Talk:Canadian ethnicity

Reverting most new edits

Most new edits added by User:Moxy are in my opinion not preferable to the original version. Large parts of the additions are simply copy-pasted from this explanatory footnote, which for years was placed after references to the census category of Canadian ethnic/ethnocultural origin on other Wiki articles.

As well, the new title of the article does not make much sense since it does not follow any term Statistics Canada uses. StatsCan began using "ethnic or cultural origin" in 2021 and previously only used "ethnic origin", but not "ethnicity or cultural origin" which sounds flippant and the title should not be changed with such little thought. I will make a follow up discussion on the title. The new "see also" section also now includes arbitrary articles like "Anglo-Quebecer" and "Franco-Ontarian", while more relevant articles like "Ethnic origins of people in Canada" and "American ancestry" have been removed.

Most of the new images aren't relevant, in my opinion, such as emphasizing the Quebec-Windsor corridor. There are also odd additions which don't make sense like the statement "eastern Canadian languages, traditions, and cultural practices largely define Canadian society". Eastern Canadian languages and traditions themselves do not define Canadian society. It previously did not include "eastern" because that is completely irrelevant. The article already emphasizes that Canadian culture, identity, and settlement began in the eastern portion of the country where Europeans first settled.

Some new additions and changes, apart from just the title, also aren't very carefully looked through, like poor capitalization (when stating "Ottawa valley") and using inconsistent quotations (“roots") in the very first sentence of the article. These are some of the only additions not copy and pasted from the footnote.

The flow of the first two paragraphs is much more disorganized and all over the place than previously. Some improvements will still be used though. However, it is mostly just additions from the footnote and add clutter where it isn't necessary.

Moxy has also added the Ottawa Valley where it was not previously listed in the sentence "Canadian ethnic identity is most prevalent in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and the Ottawa valley which were the first parts of the country to be settled by Europeans". It is an incorrect statement. Canadian ethnocultural identity is not particularly more common in the Ottawa Valley than in rural Alberta and it was not settled much earlier than other parts of Ontario or Manitoba. Montreal, Quebec City, St. Johns, Saint John, and Halifax (all Quebec and Atlantic Canada) were founded between 1583-1750. Most settlements in the Ottawa Valley including Ottawa, Pembroke, and even Franco-Ontarian towns like Casselman, were all founded after 1810. Despite being populated by many ethnic French Canadians, the Ottawa Valley was not developed during the times of New France and it does not have a similar French or British colonial history like Quebec or Atlantic Canada do. It could make sense to list Eastern Ontario (rather than Ottawa Valley) under "regions with significant populations" but not to the first sentence of the "Geographic distribution" subsection.

Poorly looked through grammatically, arbitrarily adding sentences from a previous footnote where they don't belong, changing the title to a term StatsCan has never used, emphasizing unrelated topics like the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and Anglo-Quebecers, are all a handful of reasons most edits will be reverted and the title (at least for now) reverted too. C.monarchist28 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow bad mass revert.....will fix this weekend. As Ottawa Valley is the only place outside of Quebec that has a majority Canadian ethnicity..28.4% Canadian, 24.3% English, 22.5% Irish, 21.5% French, 19.8% Scottish, 8.4% German, 4.9% Italian. We also need to make clear that the majority of responders to this question not answering ethnicity per say but cultural origin. Not sure why the actual question isn't being implemented into the article "On both versions of the questionnaire, the ethnic or cultural origins question asked, “What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person’s ancestors?"read me..... We should not omit information because it doesn't sound right. Will ask for input from other experience editors. As for Eastern Canada dominating society this is common knowledge to any Canadian and is why we have something called Western alienation in our society.Moxy🍁 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a link which shows the stats you are speaking about. When I look up "Ottawa Valley 2021 census" nothing shows up, since the Ottawa Valley is a simply the name of a large region that does not have defined boundaries (like Eastern Ontario or Northeastern Ontario sometimes do). I said the title you changed it to does not sound right because you titled it "ethnicity or cultural origin" when StatsCan uses "ethnic or cultural origin" and "ethnic origin". Please take your time reading this to notice the differences. Eastern Canada does dominate Canadian society and I am well aware of Western alienation. Still, the statement "eastern Canadian languages, traditions, and cultural practices largely define Canadian society" is not proper. What are eastern Canadian traditions? They are the same east and west, but simply originated in the east. This point is already understood the way the article currently is. Not sure what point you are trying to make with Western alienation. You have also completely ignored my other concerns such as mentioning Anglo-Quebecers, the bilingual belt, and the Quebec-Windsor corridor. The latter two are separate topics which cover somewhat of a similar region but are completely misfit in this article. Bad mass revert? Bad mass edits. Also, 28.4% is not a majority, but a plurality.

The wording of the question "What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?" is not only already included in the map showing the geographic distribution, but you added it in a completely odd section of the article - after stating the number of responses to Canadian ethnic origin in 1986; which by the way, the same wording already showed up in the picture of the "Addition to the census" section!

It's clear to me you are doing (a very small amount) of research on the census ethnocultural category of "Canadian" for the first time ever, and you are making major edits with very little thought or knowledge of the topic. Not sure what you believe you need to fix! C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All good [points ...I see the sources say central Canada. Will talk to you on you user talk about changes. Moxy🍁 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Flags and 1996 census

Neither of these are particularly major issues, though I thought I'd ask anyway!

I'd firstly like to understand why the flags have been removed when the linked MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE does not necessarily support the removal of the flags in this case. The link states "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself" which I do not believe goes in opposition to including flags here. You can easily go to Italian Americans and see the state flags, or Scottish Americans or Polish Canadians. Why haven't you removed the flags from these links or from English Canadians, at least for consistency? Since now I feel this article is treated differently without good reason. Just for consistency.

Secondly, on the Canada article (and most others, when referring to census data), census links generally simply say the year followed by 'census' (1921 census instead of 1921 Canadian census). There does seem to be a mix of both uses but of course, it is a given that it is the Canadian census when the following few words relate to Statistics Canada. The word Canada and Canadian now show up three times in the first sentence of the 'Statistical data' section in this case (The 1996 Canadian census was the first where Statistics Canada allowed "Canadian" as a valid ethnic origin response.). I don't see a reason not to just remove the word Canadian from Canadian census, like is very, very often done on other articles. The link MOS:EGG, even more so than the previous point, does not go at all against it. It states "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when following a link", where they can obviously expect to find the 1996 census for Canada. Besides, "[x year] Canadian census" is only the wording Wikipedia follows. StatsCan uses "1996 Census of Population" and "1996 Census".

User:Joeyconnick thank you for your cooperation, most of the new edits are certainly improvements in wording for this article. 2001:1970:5655:B700:F14C:B30A:7409:9BA1 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're banned, dude, so you might want to give it a rest. Sockpuppetry is not a good look. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"I'm going to ignore everything you say"

Nice. Very intelligent and big brain of you

Not sure what your response even means but I will be improving the page with the edit of a single word unless you'd like to dignify what I wrote with a response at the very least.2001:1970:5655:B700:ECDF:33C1:C198:1E95 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)