Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by population/Archive 1

2005 Link?
Does anyone have a link to the 2005 census estimates? --Emplynx 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Population and House Seats
The numbers for "house seats" in the table reflect the numbers calculated off 2000 census data. But the population shown in the same table does not show 2000 census data. If you calculate house seats on your own, using data only in the table shown here, your numbers will not jive. http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.215.83 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, and so? What exactly would you like the article to do differently?  The number of house seats is only reapportioned every 10 years.  This late in the decade the correlation between representation and population begins to slip a bit. --Jfruh (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indicate with a footnote that the numbers in the "House Seats" and the "Electoral College Votes" columns are based on the 2000 census numbers, and not the numbers shown in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.215.83 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, also show the 2000 data, even if on different page. 173.51.92.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC).

2004 #s?
Does this page still use 2000 data because it is more accurate (and official) than the 2004 American Community Survey? Some rankings have changed in the intervening 4 years (GA is now 9th ahead of NJ). I'd be willing to update if anyone agrees it is more valuable (or maybe put both in the table). -Jcbarr 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The diennial (ie, 1990, 2000, 2010) census data is more official because it is (or at least attempts to be) an actual count rather than an estimate, and is generally considered the standard data source for these types of lists. It should definitely be included, but you could put the ACS estimates alongside them. --Shuageo 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

population
I find it hard to believe that cities like Atlanta, Boston and Denver don't have a population over 1.000.000. There's always a difference between agglomerations and cities of course, but the numbers in this table seem very low, or rather : very old. I can name an endless list of equally reliable/unreliable sources, all contradicting each other, but on this they all agree.


 * What on earth does that have to do with this list? This is a list of state populations, not city populations.  Atlanta, Boston, and Denver aren't on the list. --Jfruh 13:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong article, but only a small fraction of the Metro portion of Atlanta & Boston live in the central cities. American metropolian areas are much further spread out than in Europe. Jon 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not where I should be posting this but I would find it helpful if this list also had population densities on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.217.152 (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See [List of U.S. states by population density]]. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Other territories?
Since DC is already on here, would anyone object to adding the other populated US non-state jurisdictions (Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, American Samoa ... am I missing anybody?) in the same way? (i.e.italicized, not given a number). It could be instructive to see how these stack up. --Jfruh 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, I thik thats a great idea if you can get the census data for these areas. (I replaced the images on this page with links because they were breaking up the talk page. hope that is okay.)  --Shuageo 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Add us minor outlying islands. It includes all the less inportant territories.

n/a	57	US Minor Outlying Islands	? 0	?


 * [[Media:Honolulu Downtown.jpg| Downtown Honolulu, Hawaii.]]
 * [[Media:Corn production in Colorado.jpg|Corn production in Colorado.]]
 * [[Media:delicatearch.jpg|Delicate Arch, Arches National Park, Utah]]
 * }
 * [[Media:delicatearch.jpg|Delicate Arch, Arches National Park, Utah]]
 * }
 * }

philly caption
what is the "largest" skyline mean? is that a quantifiable measure? and to say "outside New York on the east coast" is ambiguous. Of course New York *is* on the East Coast (capitalized because it refers to a region) but I do not think that is what the contributor meant. But really, what is meant, and what is the point? This is a list of state populations, not city skylines.--Shuageo 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, before I even saw the comment above. Hillsboro 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)--Hillsboro 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference?
The numbers don't match the numbers given in the reference at the bottom of the page. If they're from a revised estimate, the reference needs to be updated. 68.84.34.154 21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

300 million
At the current pace of 1 new inhabitant every 11 seconds, about 7855 people a day, the U.S. population can be expected to reach 300 million by Oct. 22. Should this be added you think, that it'll reach 300 million in late October or in the fourth quarter or whatever, or not? Jack Daw 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The formula used too much of an estimate to state Oct 22 or even late October; accordingly I've changed in to "in October or November" of 2006. Also stating Oct 22 would be crystal balling Jon 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral College
I just added electoral votes. It helps in considering the importance of a state in Presidential elections. Representatives in Congress might be more relevant, what do you think? Listing Electors has the advantage that we can include Washington DC. samwaltz 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it adds an interesting dimension in terms of how size = (political) power. I don't object to it. Jack Daw 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really think it's needed (just add 2 to all 50 states and also include DC), but I'm not going to remove it either. However, the table does need to expliticly state the year and so I'll add it. Jon 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the history. The original comment was made before Reps were included in the table; in any case, Electors are seen as the more relevant every four years or so, and it spares us from maintaining a page "List of U.S. states by electors". However, I'd still consider adding the columns "Pop. per Rep" and "Pop. per Elector". Meh, we'll see. I suppose it doesn't need to be worried about until 2008 or so. samwaltz 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did the calcs in Excel for each state for the Pop per Rep and Pop per Elector columns. I'll transcribe them into the table tomorrow.  --Mikebrand 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you now click on "Elec. College votes" in the table, you're linked to "United States Electoral College", which immediately redirects you to "Electoral College (United States)". Can this please be corrected? 84.86.218.144 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The link to the Electoral college has a break in it so that it looks like the following in the table, "Elect - oral College". Please fix. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd5ski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Calculating Population per House Seat and Electoral Vote
Here's the process I used that worked fairly well: --Mikebrand 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Copy table from article and paste into Word.
 * Replace || with ^t.
 * Copy and pasted into Excel.
 * Perform calcs.
 * Save as text file.
 * Open text file in Word.
 * Replace ^t with ||.
 * Replace |-||||||||||#DIV/0!||#DIV/0! with |- (the former shows up as an artifact).
 * Replace " with (nothing).
 * Copy and paste into article.
 * Clean up stray issues (eg, #VALUE).

D.C. & P.R. On The List
Gee, when did they become states? 72.82.197.184 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They have territory rankings, not state rankings. It has been a year since you posted this, so I guess it may have been misleading back then!  Frank12 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is junk!
Florida 22nd? Colorado 4th?? This is BS. This article needs to be blocked for editing if it is being vandalized.


 * Why not just revert it then? I saw that, and I reverted it. Simple as that. Jack Daw 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Revert to what? How do you know the rest of it is correct? How do you know CO is 22nd and not 23rd?


 * What do you mean? The figures are from the census bureau, you'll have to ask them. Jack Daw 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This Article is garbage the figures are all wrong, New York's population is listed at 7.8 million and that is just so horribly wrong, New York city has a population of 8.2 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatM (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was vandalized ... I reverted it to the last good version. --Jfruh (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sortable Table
The ability to sort a table is a great addition. It works well in this table for the Pop/Seat and Pop/Vote columns as each of the cells all contain the same number of digits. However, the sorting is inaccurate for the Pop column. The guide at the link below claims that adding leading &amp;nbsp; codes addresses the issue of sorting numbers with commas (which are treated as strings). However, I have experimented extensively with this table trying various numbers of leading  entries but to no avail. The only workable solution I found was to remove commas from the numbers. That gives accurate sorting, but it makes the numbers difficult to read.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Sorting

Any ideas on how to fix it? If not, would it be better to have:
 * a) sortable population numbers without commas
 * b) non-sortable pop numbers with commans

--Mikebrand 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The &amp;nbsp; work in IE. Perhaps it depends on the browser?--Patrick 11:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. The results I desribed above were in FireFox.  I just now tested in IE6 and you are correct, the &amp;nbsp; does result in accurate sorts with commas in the numbers.--Mikebrand 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunate, that it does not work in Firefox.--Patrick 15:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * .. I would assume that adding 0 as a placeholder would fix whatever happens when you sort by population.. its straight alphabetization instead of number sorting.

There is a way to add commas to plain numbers.. prints 153,125,239,539 but I'm not sure how the table would react to having the  thing in it. drumguy8800  C   T  12:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

illegal aliens?
do they count? they shouldn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erbear3232 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The population figures are of people residing in an area. That is, everyone other than short term visitors (ie, tourists) are counted in the pop figures.  Tourists are counted in their home country.  Illegal aliens are not counted in their country of origin as they do not reside there.  Regardless of someone's legal status of where they live, they still reside somewhere and the population figures count them for the location they reside.  Measures that do not count illegal alliens include "eligible voters" and "potential eligible voters."--Mikebrand 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And it's impossible to obtain an accurate count for this category of resident, as they are collectvely a population with diminished interest in cooperating with the census process, and tend to be suspicious of government officials (for obvious reasons). -- Yellowdesk 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm not sure where Mikebrand got his information from, since he is dead wrong. Trust me (and my poli-sci PhD, research, professorship in political science, many years of teaching constitutional law, etc.).  I'm not sure where this information was pulled from (most likely an anti-illegal alien source).  I'm removing it at once.  Since congressional representation numbers come from congressional districts, which congress makes or revamps every 10 years, as per the constitution, then illegal aliens are NOT counted in the census, and therefore cannot be included as residents, therefore do NOT get representation.69.204.225.103 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Census Bureau: "Because all residents of the United States living in households are represented in the sample of households interviewed by the CPS, undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens are probably included in CPS data. Because the CPS makes no attempt to ascertain the legal status of any person interviwed, these individuals cannot be identified from CPS data." http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html
 * According to a recent interview with the acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Thomas Mesenbourg: "...the bureau intends to work with community organizations to make sure every illegal alien in the United States is counted in the 2010 Census." http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46021
 * --Mikebrand (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mikebrand- sorry for the confusion. You have evidently done the research.  While 'illegals' may be counted in the sense of determining the population of a specific area, they are not counted for the purpose of representation, since ultimately they may not be taxpayers and the argument could be had that they therefore do not deserve representation (going back to colonial America's 'no taxation without representation.').  If this were the case, congressmen/women would have open invites to people from everywhere to come and live in their respective district for the purpose of gaining votes for him/herself.  This goes back to the days of early America when representatives were accused of this when drawing up the new congressional district maps after a census for the purpose of 'manipulating' districts, called gerrymandering.


 * Additionally- you indicated 'CNS News' as a source, which should be discounted for two reasons: political bias (see CNS News where it is described as 'conservative news service), and secondly does not come from a government source. For the purpose of talking about a government procedure, just go right to the proper government source (ie http://www.census.gov).  That citation is inaccurate, as once again, the purpose of the census is solely to count people, be they residents or not.  Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution states, in part:
 * Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons


 * that yes, all people are counted, but only taxpaying citizens are counted for representation. (Back then Native Americans were only counted as '3/5th' citizen in what was known as the three-fifths compromise, and therefor received 3/5th representation).69.204.225.103 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this discussion is only relevant to the WP article and in particular the methodology section's description of the inclusion of illegal immigrants. I have added to the article a citation from the Census Bureau's website that specifically addresses the inclusion of illegal immigrants in the population counts.  Since the Census Bureau is the source of the population statistics for this article, I think that it is definitive.  --Mikebrand (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The last contribution to the conversation by 69.204.225.103 does not discuss resident aliens (legal aliens) who are counted in the census but are denied a vote even though they pay taxes so, in the United States, ironically, there is taxation without representation, even though the United States fought a bloody war against Britain over this issue. The cost of naturalizing is, for many, a prohibitively expensive luxury, $675 at time of writing. odea (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Old map
Data is from 2006, but the map still shows 2005 positions. Can whoever made that map in the first place release the blank map file so that we can keep it up to date as each year passes? &mdash; Eric Herboso 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington will pass Massachusetts
Looks like it will happen soon, when do we get the numbers.

Numbers don't match
The numbers in the state pages and this page don't match. For instance, it says on Massachusetts' page that it is ranked 13th with whatever the population was, while on this page it says 14th with a different figure. The above comment mentions how Washington will pass Massachusetts. Is this just speculation and the reason for the edit? If so, it does not seem right to change it based on that. I thought we had to wait until the 2010 Census. Anyways, this article and the populations on state pages may need some serious revising. It seems terribly off-kilt. Zeppelin462 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This list has historically been updated annually to reflect the Census number as of July 1 of a given year (currently 2007). The list was just updated on January 20th to the 2007 numbers.  These new numbers show Washington overtaking Massachusetts for 13th creating the discrepancy with Massachusetts's article.  The state articles use 2000 Census data for the detailed demographics, but also seem to usually include a sentence on the recent Census estimates.  So, updating this list is one thing, but such updates do seem to be needed across the 50 states.  VerruckteDan (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The rankings on this page are based on 2007 estimates put out by the U.S. Census Bureau, not on the 2000 census. Otherwise, nearly every state after Michigan would have to be reranked, not just Washington/Massachusetts.  Also, if others are going to rerank them, please do not randomly change numbers.  While all of the other states still had 2007 population estimates, Washington had some other number not supported by the U.S. Census Bureau's own publication. These numbers and rankings here do not match the rankings on the individual state pages, and there seems to be no consensus as to which population number should be reported on those pages(2000 or 2007, or even another year in between). (California's page reports 2007 numbers, while Texas' reports the 2000 census, I believe).Gittinsj (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)gittinsj

Warped territory numbers
I believe that the "territory" column is warped; shouldn't Alaska be given the #1 spot, not California? &mdash;ScouterSig 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The territory column doesn't represent a ranking of the state's area; it reperesents of ranking of all the entitites in the list -- states, territories, and DC -- whereas the "population rank" is the rank of the states only. This will become clear if you scroll down to the bottom of the table.
 * These column titles are completely baffling, and we need to think of better wording, because Scouter's assumption as to what they meant actually makes more sense than what they really mean. --Jfruh (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see someone has renamed the columns. Now I totally get it. &mdash;ScouterSig 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Territories included in a State list
This list explicitly references "States" and so should only include states at least in my opinion. Perhaps a secondary list attached to this page could include the territories of the United States and other possessions? My main complaint stems from the fact that as someone just looking at technical "states" that this list is confusing and the percentage figures are off. Arguably they are not off that much but still this bothers me. At very least perhaps the title need be change? - A random person

Alert: Banned User
This user has been permanently banned:



~ WikiDon (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cumulative tallies
Are the cumulative tallies really appropriate for a sortable table? If you sort by anything other than the Rank Among States, these two columns become moot. -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I thought it was weird. Tempshill (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure why a 'cumulative electoral vote' column is present, since it's not even right. Was this an accident or joke?  There is no such thing as a 'cumulative' total; the only total is the sum of the state's number of congressional representatives plus the number of senators (always 2 for each state, ie. New York has 29 congressional reps, plus 2 senators = 31 electoral votes.).  I'm removing this column.69.204.225.103 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The column was not an accident; nor was the cumulative percentage, which suffers from the same issue. They share the same explanation for existing in the table; as you go down the list, they show the total of all rows above. Frank  |  talk  04:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Can anyone create/find me an excel sheet with the populations of all of the US states? Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try the U.S. Census Website. They should have whatever you need. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could view the article and choose "Save As" from the File menu, save a copy of the article on your hard disk as an .htm file, then use Excel to try and open that, and hack out all the stuff before the table. Tempshill (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Density
One stat that I think the article's table is begging for is the population density. Maybe we should hack out the 'cumulative tally' and put in pop density? Tempshill (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico
New Mexico's population is wrong. According to its wikipedia page it should be 1,984,356.71.123.106.159 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good spot. It should be correct now. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparable Country
The list of List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_population has a column for comparable country. Using the List_of_countries_by_population, if such a column were to be added to this table, California would be comparable to Algeria (35th in world size ranking) and Wyoming would be comparable to the Solomon Islands (164th). Any thoughts on the value of adding that info to this table? --Mikebrand (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

cumulative %
Incorrect from az down 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.179.186 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good spot. It's fixed now. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worse than you think. All the percentages are wrong, though usually by just a few hundredths of a percent. The total of the populations listed is 308437502; California's 36756666 is 11.92% of that, not 11.95%; 24326974 for Texas should be 7.89%, not 7.81%, and so on down the line. The percentages listed are apparently based on some other (probably older) estimate of population than 2008. 170.140.147.216 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

column data incorrect
The Column "pop. per electoral vote" is computed incorrectly: It should be the population column divided by the number of electoral votes, but instead it shows the "pop. per house seat" column divided by electoral votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.248.133 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Senate representation
Census is used for apportionment of the House of Representatives, but not the senate. Since the states have differences in populations, I added an cited explanation as to the why the framers of the US constitution designed the senate representation like that. gorillasapiens (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a list of U.S. states by population, not a general discussion of population. United States congressional apportionment or United States Census would be better choices. In either case, the proposed text must be better written. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are Historical Census Data?
Where is the historical census data for the U.S.? Shouldn't there be data pertinent to the last 230-350 years? If that data does exist in Wikipedia shouldn't it be listed in the SEE ALSO section? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

why is pop est 2008
and pop per house seat 2 different numbers? Skakkle (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The population estimate is the total population (estimated, of course) of the state/territory. The population per House seat divides the population estimate by the number of House seats. Since the total number of house seats is fixed at 435 (+3 for DC), the number per state can (and does) change among the states at the decennial census. Also, since states are guaranteed a minimum of one House seat regardless of population, the numbers can be skewed, especially in the least populous states. There are seven states that have this minimum number, and another five states that have two House members. That's 12 states - almost a quarter of the 50 states - that dominate the sparsely-populated end of the statistics in a system that guarantees them a minimum representation. Also, for what it's worth, four states have a total population that is less than the population per House seat in California. Frank  |  talk  18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry, I meant to ask it in this clearer way: wyoming (1 house seat) and vermont (1 house seat) for two examples have a different number in the fourth column (total pop) and the eighth column (pop per seat). if they are 1-seaters shouldn't those numbers match?? what up wit dat? Skakkle (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is because they have different state populations that the pop per house seat would be different. If there were one resident in the entire state, they'd still get one House seat. Every state is guaranteed one House seat regardless of population. Frank  |  talk  20:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is why column 4 ≠ column 5 X column 8. The answer is because they where done with different data. 173.51.92.211 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which makes sense, because the census estimates (col 4) are updated every year, but the allocation of seats (col 5) is done decennially. Thanks for clarifying the question; I clearly wasn't getting it. Frank  |  talk  22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Better Map
I'd like to see a map that breaks down the state populations in a way similar to the way this map breaks down electricity rates. A three digit representation of the state populations (in millions) would work fine. This would be a cinch for someone with MapPoint. Matchina (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 estimates
The figures are here, but I'm not familiar with updating pie charts and maps. APK whisper in my ear  20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove the pie chart to be honest. It's pretty obvious it was made using basic excel skills. I don't think it really adds anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.10.193 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll update the figures but leave the chart. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at updating the table to reflect the 2009 estimates since no one seems to have gotten to it yet. Feel free to make changes as I'm sure I'll screw up. -- Padfoot714 10 January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

New Hampshire has passed Maine in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.129.76 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia removed the edit button or I'd fix it. 71.173.78.68 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it. The article is currently semi-protected, meaning you need to sign up for an account and accumulate a certain number of edits (10?) before being able to edit it. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rank Error
Michigan and Georgia have the wrong ranks listed under 2010. Per the 2010 census, Michigan is No. 8 in population and Georgia is No. 9. This list erroneously shows Michigan as No. 9 for 2010 and Georgia as No. 8.

The latter are the rankings for the 2013 population estimates, not for 2010.

I would make the correction myself, but there is no edit button available.

69.181.56.137 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

jreecephd

New York is no longer the 3rd most populous state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreecephd (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Left over territorys 2010
I think US Minor Outlying Islands should be added to some up the less important territorys. I'd do it, but there is no edit button.

smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.219.83 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think (from reading the text) that it's because those territories have no permanent resident population. See the notes about, e.g. Wake Island. And in order to edit, just register. Within a week, if not much sooner, you'll see that little edit button (not available to newcomers on this particular page because of Protection policy). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Delaware
The 2010 figure for Delaware appears to be wrong. Currently it reads 900,877, but the US Census site says 897,934. This second lower figures also comports with 2010 United States Census. I'm leaving this for someone else to fix in case I'm looking at something incorrectly. Phil wink (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The 2010 US States only total is off by the 2,943 from Delaware. Add them up using the numbers here and you'd get 308,146,758 instead of 308,143,815. So it is inconsistent. It uses the US Census site Delaware numbers in the fifty state total, but not for the Delaware number. Please correct one of them. 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC).


 * For a continuation of this discussion, see the section "Inconsistencies in the census numbers" below. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranking Change from 2000
There has got to be a better way to display changes in ranking from 2000 to 2010 besides the jumble of numbers in the far left-hand column. The jumble ruins the aesthetics of the chart, and it's not consistent with how we show these type of changes. If it's really that important, than just add another column showing the ranking in 2000. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pie chart
The 50+-slice pie chart in this article is a classic example of pie chart overuse. In fact, funny enough, I went looking for something to back up this impression, and found this article critiquing this very chart. A better alternative would be to highlight the first 5 or so states and combine the rest, or use categories like small states by region ("Small Western States"). - PhilipR (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I disagree. I think this chart does a really nice job of showing that there are a large number of small states and a small number of large states. You can see at a glance that the four biggest states contain close to a third of the population. Having seen it, it will stick with me for a long time, whereas a paragraph or table presenting the same information would not be likely to stick with me. And the suggested alternative, to have slices for the first five states and combine the rest into regions, would be hard to read because, well, some slices would be states and some would be regions; and it would fail to convey the visual impression that, in the overall scheme of things, 40 or so of the states are more or less indistinguishable in size. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The recent edits by Roif456 appear to be vandalism. They consist of unjustified edits to the data themselves. Note that, as the page stands, the totals at the bottom of the table do not accurately reflect the sum of the individual populations presented. 99.14.216.200 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The change to Delaware's population figure incurred here, on the other hand, seems inadvertent (though no less wrong). 99.14.216.200 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the total difference since early July (by clicking the appropriate buttons in Revision History), the changes seem to be to Texas, California, Montana and Wyoming. If they don't fit the sources used for other states, just enter the numbers that do, with an explanation and referral to this Talk Page. If there's too much sniping and WP:edit-warring, you could leave a polite note at User talk:Roif456 inviting him or her to give his point of view here. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts' "Percent of total U.S. pop., 2010" is Calculated Incorrectly
In the rightmost column of the data table, it appears all values in the rightmost column, entitled "Percent of total U.S. pop., 2010," was calculated by taking the respective states' 2010 Census Population number and dividing by the "Total US territory" population for the same year/column (312,913,872).

Massachusetts' percentage is incorrectly showing 2.04% when the correct percentage is 2.09% (6,547,629 / 312,913,872 = 0.0209)

Thanks! --Enguyen03 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This error is now more than a year old and has not yet been corrected. The data seem to be protected against editing -- would someone with access to the means please correct this glaring mistake? garber 16:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garber (talk • contribs)

D.C. Should be included as if a state
Without D.C. the electoral college data and population data seem a bit off in presentation. You have to subtract data to get DC's information. Certainly, if territories are included, DC should be; and it has electoral college votes. Plus, it has more people than one or more staes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.36.105 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But DC is included. It shouldn't be included "as if a state" because it is not a state. If that makes the article confusing, it's only because the actual arrangement is confusing. Blame Congress, but don't distort the actual situation. Joe Avins (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor territory 2010 populations
I noticed that the four minor territories had incorrect numbers (probably estimates for 2010). I put the correct figures in (and gave the source for them). What I did not do was readjust the total population results or the percentages in the table for the change in the data. Carolina wren (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Population Change Map, Greater-Than not Less-Than Symbols
The population change map has a number of Less-Than (<) Symbols where it should have Greater-Than (>) Symbols

Cbmccarthy (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2011
I think there is a typo in the table in the States and Territories section. The Idaho Population Estimate July 1, 2011 is listed as 1.584,985, instead of 1,584,985 (i.e. decimal point instead of comma).

Lperovich (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011
California's "Seats in House" number and "Presidental Elector" numbers are reversed on the page. CA has 53 House seats and 55 Electors.

174.76.158.53 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DC's name is wrong
"Washington, DC" is named in the list, but that should be "District of Columbia." Washington is the name of the city, and D.C. is the name of the quasi state. I tried to change this, but the templats used are new to me and I don't have time (right now) to figure out hte mechanics, so I had to undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Additional Column(s)
A column for two-digit state code would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.114.157 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting IMO to show the cumulative percentages of electoral votes and population. E.g. going from the top down, it takes 11 states consisting of 56% or so of the population to achieve 50% of the EV. From the other direction it takes 39 states plus DC but less than 44% of the population to get 270. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduggan47 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The population per electoral vote is interesting, but the more imporant statistic is "registered voter per electoral vote". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Changing and Adding Columns to Reflect Reapportionment
Currently, there are columns for "House seats 2003–2013" and "2010 Census Pop. per House seat"—however, since reapportionment is complete, see Seat Changes After 2010 Census, this could be updated to reflect the relevant data and statistics for representation in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2012–2020 elections. Therefore, I believe that there should be a new column, reflecting the number of House seats following the 2012 election, and I believe that the "2012 Census Pop. per House seat" should be made to reflect population per House seat after reapportionment.

Specifically with regards to the "2003–2013" range: I recommend changing this to "2002–2012," and making the new column "2013–2021." While yes, technically states will have their current House representation through the very beginning of 2013, that is somewhat misleading: After noon on January 3rd, 2013, the number of U.S. Representatives each state has in the House will reflect reapportionment. See U.S. Const. amend. XX; see also Seat Changes, supra.

I appreciate anyone who looks into doing this: I would myself, but I just created my account, so even if Wikipedia let me edit this list (which I don't believe it would), I don't have confidence in my ability to pull off this kind of change.

VinnyKolya (talk)

US citizens living abroad
According to many estimates, between 4 and 6 million US citizens live abroad, which would rank between 18 and 27 if it were a state. Is this worth a footnote? 212.254.254.194 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you can narrow it down definitively. Four million to six million is a pretty big range. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012
Utah will have four seats in the United States beginning in 2013, not three. Pretty easy to figure that out, idiots.

207.135.137.4 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . Not with that kind of wording. Or without sources, etc. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 05:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

# individual state electors
I notice that the page on the - Electoral_College_(United_States)#Electors - shows TX, for instance, with 34 electors while this table shows 38. Which page is correct? Is either page correct?

Jfmxl (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to check now, but the number of sites and pages outside Wikipedia that projected or reported the number of Electoral votes for each state in the November 6, 2012, presidential election is almost countless. (I could give you half of those numbers from memory but my memory is not a Reliable Source.) Any current almanac or similar reference will also show those numbers. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC) [P.S. (written at the same time as the answer below) Here are two such informal but reliable sources: Electoral-Vote.com and RealClearPolitics. But more authoritative is the Electoral College's "own" web site at the National Archives, that gives this allocation of electors for 2012-20 which can be compared with past decades here. Or else you can see the allocation of representatives to each state after every census from 1800 to 2010 at this PDF page of the 2012 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (published by the United States Census Bureau). Texas, which gained four House seats after the 2010 census, now has 36 representatives and 38 presidential electors. See also the internal Wikipedia link in an earlier thread above to Seat Changes After 2010 Census. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC) ]

The answer to your question is that this list is correct and the in-line list at the article you mentioned is out of date. Texas had 32 representatives before reapportionment, but 36 after, thus 38 electoral votes starting with the 2012 election and 113th Congress (Jan. 3, 2013 to Jan. 3, 2015). -Rrius (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on January 16, 2013
The column for 2010 Census Pop. Per House District has two dead citation links in it and it needs to be updated to reflect the 2010 reapportionment of House seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot714 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on July 23, 2013
According to the numbers on this page, Michigan was the eighth most populous state in 2010. It was surpassed in population by Georgia between 2010 and 2012, making it the ninth most populous state. Michigan is listed as the ninth most populous state in the ranking columns for both 2010 and 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kian.williams (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

July 1, 2013 Population Estimates Released
(I plugged in the numbers if you want to make it easy, but then you need to check it....) The newest population estimates were released here: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html Additionally, the "Rank in all states & territories, 2010" column has rankings for 2012, not 2010, so I request that to be fixed, as well. Changes are just for Michigan (and Georgia) and Arizona (and Indiana). Additionally, Utah is now more populous than Kansas.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014: Changing the ranks in the 2010 Census Rank column
I noticed the ranking for state populations was a bit off with respect to the 2010 Census. Indiana should be ranked 15 in that column, Arizona 16, Kansas 34, Utah 35, West Virginia 38, and Nebraska 39. These errors can be seen when one does a ranking by toggling the 2010 Census population column to go from top to bottom.

72.192.126.193 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It appears that the "50 states" ranking is based of the 2013 estimate as opposed to the 2010 censusus count which is the "Rank of states and territories in 2010" column. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does seem a bit confusing, but since the territories (other than PR and DC) don't have 2013 estimates, any ranking that includes them must use the 2010 data. Kennethaw88 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014: Changing the column title in the 2012 Estimate Rank column
Another change that should be made is to the column header for the 2012 population estimate rankings. It looks like the ranks are accurate to the actual 2013 population, which can be seen when you toggle from top to bottom the 2013 estimate column, but the column title itself needs to be changed to 2013 from 2012.

72.192.126.193 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Reliable sources are needed. And what column for 2012 data? Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014: Update "Census Pop. per House Seat" numbers
Unless I'm mistaken, the "2010 Census Pop. per House seat" column is inaccurate for all states that gained or lost a seat after the 2010 Census. Indeed, footnote 4 says that the math in that column is done on the basis of the 2003-2013 apportionment rather than the current (2013-2023) apportionment. Not sure how to fix this myself, but since the 2010 Census population and Seats in U.S. House columns are accurate, it seems to be a simple math problem. Gothamscholar (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up?
I've noticed that the numbers for each state and territory don't add up to the total. Is this an error, or are there statistical reasons for it? Someone the Person (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014
I would provide a source if I had one but that is the point of my question. In this article, included is a population estimate from July 1, 2013 for each US state and territory, however no source is provided for where or how this estimate was derived.

216.51.73.42 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

However, you are right, the article should cite the source, so I have added it in the External Links section. - Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting question.svg|20px]] I assume it is - this census release see the section "July 1, 2013 Population Estimates Released" above

Middle Atlantic not correctly identified in the bottom table
I apologize for not editing this myself, but I have yet to learn how to edit Wiki Tables.

New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are Middle Atlantic, not New England.

The right column shows them as New England, but when you sort on that column they sort correctly. So only the tag, not the sort order, needs changing.

Rlhess (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Good catch. kennethaw88 • talk 04:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about NY, NJ, PA, but by Wikipedia's own definition on the page "Mid-Atlantic States" and my own education, MD, DE, DC and WVA certainly are Mid-Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.70.87 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right that there is not a universal definition of Mid-Atlantic States, but the US Census Bureau defines only NY, NJ, and PA as Mid-Atlantic, as a division of the Northeast Region (see United_States_Census_Bureau as well as Mid-Atlantic_states). Because this page is based on Census Bureau data, it should stick with this definition. kennethaw88 • talk 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dated??
The table talks about the population as of July 1, 2013. Right now, it's nearly 2015, and some states might have surpassed others. Anything we have to wait for before updating the table?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the release schedule (and consistent with previous years), state-level population estimates for July 1, 2014 will be released by the end of the month. kennethaw88 • talk 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014
New York is now the 4th most populous state, with Florida surpassing new York to become the 3rd. The list is out of date. See the following citation: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html

Jreecephd (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  18:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
[[

File:Map of each state population as of 2014.svg|thumb|A map of each U.S. state's estimated population as of July 2014.]]

The state map showing the estimate of population as of July 2014 needs to be updated to reflect Georgia exceeding 10,000,000. Also, adding a 7th population bracket would make the population differences of the larger states more clear, e.g. 0-1,1-3,3-6,6-10,10-15,15-25,25+. California is about 20,000,000 bigger than Florida and New York, which is a very sizable difference. I uploaded an example of the changes in WikiCommons. Thenolancarter (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thenolancarter (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There needs to be some discussion and a consensus to make these changes since they appear to be somewhat substantial. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would generally support updating the map. However, the picture on the right has Michigan's upper peninsula colored incorrectly. (And I would suggest using a very dark blue instead of black, like what is already used). It would also be nice to update the percent growth map at the same time. kennethaw88 • talk 03:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of population by region section - Add Map (or link existing to Legend text)?
There is a map on the United_States_Census_Bureau:

[[

File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg]]

I think this as an inset to the right of the table could be useful visual aid for the regions and divisions in this section, possibly even color-coding to reflect population somehow since this is all white. But simply placing the existing file would help (color coding may confuse the table's color coding for what is a region vs. a division, etc.) Or, at least making the statement in the legend in Orange "Divisions & regions as defined by U.S. Census Bureau" into a link to the United_States_Census_Bureau, that might suffice. PJV (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
Shouldn't the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base be listed in this article? Under the treaty, it is "leased" from Cuba, for as long as the US wants, in which the US pays a token "rent" of a few thousand dollars a year, which Cuba does not even cash. So in effect, it is a de facto US territory. Wasp14 (talk)

The population of Guantanamo is almost entirely soldiers, if I recall correctly the Census counts soldiers geographic location in a unique manner that isn't reflective of where they are stationed. Regardless, it is Cuban soil and wouldn't be appropriate to include (and to get reeeeaaalll technical the U.S. citizen population would likely be counted as zero not just because of the soldiers thing but even if a soldier had their family living there then they would be Americans living abroad and, if included at all, would count whatever state is normally 'home' then) Yeah I understand why some people thnk it should be included but from a neutral (as possible) statistical/demographic point of view, it shouldn't be included.

Tunafizzle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

flags
Some entries have the state flag, and some do not. As a featured list I think some consistency is called for here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Although I'm not thrilled with the way Georgia turned out. I can't figure how to simply display the word "Georgia" without "U.S. state" which is redundant since it is a list of states. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I am really confused. Looking at the documentation for Template:flag, it shows how to name it differently, which worked fine for Georgia, but the same trick did not work for Washington. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to HJ Mitchell for the assist! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, "Georgia (U.S. State)" is not really redundant. There are two states in the world named "Georgia." One is a fully independent state, the Republic of Georgia; the other is one of the 50 unitary states in confederation as the United States - "Georgia (U.S. State)." It's only redundant when taken out of its basic context as the title of an article. 2601:645:C300:16DD:4F5:A5A2:37CF:5149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the census numbers
One column gives note [5] for the data source; note [5] in turn gives two different U.S. Census websites. (In one of those sites, you have to click Table 1.) For some reason that I can't figure out, these two sites give slightly different figures from each other, for every state. The data in this article's table are at least in part from Table 1 of one of the sites. This discrepancy explains the above discussion of Delaware's numbers, and it explains my back-and-forth edits on Vermont's numbers. But why do the two census sites disagree with each other? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote footnote 5, and when I did look into the Census Bureau's explanations, I wasn't sure that I'd fully grasped them: but I knew that if the distinctions evaded me, they'd probably be too complicated to explain in the footnote, which is why it begins with "For simplicity's sake", giving both sets of numbers for reference. Here's a partial Census Bureau explanation of "apportionment population":"The apportionment population consists of the resident population of the 50 states, plus the overseas military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them who could be allocated to a state. The populations of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are excluded from the apportionment population because they do not have voting seats in the U.S. House of Representatives."http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-data.php Now the trick is to compare who's counted for non-apportionment population. Unfortunately, the Census website got reorganized in the last couple of years in a way that makes research and searching, even for documents you know exist, far more difficult, laborious and frustrating. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked over Census 2010 populations and set them to the value of "Total Population" (P1) as found here. I did not check Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa. WormNut (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Utah
Utah will soon have four members in the United State's House. Go to http://www.redistrictutah.com/ for more info. This needs to be fixied in the Article(UTC) Sparty1212 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

States and territories
BlanketPI (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)