Eleventh census

"This census is also notable for the fact it is the only one of three for which the original data is no longer available. " Only one of three? Rich Farmbrough, 20:09 1 November 2007 (GMT).

Racial Categories Section

The Racial Categories section needs to be either removed or entirely rewritten. Right now, it's sloppy and heavily editorialized. It feels more like a draft of somebody's essay about racism in the U.S. Census than part of a Wikipedia article, and adds nothing to the article.


Throughout the section, the names for decades are inconsistent, with "1790's" "1920s" and "70s" being used. Wikipedia seems to use "1920s" instead, so they should all be changed to that format. The first and second sentences are awkward, but if we remove "specifically toward black citizens" they're at least factually correct. Everything afterwards is pointless. It's analyzing small differences in wording, and makes up some information. The term "negro" is hundreds of years old and was the proper term until the 1960s.[1] The scare quotes around advanced are ridiculous, the ellipses should be changed to a period, and it's overall just a mess. I'm going to fix some of the smaller issues right now, but I think the entire section should be removed.

2605:E000:1114:80DB:6C41:A4E8:B58D:75D2 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history and the entire section was added here, so unless anybody objects I'm going to remove it soon. 2605:E000:1114:80DB:6C41:A4E8:B58D:75D2 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Negro

Citizenship Question

The article states that the citizenship question was part of the short form until 2000, and only removed for the 2010 census. However the referenced source does not agree with this. The 2000 Census page is somewhat ambiguous, but does not include the citizenship question (question 13) in the seven questions asked of all respondents on the short form (questions 1-6 and 33). The 1990 Census page explicitly notes that the citizenship question was only on the long form, as does the 1980 Census page. There isn't any evidence of a citizenship question on the 1970 Census page. The 1960 Census asked about place of birth, from which birthright citizenship can be inferred, but does not address the citizenship status of foreign born individuals. Therefore, the 1950 Census was the most recent census where the citizenship status was asked for all respondents. Cg-realms (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are not "illegal"

My comments here are largely based on and taken from this very thoughtful article: What Is the Proper Term: Illegal or Undocumented Immigrant?

While a person who has entered the USA without completing the proper process has committed a crime, that can only be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Even if convicted, the individual is not an "illegal person" - there is no such thing. The terms, "illegal immigrant" and "illegal resident" are legally vague and attempt to erode the rights of the individual guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, that states that the government may not, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wp-sh (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are wrong, there in fact people who's existence is illegal under international law. Hostis humani generis, such as pirates and slavers, are considered under international law to be enemies of mankind and have no rights under international law once determined to be such.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, your culture invented “people aren’t illegal” as a propaganda term in order to frame the debate over illegal immigration in a favorable way, and you know it. “Illegal immigrant” didn’t mean anything of the sort until people such as yourself decided it did, leaving the only people who use the term as opponents of illegal immigrants...and me. I will not change to become an instrument of your political advertising, nor will I let you off the hook for your attempt to manipulate society simply because your end goals are broadly similar to my own. You should be ashamed of yourself for your attempt to redefine the words used by your opponents so as to discredit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.31 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captitalization of census

Is there any good reason that Census in the title of this article (and its daughter articles) is capitalized? I was looking through the constitution and I don't think that's any justification there. I can't see anything in the article or at census.gov either. Census is usually a common noun not a proper noun. It appears to me this might be a hangover from the original title of 'U.S. Census', which is wrong in a slightly more obvious way. Any thoughts on this? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz - I've started a discussion on this very topic. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2021

United States Census → United States census – Per WP:TITLECON, this would match the naming used for the decennial census articles:

Note: United States Census Bureau would not apply, as this is the proper name of a government agency. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories