Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1926 Census

Options
  • 26-05-2012 7:06pm
    #1
    Jellybaby1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,108 ✭✭✭


    Maybe you all know about this already and I'm Paddy Last but thought I pop it up here anyway. Apologies if it's here already, haven't seen it yet.

    http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.com/1926-census.html

    “The release of Ireland's 1926 census returns has been approved by the Irish Government, according to a statement by Heritage Minister Jimmy Deenihan on 9 March 2012. While there are still some hoops to jump through (not to mention some behind the scenes crossing of fingers), it is now considered unlikely that the process to release this wonderful resource to the public will be halted…….”


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Coolnabacky1873
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Coolnabacky1873


    Hopefully this does come to fruition. Deenihan has been talking about this for a while but in fairness to him I think he gets the importance of genealogy to tourism and the economy.

    They don't redact info on the U.S. federal census and there is only a 72 year privacy rule. If it's out by 2016 here that would be everyone over 90 years of age. Looking at the latest census data the over 90s account for less that 0.5% of the Irish population.

    It would be very frustrating to have a parent or in-law parent of head of household on the census form and the info is redacted!


  • Options
    #3
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Yes, heard that a while back. It'll be done for the 2016 centenary, I imagine. It's not microfilmed or anything. Redaction will have to happen. There's just over 18000 people 90 years or over according to the 2011 census so a lot of work to be done. Anyone alive in 1926 in my family I already know about - in fact, for 1926 will only be icing - it's 1851 and before I want.

    Where's my time machine?

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #4
    binxeo
    Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭binxeo


    Just read about the info that will be available and it would be really helpful to one of my strands of the family tree if it does in fact show if children were ophans...my partners grandfather was an orphan and we can't find any info on him, this might come in very useful. Fingers crossed.:)


  • Options
    #5
    Alicat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,264 ✭✭✭✭Alicat


    pinkypinky wrote: »
    Yes, heard that a while back. It'll be done for the 2016 centenary, I imagine. It's not microfilmed or anything. Redaction will have to happen. There's just over 18000 people 90 years or over according to the 2011 census so a lot of work to be done. Anyone alive in 1926 in my family I already know about - in fact, for 1926 will only be icing - it's 1851 and before I want.

    Where's my time machine?

    How do they go about this? Do they just blur out each person on the forms? And then what happens when one of these people dies a while later? Do they have to constantly edit the scanned images to keep it updated, adding the recently deceased people?

    Sorry for all the questions, it just seems like such hard work to manage all of that.


  • Options
    #6
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    I don't know for sure but I imagine they will scan everything intact, redact the relevant lines for alive people and release the partially redacted images. Then when 100 years passes, they'll release the complete. Updating as individual people died would be a logistical nightmare.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    OakeyDokey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭OakeyDokey


    Although I don't need to see the 1926 census I'd like to have a gander at it anyway.

    I'm pretty sure I have gone as far back as I can now, (1790's) there is still a few bits that the census will help with though. I'm really excited!


  • Options
    #8
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I can't see how redaction can be managed. Suppose there was a one-year old Mary Byrne at a Wicklow address in 1926; she might be Mary Cullen now, and living in Dublin.

    Okay, if she chooses to contact the archivists to ask for a redaction, she might be accommodated. But if she doesn't, how might she be traced forward?


  • Options
    #9
    RGM
    Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭RGM


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I can't see how redaction can be managed. Suppose there was a one-year old Mary Byrne at a Wicklow address in 1926; she might be Mary Cullen now, and living in Dublin.

    Okay, if she chooses to contact the archivists to ask for a redaction, she might be accommodated. But if she doesn't, how might she be traced forward?

    Yeah, I find it hard to believe that they would take it upon themselves to find everyone on the census and determine if they're alive. Everyone here knows how difficult tracing people through history can be, even with the help of official records. Redaction upon request would seem much more reasonable.

    For me, the 26 census would mostly be helpful in tracing distant cousins. I've already taken all my lines back to the 19th century. But it would still be very interesting.


  • Options
    #10
    CeannRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 470 ✭✭CeannRua


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I can't see how redaction can be managed. Suppose there was a one-year old Mary Byrne at a Wicklow address in 1926; she might be Mary Cullen now, and living in Dublin.

    Okay, if she chooses to contact the archivists to ask for a redaction, she might be accommodated. But if she doesn't, how might she be traced forward?

    They may simply redact information for people who are under a certain age. I would guess all of this would have to be dealt with in legislation. Even currently, it is not that someone 'might' be accommodated - it is that they HAVE to be - this is their personal information.


  • Options
    #11
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    CeannRua wrote: »
    They may simply redact information for people who are under a certain age. I would guess all of this would have to be dealt with in legislation. Even currently, it is not that someone 'might' be accommodated - it is that they HAVE to be - this is their personal information.

    This is much more likely - there'll be a blanket age over/under which anyone's information would be removed. However, in an ideal world, the CSO could take the records from the 2011 census and know exactly who was born before 1926, then contact the GRO and match it up with those who have died since April 2011. They did actually digitise the last couple of censuses, so in the future, census information will all be on computer to begin with, making release a whole lot easier. Must make effort to live to 2082 to see the first census I appear on!!

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    RGM
    Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭RGM


    CeannRua wrote: »
    They may simply redact information for people who are under a certain age. I would guess all of this would have to be dealt with in legislation. Even currently, it is not that someone 'might' be accommodated - it is that they HAVE to be - this is their personal information.

    It's their personal information, yes, from 90 years ago. And a rule is only a rule until someone decides to change it. Wouldn't be surprised to see them make an exception in this case rather than waste so much time and effort redacting the whole thing.


  • Options
    #13
    Coolnabacky1873
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Coolnabacky1873


    RGM wrote: »
    It's their personal information, yes, from 90 years ago. And a rule is only a rule until someone decides to change it. Wouldn't be surprised to see them make an exception in this case rather than waste so much time and effort redacting the whole thing.

    +1 And if living in Ireland has thought me anything, that is more than likely what will happen!


  • Options
    #14
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I wonder if that will result in a number of people aged 90+ worrying about identity theft.


  • Options
    #15
    Alicat
    Registered Users Posts: 10,264 ✭✭✭✭Alicat


    My Nana would have been two years old or so in 1926, and as she was abandoned/adopted/orphaned, this census record is our missing link. She died two years ago but I really really hope they don't remove her details because she 'might' be alive in 2016.


  • Options
    #16
    CeannRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 470 ✭✭CeannRua


    Well there is already precedence here - I don't know when public access to 1901 began but the 1911 was released early. I've seen several references online to the 1926 being redacted but not the details of what exactly is going to be redacted. Maybe I'm wrong but I would guess redaction will happen in some shape or form.

    I have little interest in this census. I would struggle to think of anything much I will learn from it. Anyone else?


  • Options
    #17
    shanew
    Registered Users Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    CeannRua wrote: »
    ...
    I have little interest in this census. I would struggle to think of anything much I will learn from it. Anyone else?

    Redaction would not be easy to carry out - the transcripts would be easy, but selecting individuals based on age for example on the the images would be complex, or a time-consuming manual process. On the 1911 England/Wales census the redacted the entire infirmities column - which is easier to do..

    same here re access... I know where all my primaries and their families were at the time, and what they were doing. I'll certainly take a look when it's filmed, or available online... might fill in gaps in a few side branches.


    Shane


  • Options
    #18
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Yeah, I'm the same. 1926 will just be interesting rather than crucial.

    Both 1901 and 1911 were given access from the late 60s, authorised by one Charles Haughey, junior minister at the time. But remember, access on MICROFILM, where you could only find someone by knowing what address they lived at, or guessing at an area. It's a very different kettle of fish to typing a name into a search engine.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #19
    CeannRua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 470 ✭✭CeannRua


    pinkypinky wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm the same. 1926 will just be interesting rather than crucial.

    Both 1901 and 1911 were given access from the late 60s, authorised by one Charles Haughey, junior minister at the time. But remember, access on MICROFILM, where you could only find someone by knowing what address they lived at, or guessing at an area. It's a very different kettle of fish to typing a name into a search engine.

    Absolutely agree about the microfilm but still the principle of full public access was established. The other thing is though a lot of the information that is withheld because of the 100 year rule on the census is freely available in the civil records to whomever wants to pay for the cert. I think there are extra columns in 1926 but apart from religious denomination and the infirmities column Shane mentions, the info on birth certs is more or less the same as 1901/1911. You can figure out religion from marriage certs and with the mother's maiden name being on FamilySearch from the 1920s, you can go a long way to working out entire families.


Advertisement