Talk:Canada 2011 Census
|WikiProject Canada||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I have proposed a Wikiproject for the 2011 census of Canada. Click here I would like to see all census geographic units of Canada found in that census to be added including a uniform appearance to each page.
I've made some changes and suggest that we avoid statements of opinion as fact. I changed a line saying "the data collected will be less accurate" to "industry professionals judge the data will be less accurate". This sort of statement can then be cited with supporting evidence. I'll be trying to review the citations and add some that I've been collecting --Chris Latour (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We have an apparent contradiction between Clement's statement re StatsCan advice and Sheikh's resignation/statement. This offers a possible resolution between both sets of statements, but is not an acceptable cite. Can we find a better one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So I'm finally getting around to reviewing this page and find that it needs a major rewrite. Here is my reasons for some of the changes;
Much of this text needs to be moved to other sections. Statements of fact are given without citations. I'd like to see some of the lines I removed return but only if they can be properly supported;
Since 1971, the census included a short form mailed to originally to 66 percent but recently to 80 per cent of Canadian households, and a longer, more detailed form mailed to the remaining households.
If it's 'since 1971' then you can't really list two percentages. The date range should be given for each percentage shown and the facts should be supported.
In deciding questions for the both the short form and long form questionnaires, Statistics Canada consulted and collected comments from government, organizations, and individuals across Canada.
I'd like to keep this by there is no citation and a clearer definition of "organizations" is needed. What kind of orgainsations? Industries that use the data? Data Collection experts? I've replaced it with a line from further down about the questions being the same.
Controversially, the Conservative government eliminated the detailed...
(see the history if you want the full thing).
This whole section has to go. It was either a repeat of what was being said above or of what was below in the controversy section. It also had errors such as saying the change was made through legislation (it was and "Order in Council").
There was some good info with citations about the questions on both forms, I have transfered this to the Questionnaire section, that seemed to match the current intended layout.
In rewriting the opening section, my goal was to keep everything based on facts and transfer anything relating to the controversy to the appropriate section.--Chris Latour (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
After adding the facts from the opening section, I thought it the comments about accuracy of data belonged here as they are about the questionaire. I added lots of citations but kept the details small so that the discussion remains focused on the controversy section.
I thought there was a court case relating to this - of francophone minority groups? Anyone know anything further? Funding is related to census data - which is how that mobilisation came about. I remember hearing about it on the radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)