Talk:Canadians/Archive 1

Make this a list
I think this could possibly be made a list of cultural identities in Canada. Does anybody else have any opinions?Marine79 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be expanded - look at how long British people is. Jim Michael (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be immensely complex to explain the derivation of the Canadian people. British people, though there are three separate groups (picts, gaels, britons), as is explainind, have a common haplogroup. This cannot be said for the hundreds of different european groups (britons, gauls, italics, balts, finns, germanaic, slavs, etc.) asian groups, and african groups present in canada. The aboriginal DNA diversity in the Canadian community is enough to write a 10 volume study on, and they cannot be lumped into one or few haplogroups. It is just not feasible for wikipedia. As is explained in the introduction, being a Canadian does not consider one ethnic group, and as such this should not be written in the style of a "European people". Slaja (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 discussion. GTBacchus(talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

People of Canada → — Or, alternatively, Canadian people, though I prefer Canadians as a common name which is clear, succinct and precise. See many other comparable articles, such as Germans, Russians, Israelis, Moroccans, Turkish people, British people, French people, Spanish people. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I would stick with Canadians, though. Presumably French people, Spanish people, etc. are titled as they are because French and Spanish could be confused with the languages (and, thus, are disambiguation pages), and The French and The Spanish are just awkward. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support move to ->..was not to sure at first, but IP's examples shows it is the preferred international  style. Moxy (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the more recently favoured format internationally is Canadian people (it would previously have been Canadians).  Examples are Asturian people, Azerbaijani people, Basque people, Breton people, Catalan people, Caucasian peoples, Cornish people, Dutch people, English people, Faroese people, Gagauz people, Galician people, Gibraltarian people, Hungarian people, Irish people, Italian people, Livonian people, Maltese people, Manx people, Portuguese people, Romani people, Sami people, Sardinian people, Scottish people, Spanish people, Turkish people, Ulster Scots people, Valencian people, Welsh people and Yeniche people.  Not only was this an attempt to avoid confusion between people and language (where they share the same name, as in English), but also to get round the problem that the Basque people, for example, may not necessarily enjoy being described as Spaniards, who they regard as a separate race, but can accept being included under Spanish people, as they both live in Spain.  Skinsmoke (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm, not sure about the whole convention thing. In this case certainly there is no Canadian language that this article could be confused with. I would also point out that while Spaniard is a (mildly archaic) racial term, like Kyrgyzs for example, being Canadian denotes only nationality, not ethnicity. The idea of being Canadian is purely a political construct, in which ethnicity plays no part. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this was titled as such to match People of the United States which was titled as such to distinguish from the dab page American. Since there's no dab page for Canadian (it is in fact a redirect to Canada) we can safely move this to Canadians. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Incidentally, article titles are supposed to be singular (not plural), as set out at Naming conventions (plurals).  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But that guideline you've cited recognizes an exception for the names of peoples (the example it uses is Ukrainians). Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right! It was getting very late!  Skinsmoke (talk) 21:17, 27 June 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.

Wait a minute here. I created this article to model after People of the United States. The reason being that Canadians are not an ethnicity, but rather a nationality. It should be moved back to "People of Canada" because we are just that, the people who inhabit Canada, or retain Canadian citizenship. We cannot be compared to all of those European people articles someone mentioned above because they are an ethnicity. We are not, and there MUST be a distinction. Slaja (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a matter for debate (if I recall correctly, more people identified their ethnicity as Canadian than any other in the last census), and ultimately an issue to be addressed in the article in a matter consistent with WP:V and WP:OR. However, whether the article is at Canadians or People of Canada strikes me as having absolutely nothing to do with your concern.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with this article. It clearly states that Canadians are citizens of Canada, and that whether Canadians are an ethnic group is up for debate (while I may agree with you and say it is not an ethnicity, there are academics and other people who would classify "Canadians" as an ethnic group).  And besides, look at Belgians and Bosnians, two European nationalities which are not ethnicities, much like Canadians.  Finally, the concept of a "Canadian" definitely exists; it does not imply an ethnic identity, and as such, this article should stay.    -- &#124; ★ &#124;BignBad&#124; ★ &#124;  04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BignBad (talk • contribs)

Image
What happened to the "People of Canada" image (Image:Canadians-Wiki-People-of-Canada.jpg)? It appears to have been removed from the Wikimedia Commons, leaving this page bereft of any photos of famous Canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.239.211 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted from the Commons on March 31, according to the deletion log, because the uploader couldn't be bothered to provide a source. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I added a photo request template. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Garbage
WOW! Just... WOW! I can't believe how stupid this article is. A clear result of political correctness. I would request it be deleted, but I will probably get some resistance and it will be kept. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you explained what you meant. It would also be appreciated if you tried to make your criticisms (and your headings) more constructive.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am Canadian (English Canadian) and am flabberghasted that ANYONE would see this article as political correctness. It is actually a fair representation of the Canadain reality with numbers attached.  What is the original griper on about?70.70.160.153 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee Whiz..
If there is room for Justin Beiber and Stephen Harper surely there is room for John Kenneth Galbraith and Gordon Lightfoot and Stompin Tom Connors!--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More than just citizenship
The opening sentence of this article indicates that the complete definition of "Canadians" is by citizenship. I am concerned that this implies that no-one who is not a citizen is a Canadian. However, I believe that there are at least three arguments to suggest that this definition should be broader, or at least more complex.
 * 1 - The Statistics Canada census numbers show that many many people consider "Canadian" as their "ethnic origin". This would imply that that would not change, even if they left Canada and had to give up citizenship, and it would be passed to their children.
 * 2 - Children who are born overseas to two Canadians are eligible for Canadian citizenship, but do not yet have it. Therefore, they are not covered by this definition, but the government clearly considers them Canadians.
 * 3 - The basic, non-referenced, argument that Canadian is more than a citizenship, it is a people. I currently live overseas, and can find other Canadians with whom I share a lot in common, and it's entirely possible that one or both of us might not have a Canadian passport anymore.  If you become a Norwegian or American citizen, you're supposed to give up your citizenship in any other country.  Picture someone who marries a Norwegian and moves to Norway.  Eventually, after 10 years, he becomes a citizen.  Does he instantly cease to be a Canadian?  I agree that he instantly ceases to be a Canadian citizen, but I don't believe that they're the same thing.

I'm not going to fiddle with it until I hear a bit of feedback here, though. AshleyMorton (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above, and it should be noted the number of times we've all heard "Canadian is not an ethnicity" and "Canada does not have a culture" or "Canadians are like Americans except they're more peaceful/docile/progressive" etc.....yet it's clear enough of us perceive "us" as an ethnicity that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. And yeah, I'd have to say that there is more to this than the government definition of someone who's never been here, or lived here much, who carries a Canadian passport, but how to cite that who knows?  Just wanted to note that various books, such as Jean Barman's on BC, have passages discussing the growth of a sense of Canadian identity vs local/BC identity emerging over the course of time; then there's that old thing about how Vimy and Ypres "made us a people for the first time" and so on.....and if you go looking there was a Canadiana series a long  time ago with one of the series about Canadiann identity/imagery....by Pierre Berton.  There's lots out there on this subject, in other words, beyond government definitions; we do not exist simply as a creature of our government's definitions or non-definitions.  I see the GA nomination and while I know GA isn't decided by content, I submit that to ahve this start up the ladder of article status without more fleshing it is kinda questionable....Skookum1 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok guys what do you propose changing??? Lets say the lead to something like-->

Canadians are a nation and denizens of Canada. Canada is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of different ethnic and national backgrounds......OR Canadians are the people of Canada and there decedents around the world.....OR Canadians  are a diverse  ethnic group of peoples originating in Canada......... What do you think guys...??Moxy (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK i looked at alot of this type of pages and re did the lead like the Americans have it ,....Canadians (singular Canadian) are an ethnic group or the people and there decedents from Canada. Canada is a multiethnic society, home to people of many different ethnic and national backgrounds.  As a result, some Canadians don't take their nationality as an ethnicity, but identify themselves with both their Canadian citizenship and their ancestral origins.Moxy (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with all the suggested ledes; they're "leading" and make presuppositions, and aren't citation-backed..."Canadian as an ethnicity" vs a citizenship/"nationality" are two very different things; citations on self-perceived Canadian-ness are needed; perhaps also a distinction between the pre-multiculturalism/segregated-cultures era and the earlier, more assimilative collective identity forged by circumstance and community since WWI. That such a distinction exists is real; finding citations about it is hard, because of teh fashionability by media, academia and government to define ourselves for us; citations need to be from individual sources, e.g. literature, historians etc who aren't tub-thumping for the "new Canadian identity", but prepared to talk about the old honestly (rather than dismissively, as the nouveau academics/media always do).  Why is it, that is, that people put "CAnadian" as their ethnicity, and many people put that as their ONLY ethnicity; so saying that "Canadians are multi-ethnic" is an oxymoron to me; Canadian citizens are multi-ethnic; but Canadian ethnicity/identity, that's somethign else entirely, and of course of late has been open to re-definition and re-spinning, but that's not like there wasn't a prevailing pre-extant "CAnadian-ness" quite distinct from Brits or Americans or the imported cultures/identities of the "new Canadians".Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * O well not much more i can do ..i am the only one making suggestions ...so i will leave the lead as is till we can sort this out.Moxy (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I regard this as a work in progress, and not anything that can be solved in a hurry; just raising issues that I hope do not go unregarded, and which should be reflected in any lede summary.Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am currently reading The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are, I will see if i can get some better definitions from it.Moxy (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there, sorry for going MIA from this discussion for a while - bloody real life. Okay, I think that we're getting into some of the right ideas. To some degree, I think that the most accurate way to express this is to acknowledge that there are different sources of legitimacy to one being defined as "Canadian".  Citizenship is one method, though only one.  Here's a shot at it:

Canadians are people who are identified with the place and country Canada. This connection may be genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural or ethnic. For most Canadians several (frequently all) of those types of connection exist and are the source or sources of them being considered Canadians.


 * I know that probably every adjective on that list should have a reference, but those aren't so hard - the census gives us at least one of them (ethnic), the Government gives us another (legal), I'm sure we can haul out a few more. I'm sure there are ways to improve that list of adjectives by addition, deletion or modification.  Also, I know that that last sentence is screaming for a "Citation Needed" marker, but I feel that something like it is needed, so that the second sentence isn't taken to mean that most people only fall under one of the adjectives. Your (both of you who are contributing and the rest of you lazy lurkers) turn.AshleyMorton (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok lets try your version see if others revert ....and lets add a ref to that last statement ref......... Moxy (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Overview section missing 1851-1960s
The Overview section jumps from the BNA Act right into the 1960s and '70s, even the passing mention of the '50s is a bit thin on the ground; it only gets "meaty" when it starts laying out modern-era non-white immigration. There's nothing at all about the block settlements or the setttlement of the West by Ukrainians (not "northern continental Europe", but eastern) and the highly notable movement of Germans and Scandinavians (that the Germans, the largest non-British ethnic group, are not mentioned, is a glaring omission). Also missing is the evolution of Canadian identity/ethnicity through WWI, the Depression and labour struggles etc...the sense of being Canadian that existed before Ottawa decided to rewrite, in the '60s, what "Canadian" meant.....likewise in BC the oft-noted long tether of British identity - and British Columbian identity -giving way to identifying as Canadian (again, Barman talks about this in her book, but she's not alone). All this might be the result of only looking for materials written about visible-minority immigration, or considering previous multi-ethnic immigration through the lens of modern multicultural values; point is that a whole era, and a whole idea of Canadian-ness, is passed over by this section, which quickly moves into the "Canadians are from everywhere and here's the stats" etc.Skookum1 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep its a new article and needs lots of work...have any suggestions of statement we can add. I have many refs about the 1950 and 1960. The reason it jumps 100 year is that (as mentioned in the next paragraph) its a time period of European immigration and did not think we should mention only a few people's if we dont mention them all...  I also see someone that have never edited the page has nominated this for GA...not sure y?Moxy (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Germans, Ukrainians, Italians, Poles and Scandinavians are too significant to not directly name, and in general the settlement of the West is passed over and submerged into general immigration; the greater proportion of non-British Europeans in WEstern Canada, in pockets or overall, is highly significant, as is their general asimilated nature (more true of the Scandinavians and Germans and Poles than the Italians and Ukrainians, who retain a lot of their ethnic identity/culture, though not to the degree that latter-day visible minority arrivals have shown). And as on Immigration to Canada - I think there's some comments from me on that takpage - BC has a different settlement/cultural history than even the Prairies, and includes the secondary migration within Canada of Prairie people to BC, often with further assimilative results.  I'm more familiar with BC details (cf a 1971 BCGov publication, Strangers Entertained, about the immigrant histories to BC) but I do know t he organized importation of non-Britons into the West was core to Sifton's policy, and also marked a shift in the national identity away from pure Britishness to the foundations of what in latter days was rebranded multiculturalism; the underpinnings of the political rationale of that policy, which I remember well (I gradded in 1972) lay in proselytizing the multi-ethnic inheritance of those with non-British descent, and the promise that the "new cultures" woudl assimilate, just as they had.  the divergence between assimilated Canadians and the new era of non-assimilating groups, and redefining the national character around them, must be the subject of some citable works out there, i.e. of a non-fringe variety.  I'll ponder what we could add there; certainly the block settlements and the major ethnic groups (Germans, Ukrainians etc) and the tendency of those groups to assimilate, generally wanting to rather than resisting; it used to be something of a national principle that the animosities and "ancient hatreds" of the Old Country were to be left behind; intermarriage between ethnic groups, in WEstern Canada, and in BC also between colour groups, is soemthing of a hallmark of the "Canadianization" of those families; and also teh root of many of the people who will only call themselves "Canadian" (that "ancient hatreds" line was from a columnist, not sure which, it was in the context of how groups normally hostile to each other in Europe or elsewhere have gotten along fine in CAnada, and made a point of doing so, and made attempts to integrate with each other and not just to overall CAnadian-ness - which the doctrines of multiculturalism condemn, pretty much, as being an echo of Britishness (as if that were a bad thing).  Also re BC, there was a particular wave of immigration of replacement workers, notably from Italy and Yugoslavia, during WWI; though Italians in particular had been prominent in BC even in the gold rush era (along with Germans and Scandinavians and some other Slavs, e.g. Poles and "Galicians" - Ukrainians).  if Chinese and East Indian are ethnicities, they are not significantly larger or more notable than any of those I've mentioned, and the idea of a unified, asimiliative Canadian-ness needs treatment here; not just obsession on "everybody from everywhere" multicultural retooling of "who we are".Skookum1 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Pic
Ok i made a pic as requested above........File:Canadians of differnt ethnic backgrounds.JPG 15 Canadians from 14 different ethnic backgrounds..Y 2 the same ..because i think its best we add the greatest Canadian as per recent poll and we had to mention the first prime-mister.05:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The selection seems fine; but many of the images are width-distorted; it would be better to crop them closer, if equal-size is the issue, rather than to change the image dimensions with the resulting distortions.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any better now -->File:Canadians of differnt ethnic backgrounds.JPG...Moxy (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great montage, but why is it uploaded locally and not at the Commons? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a picture guy...dont know about much Commons.Moxy (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, anything public domain or freely licensed should be uploaded to the Commons instead of locally. It avoids the work of transfering it over later on.  The only images that should be uploaded locally are ones used under a fair use rationale or other special circumstances.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but i still not sure what your talking about. Is there a problem? What do you mean local? Could you give me a link  or two so i can do it right i dont want it deleted- I did what the instructions said and this is the way i have done it for the past 4 years.Moxy (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Local means you uploaded here on en-wiki. When you go to the upload page, it asks you to upload free images (i.e. freely licensed or public domain) over at the Commons (see the big pink-coloured notice at the top), not here at en-wiki.  In terms of image usage in articles, it doesn't make any difference - you use the images the same way with the same wikicode.  But by uploading to Commons, you are making the image available to all other wikipedia projects, and you are contributing to the Wikimedia image repository.  The image won't be deleted simply because you uploaded it here - but someone will have to transfer it over the Commons later on, and it would be great to avoid that extra work if this type of image were simply uploaded to the Commons in the first place.  I don't mean to be a nag, squawking on as I am about the Commons, but it is a tremendous help when users upload their free images directly to the Commons.  Thanks for putting up with my lecture.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow they should make that much easier - need an account just to a move file? This would be a huge deterrent for most of our editors (specially if they cant get the same name). Anyways its done i think here. Not sure if i will go through all that again  just for a picture.Moxy (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. Yes, that's why they are pushing unified accounts, I suppose.  It's a good thing, though, for en-wiki editors to also have accounts at the Commons.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Going thru the unification process now see--> Steward requests/SUL requests. Moxy (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not the Moxy on the Romanian Wikipedia? I always thought that was you. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like the selection of Native Americans in the template. Pretty abberated/vague view of a representation. There are so many more deserving names to mention. InternetHero (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.111.63 (talk)

About redirect
I have restored the redirect for Canadian back to Canadians over Canada. I have does this because of the previous talk on the matter that I cant find (looking for help in locating the old talk). Anyways the main reason it was changed over in 2010 was because of the creation of that article Canadians. The redirect was redirected to the new article as per the norm like. Australian -> Australians and African -> African people. That said I have always been in favour of a redirect to Canadian (disambiguation) as with redirects like Italian and Russian. As seen at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12 most bios have now been fixed to link to Canadians and or Canada were need be so  a redirect to  Canadian (disambiguation) would no longer be much of an issue. I do see that its mostly used as an adjective and the original redirect looks all good to me, but we should leave the redirect as is for now - as - its been like this for almost a year - because of the talk I just cant find perhaps User:Tbhotch remembers were its at. Moxy (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12. All Canadian links should be piped to the proper article and, if unpiped, to the disambig page.


 * I support changing the link to Canadian (disambiguation) now. I would strongly support that over redirecting to Canadians. Canadian IS ambiguous (this is why we have disambiguation pages) and depending on context can be a noun meaning Canadian people or an adjective meaning of or pertaining to Canada or its people. Canadian hockey players can be any team member of a Canadian hockey team but can be of any nationality, not necessarily Canadian. What would the proper redirect be to cover all the uses of Canadian in the previous sentence?


 * I strongly dislike the redirect to Canadians as most articles are using the adjective form but do support the redirect to Canadian (disambiguation). I think now is the time to be WP:BOLD and change it and see who else comes out to comment. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds all good to me go for it !!. That was nice and simple. Moxy (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to this discussion at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation) --Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it might make more sense to move Canadian (disambiguation) to and override the Canadian redirect. Very few direct links to Canadian (disambiguation) and lots to Canadian. This follows how American is being handled now. I requested the move and started a discussion at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation). --Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that all who commented above are planning to help fix the 8,000 or so existing links that are broken as a result of this change. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan to do as much as possible to fix the ambiguous links, hopefully with some automation assistance. Linking temporarily to a disambiguation page for an ambiguous term and then fixing the links is a better choice than having the term link go to the wrong article. The link isn't broken per se, the disambig page at least gives useful, non-erroneous info until the link can be fixed. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and "Canadian" has a well understood meaning in most contexts to English speaking people so most usage shouldn't be linked at all. That, by itself, should purge the links to be fixed by a lot. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect to Canada Canadians pending outcome of the move discussion at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation). It is inappropriate to presume the outcome and attempt to bias the outcome by presenting the move as a fait accompli to correct a malplaced disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph in Section "Immigration" has to be deleted
This paragraph: "In 2009, Canada received 252,179 immigrants - the top ten source countries were China (29,049), the Philippines (27,277), India (26,122), the United States (9,723), the United Kingdom (9,566), France (7,300), Pakistan (6,214), Iran (6,065), South Korea (5,864), and Morocco (5,222).[30] These countries were followed closely by Algeria (4,785), United Arab Emirates (4,640), and Iraq (4,567) with Sri Lanka, Colombia, and Germany each contributing over 4,000 immigrants.[30] Immigrants of all backgrounds tend to settle in the major urban centres.[31][32]" has to be deleted. As in other Wikipedia-articles using the CIC-Pages (here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2009/permanent/10.asp) as a source, that person does not seem to have understood what the page actually stated. The linked page does not say anything about the people coming to Canada or where they are coming from! Instead, it lists the number of permanent residents and where they originally came from. Hence, the whole paragraph quoted above is just plain wrong and should be deleted as soon as possible or corrected with correct data! Anon 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...reworded to In 2009, Canada received 252,179 "permanent residents".Moxy (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Book "Pioneer quest..." not suitable for wikipedia?
One of the sourced books (Hogeveen, Yolanda; Janzen, Jennifer (2001). Pioneer Quest "kit" : a Year in the Real West. Portage & Main Press. p. 14. ISBN 1894110978. Retrieved 2011-01-19.) does not seem to be scientific nor appropriate or useful for this article. It seems to be some novel about some people reenacting the Wild West. Somebody please review if it should not better be removed! Anon 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...replaced with ... ...... Moxy (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Audio Version
I would like to start working on an Audio Version of the Canadians article in January 2012. I'm from the Vancouver, BC area, and will be using a fairly neutral sounding West Coast dialect of Canadian English.

Will post again when I have started the project, and post updates in this section as the recording progresses.

Beverly.wu (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much - I cant wait.Moxy (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: December 7, 2011

 * 1) Recording studio secured for January
 * 2) Have contacted the Languages Commissioner in NWT who is willing to help with pronunciation of the names of the official languages of the Northwest Territories. I will be phoning her this week to talk.

Beverly Wu (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Canadian population in People's Republic of China
Canadian population in People's Republic of China in the infobox is wrong. The source says "It is estimated that Beijing’s foreign population has reached 200,000, among whom 10% or 20,000 are from Canada (Pillsbury, 2005)". Also Canadian population in Hong Kong is wrong. The source says 200,000 instead of 300,000, more accurately, 150,000-250,000. Anyway the entries should be merged into People's Republic of China without having each entries for Hong Kong and Beijin. Does anyone have a reliable source for the Canadian population in People's Republic of China?
 * Fixed numbers thank you for noticing!!!! - However cant merged People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Beijin as all we can do is regurgitate info that is already out there in the form we find it. We cant merge info if its not presented in that manner. There must be a reason its separated? Is it a different Visa for Beijing and Hong Kong perhaps?Moxy (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant the current entry "People's Republic of China" is incorrect, Beijing is correct. Please read again the source. It says "It is estimated that Beijing’s foreign population has reached 200,000, among whom 10% or 20,000 are from Canada (Pillsbury, 2005)". (Emphasis added) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually see why the numbers were original changed will review this then see were we stand.Moxy (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chinese Census 2010 of Foreign nationals is quite unreliable. South Korean government shows 433,000 in 2009 while the census shows 120,750. Japanese government shows 131,534 in 2010 while the census shows 66,159 because the census does not count the people who did not submit the survey sheet. Anyway, if the source is used, the entry should be "Beijing" and if the source you presented is used, the data become unreliable. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
I have removed the section (2 times) that is basically that same as  the one at Canada. We have no need to have both our main articles start with the etymology of the name of the "COUNTRY". Its pretty obvious Canadians get there name from the country ..were they can learn about the countries name. This article is about the people not how the country got its name. We have 2 different articles about 2 different topics Canada - Canadians. Not sure how the countries name evolution from Dominion to Canada etc... is relevant to this article that links and is about its people. Moxy (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It differs considerably for the posting on Canada. It contains several sentences that refer specifically to who "Canadian/Canadien" refers at different points in history, and offers additional references to back it up. This is important as Canadien in French means "French Canadian" in census surveys, and expresses an attachment to French Canadian ancestry, a glaring point that is absent from the article and changes the interpretation of entire sections. I accept that these were good faith deletions and a result of an oversight. --soulscanner (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole section you added is about the name evolution not about its people (and basically a copy and past of the maim page). Did you read the article first? Its all mentioned.
 * What you added= In the 17th and early 18th centuries, "Canada" referred to the part of New France that lay along the St. Lawrence River and the northern shores of the Great Lakes.
 * What the article has already = The French originally settled New France in present-day Quebec, during the early part of the 17th century. They also settled the Acadian peninsula alongside..
 * What you added =Under later British rule, after migration of Americans loyal to British Crown following the American Revolution,
 * What the article has already= In the wake of the 1775 invasion of Canada by the newly-formed Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, approximately 60,000 United Empire Loyalist fled to British North America,
 * What you added =British colonies Upper Canada (present day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present day Quebec) under the Constitutional Act of 1791..
 * What the article has already =, British (included British army regulars), Scottish and Irish immigration was encouraged throughout Rupert's Land, Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
 * What you added= They were reunified as the Province of Canada in 1841.''
 * What the article has already'' = After the War of 1812, British (included British army regulars), Scottish and Irish immigration was encouraged throughout Rupert's Land, Upper Canada and Lower Canada
 * I will ask others to comment before deleting again.Moxy (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Elements posted in bold represent additions (with references) to Canada page. As the meaning of Canadien in particular changes with Canada's ethnographic and territorial evolution, it's important to describe the territories known as Canada at the time. It is also important to note that the word "Canadien" has never lost its original meaning of "Habitant" in French Canada.
 * The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word kanata, meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, indigenous inhabitants of the present-day Quebec City region used the word to direct French explorer Jacques Cartier to the village of Stadacona. Cartier later used the word Canada to refer not only to that particular village, but also the entire area subject to Donnacona (the chief at Stadacona); by 1545, European books and maps had begun referring to this region as Canada. The  French "Canadien" referred to the aboriginal people the French encountered in the St. Lawrence River valley at Stadacona and Hochelaga. 
 * In the 17th and early 18th centuries, "Canada" referred to the part of New France that lay along the St. Lawrence River and the northern shores of the Great Lakes. By the end of the 17th century, the French word Canadien became an ethnonym distinguishing the French settlers of Canada from those of France. 
 * Under later British rule, after migration of Americans loyal to British Crown following the American Revolution, the area was later split into two British colonies Upper Canada (present day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present day Quebec) under the Constitutional Act of 1791.  They were reunified as the Province of Canada in 1841. In 1867, the British North America Act united this colony with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into a federation called "Canada". Inhabitants and settlers of these and other provinces would all be called Canadians.
 * Ok so lets cut out all the things being said 2 times like above and all the rest of the country  bs and add 2 of the lines you have in bold after we get refs (as the ones added are no good).Moxy (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The French "Canadien" referred to the aboriginal people the French encountered in the St. Lawrence River valley at Stadacona and Hochelaga. Need new ref as is not in the book as stated plus this sounds odd neeeds a fixthe book
 * By the end of the 17th century, the French word Canadien became an ethnonym distinguishing the French settlers of Canada from those of France Ref is dead - should be easy to find.


 * Move it to my sandbox; will make edits there. --soulscanner (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian/Canadien and Neutrality of article
I've moved the edit involving etymology and now address the broader concern involving some poor and misleading translations of the French Canadien (which in French has refered to the French Canadian or Quebecois population of Canada since the 1700's when discussing ethnicity). this severely compromises the neutrality WP:POV of the article, and appears to push the view that "Canadian" is a monolithic ethnic group in Canada. It actually affirms the exact opposite, considering over half of those who identify themselves as "Canadian" in fact are Quebecers identify themselves as "Canadien" on the French census. This dates back to the old definition of Canadien in New France. Specific problems in the article: This dichotomy of "Canadian" and its inclusion as an ethnonym muddies the waters as to what "Canadian"; does it mean People of Canada, including all ethnic groups? Does it mean French Canadian? Does it mean English Canadian? For that reason, I recommend that to maintain its GA rating, this article name change back to People of Canada, which clearly refers to all citizens and inhabitants, not just those who identify as ethnic Canadians (whatever that means). --soulscanner (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ethnobox says Candiens (French) - that's simply untrue in an ethnobox - it does not mean the same thing as Canadian in French when refering to ancestry
 * the ethnic map (File:Censusdivisions-ethnic.png) this gives the erroneous impression that the people of Lac-St_Jean, for example, who voted 90% to separate from Canada, all feel Canadian in the English sense of the word. Again, Canadien does not refer to the same "ethnicity" as Canadian in this region of Quebec.
 * Ethnic Ancestry section Table entry also does distinguish between Canadien and Canadian; \\
 * The footnote in the first entry of the ethnicity Table does not accurately reflect the content of the article, which discusses the difference between Canadien and Canadian in somewhat more detail.
 * Note 3 is poorly worded and misleading. "Canadiens" do strongly identify with the ancestral origins, and consider those origins to be French Canadian, which is distinct from the French sincee about 1700, and certainly different than the English "Canadian". Is explicitly discussed by Jantzen here starting on page 103
 * Ok lots of OR here - lets go over this point by point after all read this - we have no need to bring in territorial or political divides - all we can do is report what is out there by stats can - we cant make stuff up.
 * "Canadian" is not just an ethnic group - as indicated in the lead
 * 1 Canadian -  Quebecois - Acadians - French - French origins are all separate answers for Ethnic origins - see here - there is NO  distinguish between "Canadien" and "Canadian" by stats can "(“Canadian” was included as an example on the English

questionnaire and “Canadien” as an example on the French questionnaire") - but we could add some info explaining the problem. like in this ref  "It is at best doubtful that some six months after a divisive referendum on Quebec sovereignty that a majority of francophone Quebecers would want to affirm their sense of belonging to Canada by reporting that their ethnicity was “Canadien”."
 * 2 - "The footnote in the first entry" - did you read the refs?
 * 3 - "Note 3 is poorly worded and misleading" - do you have a ref the says something different then the 2 that are there?
 * 3 - The article is called Canadian because that the most common name used for the people of Canada and is explained in the lead. See also Image of A Canadian passport - Nationality = Canadian in french = Canadienne .. does not say "People of Canada" or "Person of Canada".
 * Thus far we have no refs for anything "Canadien" or any point made here. We have a long standing stable well referenced article. Perhaps its time for an article called "Canadiens". You are aware that most in Quebec did answer "Canadien" but then also pick othere responses like   "Quebecois" - "French" and  "Acadians" ref. The last thing I want to see is guess work like at the Irish Quebecers were you had to add   "the given reference does not confirm the claim made in the article" - we call this Original research and should be removed.Moxy (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Canadien" is the standard spelling in the French language not just in reference to people in Quebec, but for all Canadians. Since this is an English language article "Canadian" alone is correct, a french article on the same subject would be correct using "Canadien" alone. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to lede
. It was reverted with a rather reasonable revert and the editor reinstated the change. The state of the lede before the change was
 * Canadians (singular Canadian; Canadiens) are the people who are identified with the country of Canada.

and after the change it was
 * Canadians (Canadiens), or Canadian people, are people and citizens who are identified with the country of Canada.

The editor who proposed those changes was blocked for 24 hours due to an edit war on a different article, so perhaps we can get the discussion going in that editor's absence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions" but it's not clear if we need to include the singular form of the term. I wouldn't cry if it was removed.
 * 1) Not sure that "Canadian people" is supported in the article though.
 * 2) I don't know that "people who are identified with the country of Canada" is enough as individuals may identify with the nation but are in no sense Canadaian. However inserting a near Easter Egg link to Citizenship in Canada is appropriate either. First, it's a redirect to Canadian nationality law. Second, do we want an link in the lede to something that is somewhat tangential at this point?
 * Compare with the lede of Americans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The American lead is simply wrong and I have tried to fix it a few times - going that route would be a step backwards in my opinion as it contradicts the data presented in the article.  For example it  says "As a result, Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship." Yet the article tells us that Americans as an ethnicity is the fourth largest group in the country as per the last census. Took us a long time to fix the lead here for the GA review as seen at Talk:Canadians. We have to be careful because you dont have to be a citizen to be considered a Canadian ...as is explained in the next sentence there is many reasons why. Citizenship is a part of being Canadian but is not the end all factor.  - Moxy (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the initial undo, so I'd better speak up. The first sentence of the lede has been more or less in its current form for at least three years (I didn't bother going any further back, and I certainly didn't check every edit) so there seems to have been a consensus that it was acceptable as it was. Not to say that it would be impossible to improve, just that any major changes should probably be discussed first.
 * On User:Walter Görlitz's points:
 * I agree, and would actually prefer to see the singular form deleted. It should be obvious to anyone who can read English.
 * I don't seee the point of adding a redundant "or Canadian People". What else could we be talking about, Canadian dogs? Not a big deal... I wouldn't bother arguing against it if there were support for that change.
 * In addition to User:Walter Görlitz's comments on the addition of the citizenship link, it also seems redundant, given the next sentence's reference to a legal connection. Perhaps this could be clarified by changing "legal" to "citizenship" in the second sentence. I have to say that I found the proposed change confusing. I initially thought that the intention of the addition was to state that only Canadian citizens could be considered Canadians, but I now realize that the intention was probably "people or [Canadian]citizens". So, confusing and redundant, even more so because the link showed up simply as "citizens" rather than "Canadian citizens".
 * The lede in Americans clearly takes the citizenship is all tact. Right or wrong for that article, it should have no influence on this article. In addition to Moxy's comments I'll point out that Canada has been a country for a much shorter time that the US, and for much of the time that it has been a country there was no need for Commonwealth immigrants to seek Canadian citizenship. Such immigrants often lived here for many decades without taking out Canadian citizenship.
 * I agree with your comment to me about Commonwealth immigrants - do you think we should expand this point in the Citizenship and diaspora section? -- Moxy (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be small but interesting addition. It helps explain why the Canadian concept of who a Canadian is is not tied as tightly to citizenship as in some other countries. For more than 70 years after Canada officially became a country its citizens were actually classified as British subjects rather than Canadian citizens. Meters (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a long stretch between being a nation in the British Empire to an understanding of Canadian citizenship and without a RS, it's simply speculative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm perfectly aware of the need to use reliable sources and to avoid synthesis in articles. This is just a talk page discussion, not article content. I didn't suggest that the issue was major part of Canadian identity or that conclusions be drawn in the article without using reliable sources. I wrote it "helps to explain," and it wouldn't be speculation to simply include the Commonwealth citizenship issue without drawing conclusions. Any analysis of the effects of the Commonwealth citizenship that we might choose to include in the article would definitely require reliable sources.
 * I'm not sure where you are going with this. It was you who pointed out the disparity between the Americans and the Canadians ledes in the first place. Meters (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the citizenship in the case somebody is born in Canada and moves to another country at an early age and would more than likely feel a stronger connection to the country he/she was raised in than Canada even though that person still is Canadian legally and nothing can change where a person was born. Also for the immigrants who obtain Canadian citizenship and is now legally a Canadian. I know people say citizenship is not the only thing needed to be Canadian, since a Canadian moving to another a country that does not allow dual citizenship has to give up his/her citizenship but will still feel Canadian, which is why I put "people and citizens" to refer to all. I tried adding "people and citizens" to the Americans article since I also know the same reasons why a person doesn't necessarily have to be a citizen to be Canadian also applies to Americans but it got reverted. I added "Canadian people" to give the article a reason to have the singular form without having it in parentheses and to have the plural French translation next the plural English word, Canadians. Do you guys think we should keep the lead the way it is or change it a little to also include the Canadians who moved to another country and no longer feel Canadian? Thoughts? AbelM7 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its just redundant wording and misleading to say the lest - no need to use the same words two times in the same sentence. All is explained in the second sentences.-- Moxy (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Any ties to being Canadian to citizenship run counter to historical and common conceptions of what it is to be Canadian. I'd like to point out that we consider John A. Macdonald, Canadian soldiers during the Second World War, and any Canadian in general prior to 1947 as Canadians, even though the Citizenship Act did not come into play until 1947. trackratte (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great point with the fathers of confederation. Lost Canadians is also a good example of how new our citizenship laws are and the fact a piece of paper does not make you Canadian. For example someone born out of wedlock outside the country like a war brat before 2008 could not be a citizen ... but nevertheless could by all self identifying international rights call themselves a Canadian. The law changed in this regards to reflect our international commitment to follow  the  Convention on the Rights of the Child only in 2008.     -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So no citizenship in the lead even though immigrants who gain Canadian citizenship are now Canadians. OK. Can we at least remove the "singular Canadian" from the sentence? Everybody who knows English will know that the singular form is Canadian and the plural is Canadians. AbelM7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no need for citizenship by name - reason 1 - its implied that citizenship equates to Canadianisms. reason 2 - It is also implied by the second sentence saying "This connection may be residential, legal, historical, and/or cultural". As for removing the singular form I have no problem with this. The lede could just use Canadian(s) -- Moxy (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I put "people and citizens" to refer to both. But why do you have a problem with removing the singular form? The Brazilians, Italians, Argentinians, Russians, and Australians articles use only the plural form. Anybody will know the singular form is Canadian and the plural form is Canadians. I changed it to "Canadians, or Canadian people" so the article will have a reason to use the singular form but it got reverted. The Americans and Bolivians articles use both the plural and singular form. AbelM7 (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another Attempt To Redact Historical Accuracy In Favour of Multicultural Dogma
When one reads this article you'd be forgiven for thinking that the French had and has a far greater influence on Canada that it actually has, even the demographics are slyly interpreted to read that the British had a smaller role to play in Canada's formation and identity when the reality is the opposite. Also there is no note explaining the obvious and glaring fact that the vast majority of Canadians are descended from the English yet the demographics indicate that self-reporting gives you the conclusion that people who declare themselves 'Canadian' spontaneously appeared self-formed in Canada, what a joke. The reality is that the omission is much like US demographics in that self-labelling 'American' or 'Canadian' indicates English or British origin but have been there so long they report as 'ethnic' as mentioned in note 3. I have updated the lead to reflect that using a impeccable Canadian cite. Twobells (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we get you to read the sources pls.Moxy (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm one quarter English ancestry, but I'm Canadian. My French, Irish and Norwegian sides are all equally Canadian; the bigotry and presumptiveness of Twobells' claims here are repulsive and yes, per Moxy, why don't you read more sources and learn about [other] Canadians before shooting your mouth off about this?  There were Canadians (canadiens) before there were English Canadians, also....and are you saying that aboriginal people aren't "Canadian"?  Ethnicity is about self-identification; I know people of Hungarian-Irish-Chinese ancestry who would not call themselves anything other than Canadian....Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox pic
Whats up with this pic? I recognize maybe 2 people on here, 3 if we count David Suzuki who I only know of from commercials. The first two indians are historically unknown - the first one not even Canadian by any stretch. Whats up with this pic, seriously? Can't we do better than this? --Львівське (говорити) 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Canadians pictured in the articles infobox are selected by the editors through consensus on this talk page. The intention is to give an assortment of people from different time periods and areas of accomplishment or other historical merit. (Personally, I recognized 9 of the 15 people pictured at a glance, and 5 of the others by name) If you have any specific suggestions for people you believe to be more deserving then please name them and state your case for them. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I know how to fix it, but I don't think the pic in the top right of the infobox pic is of the person it says it is in the caption. It's been fixed on the "notable aboriginal canadians" page I think. (NBD, just thought it worth pointing out) 81.2.93.161 (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OMG your right ...fixing now?Moxy (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And now we're back up to twenty again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes, adding women, living people and non-politicians. Figured it's good for diversity. Didn't mean to step on any toes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And now we're up to who know what: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadians&curid=19851291&diff=627885868&oldid=626777178 Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes to infobox and opening paragraphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadians&diff=619139012&oldid=619138112

Should we increase the number of individuals in the infobox?

Do the changes to the opening paragraphs make sense? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If we compare with these articles (for example) : Americans, Scottish, German, we note that there were not enough personalities on this article ! And some personalities actually are not very important (ex : Michaelle Jean).

So why remove my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.117.21 (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for discussing the changes.
 * As explained with both reverts, the changes also changed in opening paragraphs.
 * And just because other stuff exists, doesn't mean that every article should be like that. There can be excessive visual clutter. What does this look like on a mobile device? What does it look like on an 800-pixel-wide display? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And as you'll see by looking at the immediately previous discussion, the opening paragraphs have taken a great deal of discussion to arrive at their current state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree tiny little pictures does not help or readers. oh an PS Canada is not just made up of people of European decent. To replace people like Michaelle Jean and Terry Fox with Avril Lavigne and Ryan Gosling and in the process eliminate  all but one non European is not a positive edit.- Moxy (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"To replace people like Michaelle Jean and Terry Fox with Avril Lavigne and Ryan Gosling and in the process eliminate  all but one non Europen is not a positive edit.- " But there is Oscar Peterson... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.216.96 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having only one non European does not reflect the makeup of the country (Ethnic origins of people in Canada). I am sure  Avril Lavigne, Ryan Gosling and the otheres added are great people but they simply are not Persons of National Historic Significance or Companions of the Order of Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Three of the people I added (Leonard Cohen, Margaret Atwood and Rocket Richard) are in the Order of Canada. Bret Hart isn't, but his dad, Stu, is. Bret's more famous and associated with Canada, internationally, though, so went with him. Kim Campbell was the Prime Minister of Canada, and a woman to boot. Counts for something, I'd think.


 * A bit too much weight on politicians Canadian students learned about in school, but the rest of the world probably didn't. Artists have a wider reach, especially the more modern ones. I may be a bit biased, but I like my edition. 24 seems a natural number. 24 hours in a day, 24 beer in a case (as Canadians like to remind each other on the May 24 weekend). A six-pack of women, rather than the current three.


 * Anyone else like it? And has anyone actually heard of Thomas Storrow Brown? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just read his article because I saw his pic but had never heard of him. Apparently no-one reads his article either. I just corrected a bit of obvious vandalism that was made in January 2010! I was coming here to suggest that maybe we should reconsider having his pic in the infobox, and here's the question already. Meters (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia thanks you for the vandal watching. I've reverted to the Brownless version, after noting the Orders of Canada here (and replacing Bret with his dad). Some of the 24 aren't in that club, but Wayne Gretzky certainly is, and would be conspicuous by his absense. Pending objection, of course. I can compromise.InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on guys ..lets pix people that have played a role in Canadian identity. Sports figurers are not them... the country is not defined by sprots players. Also the country in not made up of just white people. We can do much better then this....that is linking people that have played a role in identity. Margaret Atwood is a good one but the rest not sure, Also should try to get images that are head shots only!!! . Will fix all this in the next few days. first we should talk about the max number of people...or even better yet do what they did at British people (remove all people). Last thing we want is the problem the reviews mentioned at Americans too many iamges that are to small. I personaly would vote for no images in info box as ever 3 months we have this same problem (that is more and more white  people being added despite  28% of the population being foreign-born)-- Moxy (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask most contemporary Americans to name a Canadian and they will name Gretzky. Ask anyone who isn't a political or history buff (i.e. an average Canadian) who one of the most important Canadians of the last century was and you will likely have at least half of them single-out Mr. Gretzky and the other five will be split between other sports figures or personalities. I don't disagree that he may not have created a Canadian identity, but he is easily identifiable and associated with Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What sport has more to do with Canadian identity than hockey? And who better to represent Canadian hockey than Gretzky? I don't think there are any sports people in the infobox, unlike Americans which has an entire row of them.
 * Why are we using a picture of the Terry Fox statue rather than one of Terry Fox himself? I think it would be far better to use one of the pictures of him on his run, such as the one we use on his page File:TerryFoxToronto19800712.JPG Meters (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If 3 athletes of 24 people implies Canada is defined by them, what does having 8 politicians of 16 say? Most of those are antiques to boot, and worked in a system unlike our own. That's not to say they didn't have some lasting influence, but hardly representative of this century or the other one readers were born in.


 * Four big names from six major fields sounds about right. Sports, music, literature, politics, science and acting seem standard. Minorities shouldn't be forced in for the sake of having them, but certainly not excluded if they've made an impact.


 * And yeah, I wondered about the statue, too. That thing never ran anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove them all. This problem will never end.....that is people wishing to place famous people over people that have represented Canada. That said Atwood, Currie and Gretzky  are ok  ,,,but lets pic some other influential people with some tone in there skin like Viola Davis Desmond. Its about who represents Canadians overall. Stu Hart has a  bad article that says nothing about any contributions to the country. We can do better then people that have made the news....pic people that have shaped the country.-- Moxy (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Moxy is complaining about the lack of non-whites. There are 4 now, out of 16 pictures. One could argue that they are over represented since that's higher than the percentage of visible minorities (16.2%) reported in Visible minority. Three of the visible minority pictures are arguably well-chosen, the native not so much. I would suggest replacing Aatsista-Mahkan with Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea) who is much better known and who played an important role during the American Revolution. Meters (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am clear.....Canada is not made up of just British subjects. Others have tone in there skin... means Italians, Jews ect.. The images should show the diversity of the country....not who kids will know....as we are here to educate and inform. As for politicians yes they have done a hell of alot more the some wrestler for the country. Joseph Brant is not a bad choice although American hes like Laura secore Canadian icon. We just need to use common sense when repressing Canadians or all nationalities.  - Moxy (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a high-profile, low-influence Jewish Canadian and a low-profile, high-influence Italian Canadian. Either of them do anything for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite clear, but according to the last census Canada was more than 75% "European", 14.2% "Asian", 4.3% aboriginal, 2.9% Afro-Canadian and a smaller percentage of the rest. So what I read is if we have 24 (although I believe that's too many) images in the infobox, 18 should be Caucasian, 3–4 Asian, 1 aboriginal (although that's historically under-represented) and 1 Afro-Canadian.
 * And historically, there have been fewer non-Caucasians than there are today.
 * For the record, other than Peterson, I know none of the people you've mentioned (other than Secord, but I prefer Purdy's). Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. We didn't have affirmative action in Canada (My mistake, we called it something else). That said, if we include English Gretzky, French Richard would seem fair in illustrating our bilingualism. Not sure Joseph Brant is a good idea, seeing how he lived and died before Canada was a country. Doesn't quite jibe with the lead sentence. Still, he seems more notable than our current Native.


 * As for politicians "doing more for our country", that's also not quite in line with our lead. Should be people who are identified with Canada. Not going to push for Hart, because his article does sort of suck, but he trained a lot of very famous wrestlers, which led to a lot of big money wrestling shows in the country. Fake sport, real economics. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Métis are considered status natives in Canada, and as such M. Riel is also, technically, both of European and Native ancestry. And for my PoV I think you could remove any of the subjects listed other than Macdonald, Gould, Suzuki and Riel and you would not have any complaint from me. Peterson would raise an eyebrow and a deep sigh of regret though, with Montgomery and Douglas a distant sixth and seventh. The remainder are all replaceable (and I'd be willing to mount a campaign to remove Dion with very little prompting, but only because I dislike her music, not because I don't think she's an easily recognizable Canadian). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tommy Douglas is a lock, I think, as "The Greatest Canadian". Celine Dion is good enough to represent the country on South Park and that's good enough for me, though yeah, most of her tunes aren't so nice to my ears. Conrad Black was a hugely influential (white) Canadian we don't mention. Wouldn't mind seeing him replace Storrow Brown. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If this Hubbard guy's here for being the first black alderman, maybe he should be replaced by the first black Canadian mayor, Saint-Firmin Monestime. From a much smaller town, though, and no Wiki portrait (yet). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The queen ???
I have moved the section on the queen to Canadian nationality law - Way to detailed for this overview article. I don't see how this really is relevant to the topic at hand. This article is about Canadians in general not the citizenship of one person or. All this should be moved to her article or the article on citizenship. Not sure monarchical stuff neededs to be pushed here as the article is not about Citizenship but about who Canadians are. How is this relevant to the article on the People of Canada? (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the paragraph before moving it. It very clearly wasn't specifically about the Queen, nor was it singularly about her citizenship. It was an explanation of the unique position of the sovereign and some members of the Canadian Royal Family as Canadians or, at least, not foreigners to Canada, despite not meeting the legal requirements for citizenship. That would make the "Citizenship" section of this page the right place for the information. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Introducing how our nationality laws may or may not apply to one person or family is way to detailed. We also have no need to bring in the debate over if they are and who are considered Canadian or not. As you say the topic is about the "unique position of the sovereign and some members of the Canadian Royal Family as Canadians" thus is a "debate" of the legal citizenship status and should be at Canadian nationality law or a royal article. This overview article talks about the "nationality law" and "Canadianism" in-general - and is not about how it applies to certain individuals be they important figures or not. Mention of  something like   Conrad Black's,  or even the  Queens unique  status I believe is unwarranted. All that said I guess we could get the opinion of others on the matter.Moxy (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no debate about if they are or are not considered Canadian. And the focus certainly isn't on citizenship law; that is a secondary matter. The main point of the paragraph is that the monarch and those in the Canadian Royal Family who don't hold Canadian citizenship are considered by the government (and some by themselves) to be Canadians. This article is about Canadians. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct "This article is about Canadians" not about a specific person or family  but all Canadians. Your more them welcome to get others involved - as I dont believe I will change my mind that this article need not focus on individuals but rather the people as a whole. There is no need to have info on the royals on every page dealing with Canada and Canadians.Moxy (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposed that info on the monarchy be included on every page dealing with Canada and Canadians. Let's please keep focused on the actual issue.
 * Of course the article's subject is Canadians. Beneath that banner, the article looks at various ways people can be considered Canadian, as outlined in the opening sentences: "This connection [to Canada] may be genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural or ethnic." Most of those in Canada's royal family, however, are a unique case unto themselves; they are considered by the government and others (and some consider themselves to be) Canadian, despite not having been born in Canada, being resident in Canada, or having Canadian citizenship. That is why they're mentioned uniquely; they are unique.
 * If you want to push that information out of this article, you must be either denying the uniqueness of their position or denying they are Canadians. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Miesianiacal, don't start putting words in Moxy's mouth ("If you disagree with me, then you must disagree with the facts"). So unnecessary.  I agree with Moxy - we need to stop shoehorning detailed discusssions about the Queen into every major article on Canada, and in this case the information in question belongs in Monarchy of Canada.  An article on Canadians need not delve into the minutiae of the Queen's citizenship - leave that to the specific articles dealing with the Queen.  It is as necessarry to this article as a discussion of as Conrad Black's Canadianness - i.e. not necessary at all.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How does one stop what one has never started? (By which I mean the "shoehorning" of monarchy related material into articles.)
 * Regardless, I'm not sure why the assertion that the paragraph is about the Queen's citizenship keeps coming up again and again. The paragraph mentions citizenship, but it is self-evidently not about that particular subject. It is about people in the Royal Family being classified as Canadians and the unique reasons why and how they are. The minutae is already covered at Monarchy of Canada; the paragraph here is a summary (which could posisbly be further summarised). It belongs here because it relates to the subject of this page. That is a common practice across Wikipedia. --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Miesianiacal, we are clearly all talking about the same thing, and I apologize if we are using the word citizenship somewhat inaccurately, but making a mountain out of irrelevant minor distinctions doesn't detract from the main point, which is that a discussion of the Queen's Canadianness is just not sufficiently relevant for inclusion. I won't even get started on the shoehorn thing.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to add another Section, but have a tiny comment re ERII in this article. It's true that as the British Queen she is "The Defender of the Faith", but as the Queen in Right of Canada I believe the additional title does not apply, and thus that tiny reference should removed. Alas, all my favourite constitutional law profs and discussants have passed on, so I don't have a ready citation handy, but I don't believe she has ever been (correctly) referred to as such in Canada, as she assumed the throne after 1949. A minor issue, but technical accuracy should be maintained in constitutional pronouncements, n'est pas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarteralec (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RFC is not for all infobox collages, but only for those in articles about ethnic groups. There's already confusion about what is being discussed, so let's not make it worse. Meters (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And as worded the RFC is not specific to infoboxes, but to all photo montages of persons in ethnic group articles. See. even I'm confused. Meters (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not like the collage to be perfectly honest. Why those people, in that order? Why is Tommy Douglas there instead of a different politician of a different political party? Does it matter that he was a eugenicist? Does it matter than John A. Macdonald was apparently racist? Why Michaëlle Jean instead of Adrianne Clarkson? What if I, as a Canadian don't see myself in that collage? Now that I look at it, I don't seem to see anyone of Chinese descent, does that mean those of those ethnic backgrounds aren't Canadian? Etc etc. It just seems highly subjective and potentially controversial for no added benefit. We could easily replaced it with a Canadian flag as the symbolic representation of the people (the Canadian Nation as an entirety), and avoid the whole mess entirely, like in the Americans article. trackratte (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of them either. I'm just trying to keep the current RFC on track. Meters (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The collage has been a source of occasional vandalism. Douglas is there because he was selected as the The Greatest Canadian. Others are there for the same reason, also, racial balance was a consideration. The discussion is above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agrre...lets think if anything should go in there place.Moxy (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The AFC at WT:ETHNIC on removing galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups has been closed as "Consensus to remove". The closer extended the scope to include "articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities." Meters (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Earliest date format
An anon editor, reverted my change to month day, year format in January 2015, or manually applied the day month year format, appealing to MOS:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN. However those are the guidelines I appealed to when I made my change. . It applied November 1, 1990. If it had been 1 November 1990, I would not have applied the change. I did not try to determine when it was changed away from this format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadians. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091105062130/http://multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/i2/10 to http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/i2/10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610200013/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-5.asp to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-5.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904063908/http://www.langcom.nu.ca/nunavuts-official-languages to http://www.langcom.nu.ca/nunavuts-official-languages
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821200252/http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/blackwell.html to http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/blackwell.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307135602/http://multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/i8/2 to http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/i8/2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
@Walter Görlitz: There is no Wikipedia policy mandating that only one reference should be used. I have no idea why you're reverting based on that rationale, but it definitely isn't a valid reason for removing sourced information.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It does make sense to use only a single source for ranking of population estimates - that way we can ensure that we're comparing apples to apples, ie. that the data was collected at the same time and in the same manner. That being said, looks like there are already a couple of entries that use alternative sources, so perhaps those should be removed if not consistent with a single source for the list. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from. But as well as I understand Wikipedia policies, our basic requirement is verifiability and WP:RS. There isn't anything limiting the amount of sources we use. In this case, the figures added meet that requirement, so their omission doesn't seem valid or logical. British people, a GA, is a good example. If the timing of the sources is an issue, it's easy to add the years in brackets for each figure..  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No your figures do not meet the requirement as they are a national media post about the number of their citizens in another country and so fail as they are WP:PRIMARY and not verified by a secondary source. Statistics Canada should be used here and not primary sources like the one you've provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Quebecois
You just deleted everything I mentioned about the Quebecois ethnicity and sub-nation. I'm very disappointed. I'm half Quebecois and it's important for me, and all other Quebecois, to be mentioned as a distinguished nation in Canada. Why didn't you leave my section there?

Or is there any way you could add up something that mention Quebecois people? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydubois1 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't add anecdotes or personal feelings. The articles are supposed to be backed up with references to books, websites, news, etc. If something is truth, you should have no trouble finding something to back up your statements. Alaney2k (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will look into this....I agree a small portion 130,000 or so have this ehtnic view. Like American ancestry or like how we metion Canadians  in this article......I will make a small paragraph about the perceived ethnic groups we have.--Moxy (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are Anglicans important enough to Canada that they get their own entry in the infobox?
After the edit war that concluded here I will explain why Anglicans are important enough to Canada that they get their own entry in the infobox. Anglicans have a special place in Canada as the head of the nation is also the head of this particular denomination. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the denomination. This simple fact explains why they get special treatment in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is being said here but Canada has no official religion and her position in the Church of England is not related to being the Monarch of Canada.-- Moxy 🍁 00:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * She is both the head of the nation and the CoE, as well as the Anglican Church of Canada. These roles were bestowed concurrently. When she was made Queen of Canada, she was also made the head of the Anglican Church of Canada. So, they are related in that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Her role in the church is completely unrelated to her government role in Canada ...as per Monarchist League of Canada .-- Moxy 🍁 00:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment, as she plays no role in promoting any religion in England or the remainder of the UK as well. She is simply the head of the CoE. The one difference is that the CoE is the state religion in England while there is none in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox religion
user:The Sr Guy switched the order of Protestantism and Catholicism since there are more Catholics, and added Anglicanism. I have no issue listing Catholicism first, but I removed Anglicanism since Anglicans are already art of the Protestant listing, and we don't separate out other Protestant denominations, at least one of which is larger than the Anglican Church. Another user is now attempting to keep the separate Anglican listing, and claiming that this new is the status quo consensus. So, do we keep the separate Anglican listing? And what is the status quo while we decide? 23:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if we're reverting one change, why not both? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote: I assume that that the editor "switched the order of Protestantism and Catholicism since there are more Catholics". That is per our cited source, and it seems like a valid reason to me. Meters (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiethnic
Please add a sentence right beside the paragraph that talks about Canada’s many ethnic origins. Please put, “Thus being Canadian, does not equal ethnicity, religion, or race, but only nationality and allegiance to Canada.”. Flawless Casual (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also add, “Does not equal language” aswell. Flawless Casual (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition of a Canadian (within Canada and Internationally (UN))
A person who is a citizen/national of Canada. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you do not get to arbitrarily change the definition to one that you prefer. The current definition has been stable, so it's up to you to attempt to get consensus for anew definition. It's not a minor change, and it's most definitively not minor when you have already been undone. Meters (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The change is question is . The current lead starts off: "Canadians (French: Canadiens) are people identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be residential, legal, historical or cultural. For most Canadians, many (or all) of these connections exist and are collectively the source of their being Canadian." For years this article has started with this or some close variant of it. A citizenship-only definition is a major change, and one that I do not agree with. Meters (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who reverted the change you made. Thanks for explaining your terse definition. It was initially because you gutted a long-standing lead. It it achieved a silent consensus. A few minutes of checking would have shown you that it's been there for a long time. When you find things like that in well-edited and maintained articles, it's usually a good idea to check before you make major changes to the lead. Other areas are less likely to have such an effect on the nature of the article. I was initially going to take the revert to this talk page, but then I realized the you linked citizen to citizenship, not even Canadian nationality law, and that you completely ignored Wikipedia:Short description, I felt that you were in over your head. Sorry for causing such a commotion.
 * I see you state it's the UN definition. Do you have a link to that definition?
 * Your proposed definition lines-up quite well with the Canadian Government definition of a Canadian citizen, but this article is not about citizenship. This article is about more than that. Meters, and I'm sure others will make counter-points to yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Colours and flags
Hello ! I'm sorry for calling you here. I'd like you to tell why you think we should replace flags with colours. This is the only page about an ethnicity where someone has done it (as far as I know). In my opinion, we should use flags instead of colours, just as it is done on other pages on ethnic groups. − Allice Hunter   (Inbox)  22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You made this edit in violation of MOS:FLAGICON and Moxy correctly reverted it. Now you're claiming that other articles ignore FLAGICON and you'd like us to do so as well? Perhaps a better option would be to point us to those articles and raise that on the talk page of the manual of style instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

100
I fixed a link from a redirect so that it redirects to the main article. It is true not all links to redirects need to be fixed; however, the canadian lists were the only series of lists that listed 100 in their titles. I fixed the links so that they would match their current titles. Sometimes it is ok to leave the links as they are. This isn't the case for these links. For example, it is ok to leave the link for the binomial name of dog in instances where the scientific name is discussed. Catchpoke (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to change redirects. You've been told this by two different editors. Linking to a redirect is not a problem because it is WP:NOTBROKEN. I will revert one more time and we will both be at WP:3RR as a result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To be specific, the change you are making is from this major urban centres to this major urban centres . What the reader saw before your change was major urban centres and what they see after is was major urban centres. The target for the first is a redirect to List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada. So, in short, your "fix" is not, it is the very reason that NOTBROKEN was established. A piped redirect is the worst thing to fix as it makes no difference to the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... Catchpoke (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. If not, you can explain your actions to admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What a disingenuous comment. Catchpoke (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Please take your concern to NOTBROKEN. You either do not appreciate or have any deference to the guideline and feel that you have an exception—one that two other, more experienced editors do not accept. You should get that clearly accepted at the guideline and codified in such a way that I and the other edit do not trouble you going forward. Without that, you will continue to glean warnings on your talk page. This, of course, may lead to your eventual removal from the project. If you don not have the sense to understand that and would rather continue to blame others, go ahead, but you will not get your way on this article unless you get more editors to agree with your claimed exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is simply WP:WIKILAWYERING. What meritable reason do you have to keep the redirect? Catchpoke (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that you are simply WIKILAWYERING, but to answer your question, NOTBROKEN is the only reasonable reason to keep the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at your block log: This is simply a troll post. Catchpoke (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my contributions. I generally make more edits in a week than you have in your entire time. If you keep showing poor behaviour (self-admitted wikilawyering and trolling), you could render this discussion moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another hypocrite. Catchpoke (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite Catchpoke's ad hominem argument, I have to agree with Walter Görlitz here.  Bypassing redirects in this way is clearly at odds with WP:NOTBROKEN.  If you feel that the guideline should be changed, please suggest improvements.  If you feel that the guideline, although generally sound, should not apply here, please explain why this case is special.  Otherwise, I recommend following that advice from multiple experienced editors.  (Does anyone else see the irony in calling everyone else a hypocrite?) Certes (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Already warned Catchpoke for personal attacks. User immediately deleted warning and showed up on my talk page to ask which comments... I would say there's some irony in calling someone else "disingenuous" too. Note that the user continues to rapidly bypass similar redirects on multiple articles. Meters (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Catchpoke's recent edit history is full of "bypass redirect". The red flag occurred when the editor hit two BC city articles I watch. I have opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm here due to watching Brampton and Edmonton (to fix incoming links meant for Brampton, Carlisle; Edmonton, London; etc.) but I had already started a conversation at User talk:Catchpoke following similar edits elsewhere. Certes (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that WP:NOTBROKEN is relevant here, as that guideline is mostly about replacing  with , rather than what's going on here, which is replacing   with  . This is entirely appropriate if target B is a more accurate reflection of the target article. As Catchpoke has pointed out here, and as others have mentioned elsewhere, this is a (slight) benefit to the reader, as it affects the hint that appears when they hover the link. Just by visual inspection, it seems pretty clear to me that the article at List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada is better described by its current title than by the previous title (as of 10 years ago), List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, since, well, the list contains more than 100 entries. (Also, a recent RM found consensus for moving away from the arbitrary scope restriction of "100 largest" for a number of similar articles.) All that is to say, I support Catchpoke's changes. At worst, they're harmless (none of the "reasons not to bypass redirects" listed at WP:NOTBROKEN apply to this sort of change), but I think it's more correct to say they're a slight improvement, since one or more of the points under "Good reasons to bypass redirects" do apply. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that valuable contribution.  Now that we finally have a civil and understandable justification of the edits, I can see the logic of your argument.  The changes do seem to make a slight improvement for readers who hover over the text.  Certes (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)