Talk:2001 United Kingdom census

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

Welsh nationality[edit]

I've deleted all the stuff about Welsh nationality because it was all wrong. 2001 Census did not collect information on nationality. Previous text was 'bloke in a pub said' stuff. Jonesey

But someone has reverted it on basis that ignorance is to be preferred. Takes all sorts. Jonesey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.118.162 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for reference

The actual question was about "ethnic group", and definitely not nationality. The question on the next census will focus on "national identity", which is also not nationality. The issue also affects the Cornish and English. It needs to be re-written, though I think perhaps not completely deleted. As it stands it is inaccurate and out of proportion with the issue at hand. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - exactly ! Rather than argue with whoever reverted, I've bit my lip and rewritten existing text. Jonesey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.118.162 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and that's been reverted too. Maybe 'cause I'm not signed in, or maybe, as you rightly pointed out zzuuzz, I forgot to do an edit summary. Maybe you can improve it - I've run out of patience... Jonesey

Jedi[edit]

There's no mention in the article about the fact that a large number of people recorded their religion as "Jedi" in this census. Does anyone have accurate figures to expand this? Kingbumpkin (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a widely publised campaign on the internet that stated, incorrectly, that if more than 100,000 people indicated they were of the "Jedi Knight" faith it would have to be recognised officially and have its own tick box in future census papers. In all 390,000 UK residents out of 52,000,000 respondents indicated 'Jedi' in the 2001 census.(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=297) Government's own published figures 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't 390,000 out of 52,000,000 make 0.8%? How come in the summary of religious affiliations it says only 0.3% "Other"? This doesn't seem to add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.181.144 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jedi were officially included in the statistics for 'No religion', not 'Other religion'. There's some detail at the bottom of this page. 78.146.254.155 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Census 2001[edit]

"commonly known as Census 2001"? Maybe I'm just not common enough, but I've only seen it referred to, like previous censuses (Censi?), as "the 2001 Census". "Census 2001" looks more like the name of a website. Pterre (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, apart from this page I have not seen the Census of 2001 reported as "Census 2001". A web search for "Census 2001" also reveals very little (although that isn't a definitive way to settle anything! :-)

At the risk of resurrecting an extremely old discussion, I'll just pitch in with this little tidbit - the Office for National Statistics officially called it "Census 2001" as can be seen on the forms (English Household Form). However, they called the next one 2011 Census, so even their website has been updated to refer to The 2001 Census wherever possible! (Apparently, no-one thought to have a naming convention) KitMoyles (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal number of the 2001 Census[edit]

If the census started in 1801, and has happened every decade since with the exception of 1941, then by the method of fences and posts the 2001 census must be 20th in the series. Xmas1973 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was keep. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that the article United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes be merged into this one. It makes sense to have all of the material in one place and this article already covers ethnicity. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree. The main article arguably over-emphasises ethnicity as compared with all the other variables (such socio-economic groups etc). It probably needs some work in that respect. Pterre (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be more balanced, but I still feel that if it is possible to expand it further (which I will try to do) then it is best to have all of the material on the same page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about the alternative of merging United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes into Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom? Please discuss here.Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

The following comment was left on the article, rather than the talk page, so I'm moving it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The census was in 2001 so things have changed a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.23.32 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the problem. The article is about the 2001 census as a historical event, not about the present day. The article doesn't claim that the statistics from the census are still current. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Kingdom Census 2001. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on United Kingdom Census 2001. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom Census 2001. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_United_Kingdom_census&oldid=1196362686"