Talk:2006 Canadian census

A bit one-sided

The explanation of people's concerns of Lockheed-Martin and their personal data seems a bit too close to the StatsCan official statement on the subject. No source is cited to back up this statement: "This was not true, as all information was handled only by Statistics Canada employees, not Lockheed Martin employees. The information was then stored by Statistics Canada, and Lockheed Martin did not have access to it. Nevertheless, some people refused to cooperate in the Census, as they were morally opposed to any dealings with Lockheed Martin, seeing the company as a supporter of the war in Iraq."

Should it be rewritten to reflect a more neutral, balanced approach to the controversy? There were some very legitimate concerns by people a bit more in tuned with reality than "CountMeOut.ca". I would edit it myself, but I think we should strive for a consensus first. Gortex99 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

CountMeOut

Wikipedia:Reliable sources classifies countmeout.ca as a partisan website (i.e., the site's message is anti-outsourcing, anti-NAFTA, anti-Census, etc). Please discuss here before re-adding the countmeout.ca to the article.

I have removed this link [1] for these reasons:

• it is not a reference used to support a fact in the article
• it advocates minimum cooperation with the 2006 Canada Census; its inclusion upsets the neutrality of the article
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- it is not a place to advance/advocate/promote an opinion (in this case, minimum or non- cooperation with the census)
• WP:VAIN -- the link was added by the site's owner, Don Rogers; Wikipedia is not a directory/link farm

-- Robocoder 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

countmeout.ca is now referred to indirectly through the cited National Post article. -- Robocoder 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we still mention why they opposed the census? The article doesn't mention the controvery of Lockheed-Martin, yet this article is the the category dealing with that company.  ???? Kevlar67 10:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added clarification to the Controversy section. As for the article categorization, Lockheed Martin was already mentioned in the Outsourcing section. Cheers. -- Robocoder (t|c) 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Census 2006 website

After attempting to complete the 2006 census online, I was appalled to discover that after 30 minutes of data-entry, the archaic software crashed on me and lost all the data I entered. It was not due to the entering the wrong input into the dialogue box mentioned on the site. Has anyone else encountered such problems? I'm astounded that a website at the federal level could be designed so poorly. Perhaps an entry regarding the problems with the online Census should be mentioned in the article if others have encountered this problem? Thoughts? Mattpope 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We probably have to wait and see what StatCan, the media, or other Wikipedians (through consensus) report. I haven't received my access code, so I can't comment on the online questionnaire yet. Maybe then we can try adding a straw poll? -- Robocoder 14:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just the website. The software used to scan and record census reports by mail failed - reports were scanned, but the information wasn't properly recorded. As a result, the census takers had no record of many households who had already completed and returned the census. Follow up phone calls were made, and even some of them failed. In this case I speak from personal experience; my household returned our census form the day after we received it by mail. We were then contacted by phone and asked to complete the census. When we informed them it had been mailed, they accepted that. They phoned again a week later, and said they still hadn't received our info. We then completed the report over the phone. The person who spoke to us explained the problem with the software. On a work-related note, Census Canada has already begun an RFP process to replace the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that provided the census applications. (I work for one of the companies approached.)

Note that other than the constant radio, tv, and print ads begging people to return overdue forms, I've seen nothing in the press to indicate that others had the same experience with the mail-in census forms that my household did, despite what the census personnel told me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.221.87 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 November 2006.

Education?

I Just filled out my census form, but I do not recall any questions on education. Perhaps it should be made more clear that only one fifth of households get the extended census questionnaire. The Geeklord 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've added that. -- Robocoder 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a note after the points on education and income, noting that those questions are only on the extended questionnaire. The Geeklord 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Form colours

How is this information encyclopedic? Why would someone care now, or ever? This is completely trivial information that does not belong here. And it is incomplete, just to drive the final nail. Cleduc 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Michaelm, don't be so quick to wave the bloody shirt. Just because you disagree with a change doesn't mean it's vandalism. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Cleduc 13:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

In this change[2] where Robocoder "Rewrote Same-sex marriage section to incorporate all concerns raised in the cited article" also removed the locus of the same-sex marriage conflict -- unequal treatment -- and the StatCan & Egale positions on the issue. I will restore that information. Cleduc 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok, before we get into a Wikipedia:Edit war, my edits were neutral, and I intentionally did not advance the position of any special interest group over another. The merits of the respective groups is not in question -- each has a POV of unequal treatment, which I respected.

That said, I did not include the citation to Egale's position statement / press release / soapbox because it isn't notable:

• Egale overlooks the fact that the census questions were published in the Canada Gazette in April 2005 and approved by cabinet order.
• Egale affirms StatsCan can handle either "husband or wife" or a write-in for Question 6.
• Egale has not commented on StatsCan's claim that testing showed that a write-in was more effective, and the guide to completing the census simply reflected those results.
• Egale recognizes that change takes time, but ignores the fact that some changes take more time. Specifically, Question 53 is the result of years of study by expert panels, discussions with stakeholders, and debate (the value of genealogical research vs privacy rights, in amending the Statistics Act), in both the parliament and senate.[3][4].

-- Robocoder 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out that the edits in question removed the locus of the complaint (unequal treatment). Egale did not claim that the census findings would be inaccurate as a result (as the change implied). Perhaps the Canadian Press / CTV article is a more acceptable reference ([5]) as it cites individuals upset with the census as opposed to a special interest group. I did not at any point claim that Robocoder's edit was biased. However, it removed relevant (and factual) information on a controversy and replaced it with an incorrect conclusion. Cleduc 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing of the question is notable because it is all over the news. Whether the phrasing of census questions was the result of days, months, years or centuries of preparation and review is immaterial. The point that Egale was making was that a similar change was made for the 2001 census within the same timeframe. Whether or not that is a claim that you consider fair, it is nevertheless their claim, and reporting that claim is notable, factual, and does not violate POV guidelines. Cleduc 21:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup ... it was an overzealous overedit on my part, and I have since made minor changes to the text. I'll revisit it after I make some progress on stubs for past censuses. -- Robocoder 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived

• /NPOV April 2006: April 2006 NPOV Discussion

Update?

Hi - this article seems largely to be written before or at the time of the census. A review is perhaps in order with some perspective a few months down the track even though results are not yet available. For example, the article states are expected to be counted. - was there a press release which said how mnay were counted and thus the tense can be changed?

At the Census in Australia, we have info on the eCensus. It seems that the same technology was used in Canada and 2 million forms were collected that way. (See "IBM application and hosting expertise helps ABS build the big picture faster with eCensus program". Media releases. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006-08-17. Retrieved 2006-08-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) I think the use of technology is significant. I note that the experience was apparently not flawless from the discussion above, but there seems no discussion in the article of what to my mind is a significant evolution in keying data - ie get the population to key their own.--Arktos ^talk 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

StatsCan is still chasing stragglers and while it hasn't released any numbers on their site, some regional directors have been quoted in the media. The running count isn't that interesting ... in the end, everyone will be counted (or face penalties). More noteworthy is that StatsCan was caught off guard by (1) the higher than expected non-response rate by the deadline, and (2) their inability to hire sufficient enumeration staff to go after tardy responders. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted above in "Website Problems", the "higher than expected non-response rate" appears to be as much as problem with the software as it was with an apathetic population. Mail-in forms that were received on time could not be matched to the replying households by the scanning software. My household was contacted by the Census folks by phone twice, despite mailing our form in immediately after receiving it. Two separate Census staff informed me of software/scanner issues. I would like to know how widespread that was, but I've seen zero media reports on it. All I know is that Stats Canada is approaching new IT companies to handle the apps for next time (as they have approached the company I work for). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.221.87 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 November 2006.

I have been following up with StatsCan on a media inquiry since my last comment so that personal experiences (like your and shared by others) is citable with some reference. -- Robocoder (t|c) 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

census data on mother tongue

I made an edit[6] to the article English language updating the information on Canada to the 2006 census, but now I realize I might be confused about something. Is the census data on mother tongue wildly different depending on whether it is based on the 20% sample or the 100% sample? What I mean is this:

If you look at catalogue no. 97-555-XWE2006002, "Language Highlight Tables", Table 401, it separates out a response of "English and" some other language(s) as mother tongues, from a response of English only. So it looks from that table that the total figure for English as a mother tongue is:

17,882,775 + 98,625 + 240,005 + 10,790 = 18,232,195

That figure agrees (essentially) with catalogue no. 97-555-XWE2006007, "Language", Detailed Mother Tongue.

Both those tables were based on data from the 20% sample data.

But look at some of the census data based on the 100% sample data, such as catalogue no. 97-555-XWE2006019 or catalogue no. 97-555-XWE2006021. These tables, such as for mother tongue by age group, sex, CMA and CA give larger figures for the total speaking English as a mother tongue:

18,588,050 + 239,185 + 590,905 + 63,685 = 19,481,825

I kind of think I am misunderstanding something, but not sure what. Is the number of people in Canada (as of census day 2006) whose mother tongue is English (either alone or with some other language(s)) 18.2 million, or 19.5 million? The difference is too large to be attributed to sampling error alone. --Mathew5000 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of searching at the Statscan website, in search of an answer to the question posed above. Frankly, I haven't found anything that explains the huge discrepancies cited above by Mathew5000. But I did locate Statscan's discussion of how random and non-random errors can occur in the census (particularly when 20% samples are being used): http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/dictionary/app002.cfm Flint and Fire (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

News article says census affected by email urging francophones to lie

The Ottawa Citizen[7] had an article today saying that StatsCan believes some francophones outside Quebec lied in the 2006 census, saying they did not speak English when they really do. The article specifically mentions: "Statistics Canada has taken the unusual step of posting a warning on its website to caution users that the data on bilingualism rates for francophones outside Quebec may not be reliable." But I could not find that warning on the StatsCan website. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Link via Google News: [8] Mathew5000 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canada 2006 Census. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060418094608/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/Canada/Canadiana/2006/03/25/1505423-cp.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/Canadiana/2006/03/25/1505423-cp.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www22.statcan.ca/ccr02/ccr02_003_e.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)