed that my current home state of Massachusetts wasn't in the table of states though the list had the expected 51 entries (50 states + Wash DC). Sorting by state quickly showed that Kansas was duplicated -- name and stats. So I deleted the duplicate entry but don't know what to do about Mass. Hopefully someone whose clueful, or at least less clueless, can fix it.

Neil Smithline (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment rate

Someone who knows what he is about, has placed a rather obscure nomenclature in this subsection. It is probably true, but I wonder if it might be too arcane for "Demographics." I had never heard of it before I was forced to look it up. Might be better to stick with "simple" unemployment here and leave off more sophisticated explanations for a "main" article someplace, maybe? Student7 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is useful and significant to apprise the reader that there is more than one unemployment statistic. This is not arcane in an article on demographics. The statistic typically cited by news organizations does not actually report on the idea that is commonly assumed (the assumed is namely, unemployed seeking work, plus all less than fully-employed individuals, including those who are working fewer hours than they desire, or who cannot find desired work, and have ceased looking, but still desire work), hence the desirability of stating so in English, in a section entitled "unemployment". The editor/reader may create links for further background and understanding. Governmental statistical series typically have such names, and one prominent series M0, M1, M2, M3, describing various kinds of money, measured by the U.S. Federal Reserve bank, and reported explicitly with the series number in business journals. See Money supply, for the example.
- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there may be more than one figure for unemployment. It's just that this appears to be the first place in the encyclopedia where it is mentioned.

Instead of saying, "this is congruent with Einstein's Theory," we instead say, if "M' goes up, 'E' increases proportionately." We've never really said anyplace else that E=MCsquared, nor explained it either. And this for someone who has never heard of E or M or C!

IMO, an explanation should be linked elsewhere or replaced here with a comment that it "isn't quite the usual unemployment statistic." i.e, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Student7 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some sources:

• Roberts, Sam. "Population Study Finds Change in the Suburbs." The New York Times. May 9, 2010. A23 New York Edition.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lowest teen pregnancies in history

On the radio yesterday I heard a report that teen pregnancy was at an all time low and so had fertility dropped to 1940 levels but only the women in their early 40's fertility had risen slightly. Someone have the sources for this? Alatari (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A little googling turned up [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and more. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:SHED just to add these new facts. 2 hours a day for more than a week just to get a fact about Christian numbers of 243m that was not supported by any sources removed. If you are an established editor on this page and you have the sources; enjoy. Alatari (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of same sex unions is deleted

Not sure even how to find the history of a deleted file to get an explanation of it's deletion. Alatari (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Citizens

What percentage of the US population are US citizens? How many US citizens do not live in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.92.126 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

People are not counted domestically by citizenship! Therefore, reliable estimates may have to be used. I am "pretty sure" that there is an actual count of citizens abroad (non-US residence). I agree that both figures should probably be in the article. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

United States Population

What was the total population of the United States during the twentieth century ? 1900, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 ? Do not care about US definition of races or religions or other minor items, what was the population ?

Well, the obvious place to look is the U.S. Census Bureau website. Whether you can easily find such a concise overview of their terabytes (petabytes? exabytes?) of data is another question. For a lark, I decided to try it. Starting with the American Fact-Finder link I provided above in "300 million date", I wandered uselessly around various promising links. I eventually decided to try the to search the FAQs with the convenient link on the USCB home page. Its first hit was "Historical population data", which led to "Selected Historical And Decennial Census Population and Housing Counts", which led to two links, "1790 to 1990: Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density" (which provided a summary for each decade, including the totals we're after, through 1990) and "Historical Census Reports", which provided a 2000 link, which listed a bunch of separate reports, from which I picked "PHC-1. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics", subreport "United States - Part 1", which presented on page 16 (Table 1: Age and Sex 2000) the 2000 total. (I suspect most of the other reports of this last group would also have the total somewhere in their summary tables.) Whew! I'm sure there are many other easier places to get this number, but this is from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Anyway, U.S. population totals since the census's inception are… (drum roll, please!):

1790	3,929,214	1870	38,558,371	1950	151,325,798
1800	5,308,483	1880	50,189,209	1960	179,323,175
1810	7,239,881	1890	62,979,766	1970	203,302,031
1820	9,638,453	1900	76,212,168	1980	226,542,199
1830	12,866,020	1910	92,228,496	1990	248,709,873
1840	17,069,453	1920	106,021,537	2000	281,421,906
1850	23,191,876	1930	123,202,624
1860	31,443,321	1940	132,164,569

More info than was asked for, but it was a useful and interesting excercise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. population is characterized as slow growth, with a large baby boomer cohort. Births, supplemented by immigration, help to offset the aging population. The total U.S. population crossed the 200,000,000 mark in 1968, and the 100,000,000 mark around 1915.

Who wrote this? How can you characterize the population as slow growth when we're growing at 5.3 percent each year? The united states population as of 2007 is growing at about 0.8 percent per year and not 5.3 percent.

Hi, a friend and I have compiled the annual population of the U.S. from 1790-2011, something that as far as we can tell does not exist anywhere else on the Internet. It seems like a graph of this data and a link to it would be useful in this page.

Here's the chart.

From that page there are links to the underlying data, and links to the data source behind each of the data points.

Full Disclosure: We are volunteers for a non-profit called Data Collective whose mission is to build and support technology to help people find, understand, and share data, advancing the knowledge and education of citizens everywhere. We're hoping this contribution is useful, relevant, and in the best spirit of Wikipedia.

What would be the most Wikipedia-like way to incorporate this annual population data into Wikipedia? I was thinking a link in the external links section, a chart, and perhaps a link from the "Historical populations" table? I would be happy to make these changes myself, but I don't want to run afoul of conflict-of-interest and external-link guidelines! Thanks, --Dsjoerg (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The table I would like to see, would include percentage increase with each decade. We have templates for this sort of thing. But if the one from Jeff Q is from the US census, it takes priority. We take secondary sources over tertiary ones. While I appreciate your interest and hope you can contribute to our articles, I don't see a chart with a curve as being useful in this situation. There are just so many ways data can be presented and our readers cannot be expected to sit still for more than a few. Student7 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)