* Census Template: Incorrect 1911 Census of Canada date

[Gary_G]

In the as-released AS v7.8.6, the 1911 Census of Canada template shows "June 1, 1911", which appears to be a typo.

Per the Library and Archives Canada, in the "Census of Canada, 1911" webpage, "The 1911 Census was the fifth national census. It began on June 11, 1911 and had 549 questions."

Reference webpage:
https://library-archives.canada.ca/eng/ ... .aspx#1911

[NickWalker]

Or maybe the typo is on the page you've quoted?

Library and Archive of Canada (https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/19 ... ensus.aspx):

The 1911 Census marked the fifth regularly scheduled collection of national statistics. It officially began on June 1, 1911.

Family Seach (https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Ca ... al_Records)

Enumeration for the 1911 census began 1 June 1911. These records include population schedules of the census. They also contain indexes to population schedules of the census. The official census date was June 1st.

Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8947/)

The 1911 Census was begun on 1 June 1911.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Canadian_census)

The 1911 Canadian census was a detailed enumeration of the Canadian population. The census was started on June 1, 1911

Government of Canada (https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.8 ... ation.html)

Volume 1 contains contains statistics of the population enumerated under date of the first day of June 1911, for provinces, territories, districts and subdistricts, together with comparative populations for the Fourth Census taken in 1901

[Gary_G]

Nick;

My apologies. Seems that there can always be typos in any secondary source; even the LAC, which should be the gold standard.

I would have thought that the LAC, being the official repository of the records, could at least get the key dates correct. I'll have to drop them a line to have them update their info on the page containing the error... before this issue pops up elsewhere.

Just a note: Only your last reference to the actual census report, CS98-1911-1.pdf (PDF, 32.95 MB). v. 1, is a valid primary source. Secondary sources like Wikipedia, Ancestry and FamilySearch are sometimes not reliable supporting sources, as they frequently obtain some of their information from other sources of unknown validity; and sometimes even each other.

[By the way; I note that AS requires a full date in a census template. This is not always possible, because some early census were taken at different times in different areas of the country. ie. the "census of 1851". In the example, it would be more correct for me to be able to enter just "1851-1852", but that is not permitted. Is it actually used anywhere? If not; then there is no harm done.]

[NickWalker]

Gary, I've been a keen genealogist for over 30 years now and I am well aware of the difference between primary and secondary sources so no need for a lesson. You quoted a secondary source as evidence of me making a mistake so it seems reasonable to quote a few more back at you! Although they are not primary sources, it would seem unlikely but not impossible that Ancestry, Find My Past and Wikipedia would all have had the same wrong date online for a decade or more without it being corrected.

[By the way; I note that AS requires a full date in a census template. This is not always possible, because some early census were taken at different times in different areas of the country. ie. the "census of 1851". In the example, it would be more correct for me to be able to enter just "1851-1852", but that is not permitted. Is it actually used anywhere? If not; then there is no harm done.]

The date can be left blank in the template (see the UK electoral register templates) and then you can type in a date on a per entry basis. The date can be just a year or month and year if you want. If you need a date range then you'll need to edit it in FH afterwards.

[Gary_G]

Thanks for the info on how to get around the need for a full date. My source templates and the AS census templates are now working together and I'm, about ready to do a test run with a freshly imported copy of my database.

Next; I need to figure out if I can actually use AS for Canadian Births, Deaths and Burials. The bulk of my records don't seem to be quite as regular in their content as, let's say, British ones. That said; it will take a bit of playing with them to be sure.

---
Nick;
My response was definitely not intended as a "lesson". One never knows the other person's experience level. I just couldn't for the life of me figure out why you bothered to list all the secondary sources and finally the primary source, when the latter was all that was really needed to make your point. A large number of references, in itself, does not make something more correct.

I always avoid secondary sources, when I am aware of a suitable primary one. That's why I didn't mention the census report in my initial post and instead referred to the next best thing I had; the backgrounder page on the data-owner's site.

As for Ancestry etc. all agreeing...
I really don't consider that proof. As noted previously; they have a bad habit of getting their info from each other and so are highly likely to agree. When you've been at this for as long as I have (over 40 years), I might use their agreement as a clue, but never to try to prove a point.

[tatewise]

I think the point Nick was making is how would that date remain wrong on so many sites for such a long time without somebody complaining and correcting it. They must have been reviewed by millions of subscribers.

[Gary_G]

Mike;

My point was simply that the one undeniably correct date-reference was sufficient. I made an error by suggesting the LAC page was correct, and apologized for it, but didn't appreciate being seemingly "beaten over the head" for it.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm not sure there's anything more to be said here productively.