This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Census in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 2, 2011, April 2, 2012, April 2, 2015, April 2, 2016, and April 2, 2017. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
29July2006 Can't find the place where you make a comment on what it was that you editted. Only a minor change to the article 1911, fixed a typo "dealy" to delay. By the way is just my browser, but the image of the logo of the 2006 Census is not displaying as a picture. D.Tzumli
I made the Australian Census Template Template:Australian Census Broad Groups to show how the Australian Census Bureau classifies people, because it improves the content of the article and demographic data related to Australia. This template shows the official racial/ethnic classifications used in Australia. This information not only improves the content of the Ausralian Census article but would be useful on other pages relating to Australia's demographics. Information provided by the Australian Census would be useful in the Demographics of Australia article. Currently in August 20 2006, the ethnic groups section classifies people into "Caucasian", "Asian" and "Indigenous", but these are from the United-States-centric The World Factbook. The CIA World Factbook classifies Australians according to their parameters for ethnicity which is not recognized by the Australian Census. I think this ethnicity section should used the ethnic classifications made by the Australian Census.-- Dark Tichondrias 11:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition ot the points made above that I have never heard the term Oceanian used in connection with "official racial/ethnic classifications used in Australia", I also find such classifications inappropriate before the results are out and without reference to other tabulations. It will be of more interest to people what the population count was, how old people were, where they lived, ahead of any questions of ethnicity. I suspect ethnicity is misunderstood outside of Australia too - I recall the incident with Prince Charles and an Australian of a few years ago
[1]. What would appear on his census record? Surely "1101 Australian". I think the template should be deleted as misleading and inappropriate and removed from this article.--
Arktos
talk
22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the edits by Dark Tichondrias particularly inappropriate. More than half the section on the recently held 2006 census is devoted to race / national origin with special mention of the fact The broad group of "Peoples of the Americas" included the nations of North and South America and should not be confused with a category for Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. and the only wikilink to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Of the many ethnic groups and places of origin represented in the Australian population, I expect that one of the smallest percentages must relate to this group. As stated above, I also find such classifications or discussions inappropriate before the results are out and without reference to other tabulations. It will be of more interest to people what the population count was, how old people were, where they lived, ahead of any questions of ethnicity.
Why doesn't the editor look at the actual results of five years ago. He or she might find something more useful there. At the moment the current edits are original research because the editor has taken the classification scheme reference and applied his or her analysis to it. He/she has got it wrong in my opinion too, but would of course not have got it wrong if it had not been original research.
The organisation IS NOT the Australian Census Bureau.
The current article states: The 2006 Australian Census did not ask for respondent's race but for their national origin group, because the Australian Census Bureau felt that bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful. An exhaustive list of national origins were listed with their corresponding codes. These were categorized into the broad groups to make finding one's national origin group easier
The source from the ABS states ASCCEG is a classification of cultural and ethnic groups based on the geographic area in which a group originated or developed and the similarity of cultural and ethnic groups in terms of social and cultural characteristics. ASCCEG is intended for use in the collection, aggregation and dissemination of data relating to the cultural diversity of the Australian Population. ... It should be noted that the measurement of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Australian population, and the degree to which Australians retain their ethnic and cultural identity, is primarily based on the use of a number of statistical variables related to a person's origin, including: Country of Birth, Country of Birth of Mother/Father, language variables such as Main Language Other than English Spoken at Home, Religious Affiliation, Proficiency in Spoken English, and Year of Arrival in Australia. ... Information on ethnic identity, ancestry and cultural identity (collected and classified using ASCCEG) can be used in conjunction with these variables to provide a self-assessed measure of ethnicity and cultural background. A major advantage of such information is that it is able to measure an association with ethnic or cultural groups which does not equate directly to country of birth, language or religion and cannot be readily identified using these variables.
ABS didn't ask for "race" because ethnic and cultural identity are determined by a number of variables and self-assessment of race or ethnicity is not done on the basis of one question but the collation of the results of person's origin, including: Country of Birth, Country of Birth of Mother/Father, language variables such as Main Language Other than English Spoken at Home, Religious Affiliation, Proficiency in Spoken English, and Year of Arrival in Australia. It isn't simplistic "bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful.". There is plenty of disaggregation going on, the question is how do you determine what ethnicity is.
There are many things that could be said about the census before a discussion on race and ethnicity, let alone with the tangent to the race of the American peoples.
Reverting again as breach of WP:NOR, unbalanced and wrong. -- Arktos talk 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In most cases, narrow groups are an aggregation of cultural and ethnic groups based on one or both of the criteria listed above and include groups originating in a number of different countries. In three instances, however, a narrow group of cultural and ethnic groups is represented by a single country: 11, Australian Peoples; 12, New Zealand Peoples; and 21, British. These narrow groups have been developed because they include cultural and ethnic groups which, although dissimilar in many aspects of the second criterion, nevertheless developed in the same geographic area. These narrow groups also enhance the practicality, feasibility and usefulness of the classification.
In another three instances, narrow groups represent a single recognised ethnic or cultural entity: 22, Irish; 41, Arab; and 42, Jewish. Irish and Jewish are represented both at the narrow group level and base level of the classification because they are single base level entity groups. In the case of the Irish it was considered more useful to present this group as a separate entity than to include it as part of Narrow Group 21, British or Narrow Group 23, Western European. The Jewish people are classified to Broad Group 4, North African and the Middle Eastern as this is the area of the world in which this cultural and ethnic group originated and developed. Because there are no other cultural and ethnic groups in this broad group with which the Jewish group shares similar social and cultural characteristics they form a single entity narrow group.
Template:Australian Census Broad Groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Arktos talk 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Australia Census 2006.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Jedi census phenomenon, this should surely be included somewhere? it is notable and referenced in it's own page. Not sure where it should go. Someone please help.-- TinTin ( talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Jedi was UK project, but they made it illegal to be jedi religion. FSM Flying Spaghetti Monster aka Pastafarian is another choice-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I took out the following:
Nevertheless 2.2 per cent of households viewed as being inhabited did no submit a census form. This resulted in 250 attempts to prosecute. It is not clear whether any prosecutions could be successful given that any person could claim they were not present on census night
It was originally added by an IP, is unsourced and was placed in the "See also" section. While information on the amount of Census undercount and prosecutions (which incidentally is a bit misleading, since the ABS issues fines for non-compliance, but it's the DPP that prosecutes on non-payment of the fines) might be useful to include in the article, it needs to be sourced (which I might be able to help with) and probably worded better. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits to the lead section say that the census is not compulsory, citing the Census Act. However, I'm not sure that this is valid, because:
Is completing a Census form compulsory?
Yes, the Census is compulsory.
Certainly the statement that "So far no census in Australia has been compulsory" is near impossible to substantiate. How can we be certain that the Statistician has never issued a written request to someone to fill out the form, per section 10(4) or 11(2) of the Act, thus making it compulsory (per section 14)? Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The census is only compulsory, when 11)2 "by notice in writing served either personally or by post on a PERSON, direct the person to answer, within such period after service of the notice, being not less than 14 days". So not compulsory.
The government or government department would never lie! LOL. If you claim the legislation and what it says is original research, then when you quote the ABS website thats your original research. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The abs website after claiming its compulsory then goes on to clarify.
"If a person fails to complete the Census, the first step taken by the ABS is to notify that person of their legal obligation to do so" A12bc34be5 ( talk) 08:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So its not compulsory but it can made to be compulsory. Claiming its compulsory is the same logical fallacy as claiming a woman is pregnant because she can be made pregnant. Its not that until it is that. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 08:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
with an unrelated url. That url, if appropriate, should have been added as a new citation, not used to corrupt an existing one. You've also removed the closing code for the citation resulting in an error. The url that you've added does not confirm that the census is not compulsory so you have also engaged in
WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
09:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Nice false claim. What definition of compulsory do you use and which one are they using?
"They don't write to you to make it compulsory." Clearly you failed to read/understand the act! If you like WHY NOT BE HONEST AND WRITE
YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CENSUS UNTIL The requirements of 10)4 and 11)2 are met by the ABS AS STATED BY THE LEGAL PENALTY SECTION
14 Failure to answer questions etc.
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is served a direction under subsection 10(4) or 11(2); and
(b) the person fails to comply with the direction.
Do you agree with this fact? A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone needs to update the illegal invasion of iraq in 2003 as they did have Weapons of Mass destruction because the Australian Government and Government department said there was so it must be true? A12bc34be5 ( talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
WOW the act and what the law says "that you've added does not confirm that" is not a good reference AMAZING. Im glad the courts are run on what the law says and not googled claims. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the National Archiving of the census, to be released in 99 years, applying to the current 2011 census? Or was this just a 2001 thing? 203.206.11.64 ( talk) 10:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Does each person ... agree to ... information on this form being kept by the National Archives of Australia and then made publicly available after 99 years?
What is the purpose of this? How is that information going to help? its not related to population, housing or anything. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 09:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The aim of the Census is to accurately collect data on the key characteristics of people in Australia on Census night and the dwellings in which they live.
The information ... helps estimate Australia’s population, which is used to distribute government funds and plan services ... Census data is also used by individuals and organisations in the public and private sectors to make informed decisions on policy and planning issues ....
No, just stating its stupid for them to include tourists, its random information not related to planning. WOW you think they need a census to see how many tourists are in australia one day every 5 years? I know they already have that information. Doesnt matter where they stay, its not going to come into the decision making process. The Australian government can tell you how many tourists are in the country each day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A12bc34be5 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Why was it switched to 5 years?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Removed this uncited line from the page: The 2016 online census also featured an award winning question: "Does any member of this household access the internet from this dwelling?". There are no awards for census questions, and no citation was provided. 49.195.84.216 ( talk) 11:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit's wording "An Australian census was meant to occur on 9 August 2016." Even if the online forms are not filled on that date, that is still when the Census was deemed to have been taken - the questions (online or paper, whether filled in on that day, or before, or after) ask for information about "people ... who stay in this household on Census night - Tuesday, 9 August 2016". Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So I've changed it to "An Australian census occurred on 9 August 2016." Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
(2) The Census day shall be a day appointed for that purpose by proclamation.
The Census has finished its time has passed Its called CENSUS DAY and A DAY is prescribed for it! If you could not log on (Thats their fault), then theres no way they will even try to prosecute you! As it would fail!
This means if the "census people" whos authority ended at the end of the census try to ask you to do the census they have no authority to do that.-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 02:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was but it was a total failure, with minimal data. That should be mentioned!-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 02:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I was reverted by User:Captain Infinity, I figured I'd discuss the matter. The sentence in question is "However the ABS makes confidentialised/confidential census data available to researchers, who must make various legal commitments before being given access." Captain Infinity has edited in favour of "confidential", while I'm in favour of "confidentialised", because: (1) it's the word used by the ABS to refer to the product (the product is specifically called a CURF, or confidentialised unit record file, as per [9]), (2) "confidential data" implies that the data itself is secret and not to be released, while "confidentialised data", while perhaps not a dictionary word, is shorthand for data that has been modified to protect the confidentiality of the respondents (i.e. Statistical disclosure control). If I'm overruled then I'm happy to go with consensus, but if "confidentialised" is shot down then I'd rather see something other than "confidential" given its almost completely opposite meaning in the context. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 07:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Census in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Census in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Census in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 2, 2011, April 2, 2012, April 2, 2015, April 2, 2016, and April 2, 2017. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
29July2006 Can't find the place where you make a comment on what it was that you editted. Only a minor change to the article 1911, fixed a typo "dealy" to delay. By the way is just my browser, but the image of the logo of the 2006 Census is not displaying as a picture. D.Tzumli
I made the Australian Census Template Template:Australian Census Broad Groups to show how the Australian Census Bureau classifies people, because it improves the content of the article and demographic data related to Australia. This template shows the official racial/ethnic classifications used in Australia. This information not only improves the content of the Ausralian Census article but would be useful on other pages relating to Australia's demographics. Information provided by the Australian Census would be useful in the Demographics of Australia article. Currently in August 20 2006, the ethnic groups section classifies people into "Caucasian", "Asian" and "Indigenous", but these are from the United-States-centric The World Factbook. The CIA World Factbook classifies Australians according to their parameters for ethnicity which is not recognized by the Australian Census. I think this ethnicity section should used the ethnic classifications made by the Australian Census.-- Dark Tichondrias 11:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition ot the points made above that I have never heard the term Oceanian used in connection with "official racial/ethnic classifications used in Australia", I also find such classifications inappropriate before the results are out and without reference to other tabulations. It will be of more interest to people what the population count was, how old people were, where they lived, ahead of any questions of ethnicity. I suspect ethnicity is misunderstood outside of Australia too - I recall the incident with Prince Charles and an Australian of a few years ago
[1]. What would appear on his census record? Surely "1101 Australian". I think the template should be deleted as misleading and inappropriate and removed from this article.--
Arktos
talk
22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the edits by Dark Tichondrias particularly inappropriate. More than half the section on the recently held 2006 census is devoted to race / national origin with special mention of the fact The broad group of "Peoples of the Americas" included the nations of North and South America and should not be confused with a category for Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. and the only wikilink to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Of the many ethnic groups and places of origin represented in the Australian population, I expect that one of the smallest percentages must relate to this group. As stated above, I also find such classifications or discussions inappropriate before the results are out and without reference to other tabulations. It will be of more interest to people what the population count was, how old people were, where they lived, ahead of any questions of ethnicity.
Why doesn't the editor look at the actual results of five years ago. He or she might find something more useful there. At the moment the current edits are original research because the editor has taken the classification scheme reference and applied his or her analysis to it. He/she has got it wrong in my opinion too, but would of course not have got it wrong if it had not been original research.
The organisation IS NOT the Australian Census Bureau.
The current article states: The 2006 Australian Census did not ask for respondent's race but for their national origin group, because the Australian Census Bureau felt that bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful. An exhaustive list of national origins were listed with their corresponding codes. These were categorized into the broad groups to make finding one's national origin group easier
The source from the ABS states ASCCEG is a classification of cultural and ethnic groups based on the geographic area in which a group originated or developed and the similarity of cultural and ethnic groups in terms of social and cultural characteristics. ASCCEG is intended for use in the collection, aggregation and dissemination of data relating to the cultural diversity of the Australian Population. ... It should be noted that the measurement of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Australian population, and the degree to which Australians retain their ethnic and cultural identity, is primarily based on the use of a number of statistical variables related to a person's origin, including: Country of Birth, Country of Birth of Mother/Father, language variables such as Main Language Other than English Spoken at Home, Religious Affiliation, Proficiency in Spoken English, and Year of Arrival in Australia. ... Information on ethnic identity, ancestry and cultural identity (collected and classified using ASCCEG) can be used in conjunction with these variables to provide a self-assessed measure of ethnicity and cultural background. A major advantage of such information is that it is able to measure an association with ethnic or cultural groups which does not equate directly to country of birth, language or religion and cannot be readily identified using these variables.
ABS didn't ask for "race" because ethnic and cultural identity are determined by a number of variables and self-assessment of race or ethnicity is not done on the basis of one question but the collation of the results of person's origin, including: Country of Birth, Country of Birth of Mother/Father, language variables such as Main Language Other than English Spoken at Home, Religious Affiliation, Proficiency in Spoken English, and Year of Arrival in Australia. It isn't simplistic "bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful.". There is plenty of disaggregation going on, the question is how do you determine what ethnicity is.
There are many things that could be said about the census before a discussion on race and ethnicity, let alone with the tangent to the race of the American peoples.
Reverting again as breach of WP:NOR, unbalanced and wrong. -- Arktos talk 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In most cases, narrow groups are an aggregation of cultural and ethnic groups based on one or both of the criteria listed above and include groups originating in a number of different countries. In three instances, however, a narrow group of cultural and ethnic groups is represented by a single country: 11, Australian Peoples; 12, New Zealand Peoples; and 21, British. These narrow groups have been developed because they include cultural and ethnic groups which, although dissimilar in many aspects of the second criterion, nevertheless developed in the same geographic area. These narrow groups also enhance the practicality, feasibility and usefulness of the classification.
In another three instances, narrow groups represent a single recognised ethnic or cultural entity: 22, Irish; 41, Arab; and 42, Jewish. Irish and Jewish are represented both at the narrow group level and base level of the classification because they are single base level entity groups. In the case of the Irish it was considered more useful to present this group as a separate entity than to include it as part of Narrow Group 21, British or Narrow Group 23, Western European. The Jewish people are classified to Broad Group 4, North African and the Middle Eastern as this is the area of the world in which this cultural and ethnic group originated and developed. Because there are no other cultural and ethnic groups in this broad group with which the Jewish group shares similar social and cultural characteristics they form a single entity narrow group.
Template:Australian Census Broad Groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Arktos talk 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Australia Census 2006.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Jedi census phenomenon, this should surely be included somewhere? it is notable and referenced in it's own page. Not sure where it should go. Someone please help.-- TinTin ( talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Jedi was UK project, but they made it illegal to be jedi religion. FSM Flying Spaghetti Monster aka Pastafarian is another choice-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I took out the following:
Nevertheless 2.2 per cent of households viewed as being inhabited did no submit a census form. This resulted in 250 attempts to prosecute. It is not clear whether any prosecutions could be successful given that any person could claim they were not present on census night
It was originally added by an IP, is unsourced and was placed in the "See also" section. While information on the amount of Census undercount and prosecutions (which incidentally is a bit misleading, since the ABS issues fines for non-compliance, but it's the DPP that prosecutes on non-payment of the fines) might be useful to include in the article, it needs to be sourced (which I might be able to help with) and probably worded better. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits to the lead section say that the census is not compulsory, citing the Census Act. However, I'm not sure that this is valid, because:
Is completing a Census form compulsory?
Yes, the Census is compulsory.
Certainly the statement that "So far no census in Australia has been compulsory" is near impossible to substantiate. How can we be certain that the Statistician has never issued a written request to someone to fill out the form, per section 10(4) or 11(2) of the Act, thus making it compulsory (per section 14)? Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The census is only compulsory, when 11)2 "by notice in writing served either personally or by post on a PERSON, direct the person to answer, within such period after service of the notice, being not less than 14 days". So not compulsory.
The government or government department would never lie! LOL. If you claim the legislation and what it says is original research, then when you quote the ABS website thats your original research. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The abs website after claiming its compulsory then goes on to clarify.
"If a person fails to complete the Census, the first step taken by the ABS is to notify that person of their legal obligation to do so" A12bc34be5 ( talk) 08:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So its not compulsory but it can made to be compulsory. Claiming its compulsory is the same logical fallacy as claiming a woman is pregnant because she can be made pregnant. Its not that until it is that. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 08:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
with an unrelated url. That url, if appropriate, should have been added as a new citation, not used to corrupt an existing one. You've also removed the closing code for the citation resulting in an error. The url that you've added does not confirm that the census is not compulsory so you have also engaged in
WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
09:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Nice false claim. What definition of compulsory do you use and which one are they using?
"They don't write to you to make it compulsory." Clearly you failed to read/understand the act! If you like WHY NOT BE HONEST AND WRITE
YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CENSUS UNTIL The requirements of 10)4 and 11)2 are met by the ABS AS STATED BY THE LEGAL PENALTY SECTION
14 Failure to answer questions etc.
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is served a direction under subsection 10(4) or 11(2); and
(b) the person fails to comply with the direction.
Do you agree with this fact? A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone needs to update the illegal invasion of iraq in 2003 as they did have Weapons of Mass destruction because the Australian Government and Government department said there was so it must be true? A12bc34be5 ( talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
WOW the act and what the law says "that you've added does not confirm that" is not a good reference AMAZING. Im glad the courts are run on what the law says and not googled claims. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 07:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the National Archiving of the census, to be released in 99 years, applying to the current 2011 census? Or was this just a 2001 thing? 203.206.11.64 ( talk) 10:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Does each person ... agree to ... information on this form being kept by the National Archives of Australia and then made publicly available after 99 years?
What is the purpose of this? How is that information going to help? its not related to population, housing or anything. A12bc34be5 ( talk) 09:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The aim of the Census is to accurately collect data on the key characteristics of people in Australia on Census night and the dwellings in which they live.
The information ... helps estimate Australia’s population, which is used to distribute government funds and plan services ... Census data is also used by individuals and organisations in the public and private sectors to make informed decisions on policy and planning issues ....
No, just stating its stupid for them to include tourists, its random information not related to planning. WOW you think they need a census to see how many tourists are in australia one day every 5 years? I know they already have that information. Doesnt matter where they stay, its not going to come into the decision making process. The Australian government can tell you how many tourists are in the country each day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A12bc34be5 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Why was it switched to 5 years?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Removed this uncited line from the page: The 2016 online census also featured an award winning question: "Does any member of this household access the internet from this dwelling?". There are no awards for census questions, and no citation was provided. 49.195.84.216 ( talk) 11:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit's wording "An Australian census was meant to occur on 9 August 2016." Even if the online forms are not filled on that date, that is still when the Census was deemed to have been taken - the questions (online or paper, whether filled in on that day, or before, or after) ask for information about "people ... who stay in this household on Census night - Tuesday, 9 August 2016". Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So I've changed it to "An Australian census occurred on 9 August 2016." Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
(2) The Census day shall be a day appointed for that purpose by proclamation.
The Census has finished its time has passed Its called CENSUS DAY and A DAY is prescribed for it! If you could not log on (Thats their fault), then theres no way they will even try to prosecute you! As it would fail!
This means if the "census people" whos authority ended at the end of the census try to ask you to do the census they have no authority to do that.-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 02:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was but it was a total failure, with minimal data. That should be mentioned!-- A12bc34be5 ( talk) 02:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I was reverted by User:Captain Infinity, I figured I'd discuss the matter. The sentence in question is "However the ABS makes confidentialised/confidential census data available to researchers, who must make various legal commitments before being given access." Captain Infinity has edited in favour of "confidential", while I'm in favour of "confidentialised", because: (1) it's the word used by the ABS to refer to the product (the product is specifically called a CURF, or confidentialised unit record file, as per [9]), (2) "confidential data" implies that the data itself is secret and not to be released, while "confidentialised data", while perhaps not a dictionary word, is shorthand for data that has been modified to protect the confidentiality of the respondents (i.e. Statistical disclosure control). If I'm overruled then I'm happy to go with consensus, but if "confidentialised" is shot down then I'd rather see something other than "confidential" given its almost completely opposite meaning in the context. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 07:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Census in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Census in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)