Jump to content

Talk:Census in the United Kingdom

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

1931 Census

[edit]

I have added in a brief paragraph about the 1931 census being taken but destroyed. I didn't know whether to add it into the 'Availability' section or not - that seems to deal with a different issue. Feel free to put it elsewhere if you want. Satyricon uk 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changing shape of the United Kingdom, circa 1920

[edit]

If any contributor can supply this information, it would be interesting to have material here on what happened when the UK was rent asunder by the Irish War of Independence, and the Irish Public Records Office was destroyed in the subsequent Civil War. In particular: were irreplaceable census records lost in the PRO fire? How, if at all, were records divided between Dublin and Belfast, following Partition? Was the 1921 census conducted in Ireland, and if so, how effective and reliable was it? Jimgawn 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Availability

[edit]

As with the main Census article I have reworded a sentence saying that the statistical information is sold to interested parties to say the results are published in reports and on the ONS [etc] websites. You can get all the standard output from the 2001 Census without paying either from the web or on CD. As far as I know the only things you'd need to pay for are commissioned tables (that is, tables which were not produced as standard) where you are paying for the programmer's time rather than the data itself; and access to the system for disseminating anonymised microdata (where, strictly speaking, again you are not paying for the data itself). Jonesey67 13:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest perhaps is the 1920 Census Act, which is still mostly in force, which says:
4-(1) The Registrar-General shall, as soon as may be after the taking of a census, prepare reports on the census returns, and every such report shall be printed and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The Registrar-General may, if he so thinks fit, at the request and cost of any local authority or person, cause abstracts to be prepared containing any such statistical information, being information which is not contained in the reports made by him under this section and which in his opinion it is reasonable for that authority or person to require, as can be derived from the census returns.

-- zzuuzz (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zzuuzz. Yes, as I suspect you know, the conventional interpretation of those paragraphs is that the RG does not have the authority to produce Census results, other than those presented in reports to Parliament, unless the costs are covered by the person/authority making the request. However, in 2001, the costs of the standard 'non-report' results were covered through the Census Access project - essentially paid for ahead of time by a group of government departments and suchlike organisations. I'm not sure if the new 'independence' legislation will render these arcane details obsolete or not...

Jonesey67 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had a look at the draft legislation it seems that these details will indeed become obsolete, with the Statistics Board (to which the RG for England and Wales authority to conduct a Census passes) will have the authority to publish any results it sees fit. Of course, this applies to England and Wales only, and assumes this part of the legislation is not redrafted before it is passed (which itself is an assumption).82.26.117.172 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for cause of destruction of 1931 records

[edit]

Whilst I'd generally agree that mailing lists are less than ideal sources, please note that Dave Annal might reasonably be regarded as a reliable source for this sort of information quicksearch on TNA website, and the TNA catalogue confirms that the documenty reference he gives does indeed contain correspondence relating to the fire [1]. Unfortunatley I haven't immediatley been able to find a more definitive reference, obviously published by TNA. David Underdown (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the reference isn't exactly offensive, but it would be nice to reference a properly published document. Surely there must be something written about this somewhere? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom countries

[edit]

The article currently does not really discuss that this is really three different censuses in the constituent countries, nor the relationship with the Ireland census while it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. These would be useful additions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

[edit]
  • Controversially, the Northern Ireland census included a supplementary question on what religion a person was brought up in for those stating no religion in response to the main question.

i removed this unsourced statement - Scotland also had 2 religion questions - "What religion are you", followed by "in what religion were you brought up". It was not specific to NI, although in England only 1 question " What is your religion". was used. While this is interesting, one cannot comment on why it was done or whether or not it was controversial without sources to the effect, otherwise this is Original Research. --Brideshead(leave a message) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

A merge of Census#United Kingdom into this article has been proposed. Discussion is located at the talk page. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should include overall population counts

[edit]

Should include the population counted each year, as in the United States Census article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News about figures for Scotland

[edit]

It was said on the news on Radio Four tonight (17 December 2012) that Scotland's population had increased, and for the first time, Scotland had more people over 60 than under 15. These facts should go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about the organisation and production of the census itself. The results of the census are starting to be incorporated within relevant articles elsewhere in WP where the context of the data can be expanded on as appropriate. If all the 'revelations' arising from this census appeared here it would become an extremely long and tedious article.Tmol42 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then perhaps they should just go in the article about Scotland. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Thanks for volunteering.Tmol42 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Census in the United Kingdom. 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) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Census in the United Kingdom. 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) 10:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Census in the United Kingdom. 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) 02:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National archives ref numbers

[edit]

I have just come across this page, the table might benefit from having the UK National Archives Batch numbers added e.g.

1841 and 1851: HO 107 1861: RG 9 1871: RG 10 1881: RG 11 1891: RG 12 1901: RG 13 1911: RG 14 1939 register: RG 101 (1939 is not a census but is useful ilo 1931 being destroyed and 1941 not taken)

These ref no’s can be found in section 11 of the national archives guide to England and Wales census’s.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/census-records/

1939 register info Https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/1939-register/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbridge276 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Census_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1200259799"