Talk:1870 United States census

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 United States Census which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

True Population

The table's first entry is "True Population". This is risible. There is absolutely NO WAY to know what the true population was as of a certain date and time. Unless, of course, we redefine what "true" means.174.131.63.209 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting 🧐 to note that was added to the 1870 census after the passage of the 14thFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution R Dailey0001 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

1870 Nevada population discrepancy

There was recently an amendment made to the state population of Nevada in the table in this article. The change was prompted by this video by Matt Parker on the subject of electoral apportionment – whilst reflecting on the "messiness" of historical data, Parker notes a discrepancy between Wikipedia and a primary source, one of which appears to have transposed two digits: 42,491 on Wikipedia, and 42,941 on the other source. Parker ends by saying he hasn't corrected Wikipedia but leaves it to his viewers to do so.

The issue is, the two contemporary census documents used as references: Compendium of the Ninth Census (Table I – AggregatePopulation at each Census) and the breakdown by state (Nevada: Table VIII – Population by Counties at each Census] both do indeed match the number in the table on Wikipedia (42,491). Parker is not clear which source he got the other figure from, but I believe it to be this working paper on the Census Bureau site: Population Division: Historical Census Statistics On Population Totals By Race. 1790 To 1990, And By Hispanic Origin, 1970 To 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, And States, which does say 42,941 in Table A-18. Race for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States: 1870.

It should also be noted that the article Nevada uses the 42,941 figure in the population table – the reference used on this table only goes back to 1910 so cannot be used to verify the figures before that point. --Canley (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(EDIT: Combining sections, as this was raised by another user at the same time.) Renerpho (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC) An issue was raised by Matt Parker ("Stand-up Maths") on YouTube,[1] regarding the population of Nevada in the 1870 census. According to "Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 - 1990" by Richard L. Forstall, published in 1996, the population given on Wikipedia, and in some other more recently published sources, contains an instance of transposed digits. Forstall gives a population of 42,941 for Nevada, apparently taken from the original census documents; more recent sources, and Wikipedia, give 42,491 (source: page 3 here, 2nd column from the right). Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Canley: Parker gives all his sources in the video description, in this Dropbox link. Renerpho (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As an additional note, there are other cases of conflicting numbers mentioned in the video, but this is the only one that's as simple as "flipping two digits". But several other numbers in Wikipedia's census data are potentially wrong, just in more complicated/subtle ways. Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia's source, Compendium of the Ninth Census, printed in 1872, I must say this looks more like an error in Forstall's table than an error on Wikipedia. The 1872 book is much closer to being a primary source. Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Canley I went through the numbers a bit more closely in all sources and i think i understand where the problem is coming from. it is not a "flipping two digits" issue at all. In the source given by Matt Parker (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1990/population-of-states-and-counties-us-1790-1990/population-of-states-and-counties-of-the-united-states-1790-1990.pdf), on page 116 it states the population of Nevada as 42,941.

Now if you look at the population breakdown by county you see "rio virgin" county with a population of 450 people. On page 115 note 3 it states "Rio Virgin County was established in 1869 by Utah within present- day Nevada and enumerated as part of Utah in 1870. Utah abolished the county in 1872; by 1880 its territory was in Lincoln County." and if you check the compendium of the ninth census(https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/compendium/1870e-05.pdf) rio virgin county was indeed not included in Nevada(see pg 72 under nevada). And when this is accounted for, it makes the actual population count 42,491(census report)+450(rio virgin county)=42,941(the number in Forstall's table). Its just a coincidence that made it look like a digit flip.

This leads me to believe that the number must be correct to 42,941. Since the article is protected i cannot do that myself. So either you @Canley could make the edit or the article protection could be removed and corrected. Avast rumali (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well done, that does appear to explain the difference between the two sources and interesting coincidence that it appears as a transposition error. I can make the change, but it will need a note to explain the Rio Virgin County issue. --Canley (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In the compendium sources, Utah's 1870 population is given as 86,786 – as expected, 450 more than Forstall's figure of 86,336. I have changed the Nevada figure to 42,941 with a note explaining the discrepancy with the Ninth Census documents. --Canley (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Avast rumali: Nice work, and thanks also to Canley. I see that Avast rumali's edit has been reverted though, so maybe something is still amiss? I am tagging @MrOllie: who did the revert, without a detailed explanation. Maybe they have further input. Renerpho (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

i think i did not explain my edit and MrOllie must have reverted it without looking at the talk page and saw that my previous edit was removed and so assumed i was wrong? anyway, i'll edit it again and write down the reason properly. Will wait on MrOllie too if maybe i missed out on something. Avast rumali (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Protection request

The repeated attempts to change the article led me to request protection, see here.
Reason: Yesterday, an alleged error in the article was covered by a prominent Youtuber, leading to repeated attempts to "correct" the article (by IP and registered users), without giving a source (examples 1, 2, 3). The original value turns out to be correct (see the article talk page for details). The article should be protected, at least until the original spike in viewership for the video has passed. Renerpho (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)