Talk:2006 Canadian census

message: 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)
thread_title: A bit one-sided

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CountMeOut

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with Census 2006 website

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point.  I've added that. -- Robocoder 14:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Education?

message: 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)
thread_title: Form colours

message: In this change 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)
replies: text: 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 () 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Same-sex marriage 

message: 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 )  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: I made an edit 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)
thread_title:  census data on mother tongue 

message: The Ottawa Citizen 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)
replies: text: Link via Google News:  Mathew5000 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  News article says census affected by email urging francophones to lie 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canada 2006 Census. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified