Talk:European Canadians

Move to Wiktionary

I've tagged this article for a move to Wiktionary. This is not an article about Euro-Canadians, just a definition of the word. The references appear to be examples of its use, constituting original research in primary sources, and not secondary sources about Euro-Canadians. —Michael Z. 2008-11-05 21:36 z

Oppose moving to Wiktionary as this is a subgroup of Canadian people, the same as Indo-Canadians, Asian Canadians, and Latin American Canadians. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support B*****r that, Sosiestep. It's a term for a subgroup pushed by a certain faction of the polity/academica, and is not in widespread use; see next section. Also some citations do not even mention the term, they only talk about its composition as if the source were using the term - which is dishonest. Keep your racist subgroupings to yourself, and if you hadn't noticed there's also this other term European-Canadian that is also mis-used (i.e. to include Britons and white Americans and Canadians - but not white Latin Americans, interestingly, or white Africans). Neither term is really acceptable and both are POV and also euphemisms for "white" (clearly a racist term if "black", "yellow" and "brown" are, no?). This is only for Wiktionary, it has no use in Wikipedia and this term should NOT be used in definitions and leads, as you have just done (and I have just reversed) in Canadians of German descent and Canadians of Norwegian descent. I am one of the latter, and I reject your imposition of this term on my "subgroup".Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a term, not a subgroup (POV discussion)

I find this term extremely POV and historically inaccurate, and is misrepresented as if it were a term in wide use, wehn it's nothing of hte kind and many members of teh group targeted by it 0 it's a pastiche of teh similarly-POV "Euro-American" - do not like it, or do not know of it. It is not an official term in any way, though its use is being promoted/substituted by ideologically-driven agendas in which "all white people are the same" and which remove any notion of the true diversity of Canada's "white" population. As a Canadian of Norwegian descent (and the grandson of a director of Scandinavian immigration) I find the term offensive and unsuitable and concocted by those from othe gropus seeking to generalize and stereotype. That many of these happen to be political and ethnic activists and "politically fashionable academics" only makes my point that their use and promotion of this term is POV all the more pertinent. It is not a useful term, not a iwdespread one, and it should not be uwed in Wikipedia as a standard, i.e. in teh way it was just subbed into the leads of Canadians of German descent and Canadians of Norwegian descent and no doubt others. I find its use in this mannaer, especially when European Canadian is also in circualation (though similarly used in historically useless and politically-suspect ways). This article should be reworded to say that "this is a term for the subgroup...." NOT "this is a subgeroup. As a member of that subgroup, I dispute that that is the case and those who wish to classify me and mine according to their own racist paradigms should be content with teh langauge as it is, not as they would like to see it re-invented to suit their own biases and perceptions (see Newspeak). "Selling" the term by such misleading citations as the following is another demonstration of the suepct nature of this agenda:

Statistics Canada breaks down Euro-Canadian ethnic origins into several subcatagories: British Isles, French, Western European, Northern European, Eastern European, Southern European, and Other European (Basque, Gypsy/Roma, Jewish, Slav).[8]

Statistics Canada makes no such definition of "Euro-Canadian". Not on any census table or census form I've ever seen. I have seen it in a lot of ideologically-driven and politically self-conscious academic and ethnic politics writign, though. It's POV and that's all there is to it. I suspect an inspection of the other citations will not turn up actual usage of this term except in POV-type documents of one kidn or another; native-politics nte4spapers, sociological tracts and the like; it's not in common circulation, I repeat, and is either unknown to or rejected by those it is designed to apply to. There's already other words for "us"...the lengths people will go not to say "white" huh? Still just racism, only in the other direction......Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The title and content of this article were not meant to be pejorative or inaccurate. I apologize for not knowing about the perceptions noted above.
2. I've re-edited the article and others can make other improvements.
3. I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide for assistance with naming convention as I'm unclear what's best and alternative title possibilities abound. Statistics Canada uses the term "European origins", so "Canadians of European origins" is a suggestion. Sources in this article used "Euro-Canadian" or "Canadians of European descent". Articles regarding Canadians of European country-specific origins don't follow a specific naming convention (see English Canadian, Italian Canadians, Canadians of Danish descent, Canadians of Finnish ancestry, Canadians of German ethnicity, and Russians in Canada). Articles regarding Canadians from other continents also lack a standard naming convention (see Indo-Canadians, Asian Canadian, etc.). --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

requested move to proper term

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 08:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Euro-Canadian → European Canadian —

• European Canadian is the more common usage, any cites that use "Euro-Canadian" are affecting a post-modern p.c. usage that was imposed by academic/political fiat and which few people of any of these origins would identify with. Most common usage should apply, as should the reality that "European Canadian" is not a neologism, while "Euro-Canadian" very much is, and also has p.c. origins (i.e. POV origins).}}Skookum1 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - infact i redirected European Canadian to Euro-Canadian and not Canadians my fault there did not see "Euro-Canadian" article when i did this.Moxy (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Population of Euro-Canadians

If European Canadians constitute 80 percent of Canada's population, shouldn't the number be less than 31 million? 1. We aren't "European" Canadians. That mistake has been popularized since the late 1960s. We are British North Americans, see my note below. 2. We are far fewer than 80% at this point, and have been targeted by the UN for "replacement immigration", which has to be stopped.

lol, uh, Turks and Armenians are not Europeans...

not geographically, and not ethnically.

they are Caucasians racially, but that's not the same thing as being an ethnic European.

remove them please

--Savakk (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

lolz back at you. Turkey is partially in Europe. (see List of transcontinental countries). Armenia is generally concidered to be culturally european - its a member of the council of europe for example. Outback the koala (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is partially in Europe because the Ottoman Empire invaded and occupied Greece..

Turks come from Central Asia, not Europe, what do you not get about that?

they are Muslims, not Christians, they speak a Turkic language.

Turks are not European, not European ethnically, culturally or religiously.

and who considers Armenia to be culturally European, you ?

they are surely similar in culture to parts of Russia and the Caucasus, but Russia is not usually called culturally European.

the council of Europe is an international organization with Turkic members like Turkey and Azerbaijan, it has nothing to do with a representation of a nation's ethnicity and culture.

now at this point, I am going to assume you must be either Armenian or Turkish yourself.

--Savakk (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am neither Armenian nor Turkish, thank you. This disagreement is part of a wider discussion on what constitutes Europe and what doesn't. Here I think you are looking at the page in ethnic terms rather than nationality terms. I'm not sure if the page was meant to be ethnically based. Outback the koala (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter. If you read the statistics Canada explanation of ethnic groups, Turkish people belong in the West Asian category, not the European one, so I am removing it... Galati (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Galati

About the actual number of European Canadians as for the source

The dubous template was added by me. The original source listed ethnical "Canadian" (numbering 10,563,805 as shown) apart from the "European" one, the former containing part of those from European ancestry for sure. For accuracy of Wikipedia statement, we cannot directly treat those "Canadians" simply as non-European ancestry. Other source needed in justifying the true number. 霎起林野间 (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What's more, the survey was counting multiple responses as valid, which significantly weakened the possibility of an accurate estimation by simple summing up of the data. 霎起林野间 (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghan Canadian which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Where are these numbers coming from?

We have the 2013 report on the 2011 census sourced, but editors are changing the numbers and claiming that the numbers are as of 2015. As far as I can see, the 2011 census http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Canada&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1 reports a total population of 32,852,325, of whom 20,157,965 are of European origins. That's 61.4%. In the last 3 months alone we've had claims of 74.9%, 76.6%, 73.0%, 76.7%, and 82.6% European origins, and the article claims the total number of Canadians of European origin as 25,186,890 apparently by subtracting the North American Aboriginal origins group from the total non visible minority population. Why are we not using the Statistics Canada classification "European origins" with its listed count of 20,157,965? Meters (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in European Canadian

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of European Canadian's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "anthem-fr":

• From Music of Canada: Government of Canada (2008-06-23). "Hymne national du Canada". Canadian Heritage. Government of Canada. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
• From Calixa Lavallée: Government of Canada (June 23, 2008). "Hymne national du Canada". Canadian Heritage. Government of Canada. Retrieved 2008-06-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

European - a misnomer re British (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh)

The British peoples are not "European", are off the continent, and never considered themselves as being European. The word "European" seems to have been taken up since the mid to late 1960s in Canada as a "politically correct" way of saying "white". It has been used by historians in a general sense to refer to i.e., the "white men" who first encountered the Indians in North America. However, when it comes to (a) actual demographics of those who colonized North America, the word "British" in the name of "British North America" is a big hint that they were "British" and not European peoples.

Moreover, the character of the demographic changes over a long period of time. The British having colonized North America, and having been "long on the continent", eventually become a new race whose transplanted root culture is now enhanced with new practices. They are no longer "British", but in fact "native" to North America, so that it is realistic, indeed factual, to call them what they called themselves, i.e., "British North Americans".

That title was retained in Canada when the constitution of 1867 was enacted as the British North America Act, not the i.e., "European North America Act", because Canada is a British-North American nation, not a European nation. Our cultures are British-based and French Canadian, not European.

The legal identity of the founding peoples of Canada, i.e., its "constituent peoples" is therefore of key importance. They are "British North Americans" who joined in a limited federal union in each of whose provinces a different British North American majority (ethnic variant) obtained a permanent legislature for its own self-government. If this critical fact of identity is missed, being subsumed under the word "European", then, as some have had the misfortune to do since the late 1960s, Canada is misidentified as a nation founded by "white" people (i.e., "European", the euphemism) for all "white" people, who are deemed to be a single unit with a single culture, i.e., "European". This is not the case, it is a fiction based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the constitutional history of the country.

Canada was founded by a limited number of ethnic majorities, all British North American (English-Irish_Scottish-French) who had been "long on the continent") and were native to it.

As prize-winning historian J.M.S. Careless has observed in his CANADA A Story of Challenge, the French Canadians in North America are "a new race born" here. They are not French as in Europe, although there roots which go far back are in that geographic location.

Thus, in 1867, all the constituent peoples of Canada were "British North American" under the Crown and Flag of Britain, whether English or French speaking, because these founders had been "long on the continent". Canada was not founded by "Europeans" or by "immigrants", for example, as can be confirmed as well in the 1865 Debates on Confederation, see the speeches of Thomas D'Arcy-McGee. Canada was founded by British North Americans who were already ethnically and culturally NATIVE TO North America, and not to elsewhere.

I would therefore like to see this cleared up; with its being acknowledged that the word "European" is often used as a handy euphemism for "white", and may not technically or legally be correct when referring to specific groups of peoples. In mistaking the founders of Canada as "Europeans", their legal identity is lost, and leads to confusion in particular amongst young descendants of the old-stock founding peoples of Canada as to who they really are, and who their ancestors were: British North Americans, some of whom were the "new race" of French Canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.129.246 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)