Talk:European Canadians

Move to Wiktionary
I've tagged this article for a move to Wiktionary. This is not an article about Euro-Canadians, just a definition of the word. The references appear to be examples of its use, constituting original research in primary sources, and not secondary sources about Euro-Canadians. —Michael Z. 2008-11-05 21:36 z 
 * Oppose moving to Wiktionary as this is a subgroup of Canadian people, the same as Indo-Canadians, Asian Canadians, and Latin American Canadians. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support B*****r that, Sosiestep. It's a term for a subgroup pushed by a certain faction of the polity/academica, and is not in widespread use; see next section.  Also some citations do not even mention the term, they only talk about its composition as if the source were using the term - which is dishonest.  Keep your racist subgroupings to yourself, and if you hadn't noticed there's also this other term European-Canadian that is also mis-used (i.e. to include Britons and white Americans and Canadians - but not white Latin Americans, interestingly, or white Africans).  Neither term is really acceptable and both are POV and also euphemisms for "white" (clearly a racist term if "black", "yellow" and "brown" are, no?).  This is only for Wiktionary, it has no use in Wikipedia and this term should NOT be used in definitions and leads, as you have just done (and I have just reversed) in Canadians of German descent and Canadians of Norwegian descent.  I am one of the latter, and I reject your imposition of this term on my "subgroup".Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a term, not a subgroup (POV discussion)
I find this term extremely POV and historically inaccurate, and is misrepresented as if it were a term in wide use, wehn it's nothing of hte kind and many members of teh group targeted by it 0 it's a pastiche of teh similarly-POV "Euro-American" - do not like it, or do not know of it. It is not an official term in any way, though its use is being promoted/substituted by ideologically-driven agendas in which "all white people are the same" and which remove any notion of the true diversity of Canada's "white" population. As a Canadian of Norwegian descent (and the grandson of a director of Scandinavian immigration) I find the term offensive and unsuitable and concocted by those from othe gropus seeking to generalize and stereotype. That many of these happen to be political and ethnic activists and "politically fashionable academics" only makes my point that their use and promotion of this term is POV all the more pertinent. It is not a useful term, not a iwdespread one, and it should not be uwed in Wikipedia as a standard, i.e. in teh way it was just subbed into the leads of Canadians of German descent and Canadians of Norwegian descent and no doubt others. I find its use in this mannaer, especially when European Canadian is also in circualation (though similarly used in historically useless and politically-suspect ways). This article should be reworded to say that ''"this is a term for the subgroup...." NOT "this is a subgeroup''. As a member of that subgroup, I dispute that that is the case and those who wish to classify me and mine according to their own racist paradigms should be content with teh langauge as it is, not as they would like to see it re-invented to suit their own biases and perceptions (see Newspeak).  "Selling" the term by such misleading citations as the following is another demonstration of the suepct nature of this agenda:
 * ''Statistics Canada breaks down Euro-Canadian ethnic origins into several subcatagories: British Isles, French, Western European, Northern European, Eastern European, Southern European, and Other European (Basque, Gypsy/Roma, Jewish, Slav).[8]

Statistics Canada makes no such definition of "Euro-Canadian". Not on any census table or census form I've ever seen. I have seen it in a lot of ideologically-driven and politically self-conscious academic and ethnic politics writign, though. It's POV and that's all there is to it. I suspect an inspection of the other citations will not turn up actual usage of this term except in POV-type documents of one kidn or another; native-politics nte4spapers, sociological tracts and the like; it's not in common circulation, I repeat, and is either unknown to or rejected by those it is designed to apply to. There's already other words for "us"...the lengths people will go not to say "white" huh? Still just racism, only in the other direction......Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The title and content of this article were not meant to be pejorative or inaccurate. I apologize for not knowing about the perceptions noted above.
 * I've re-edited the article and others can make other improvements.
 * I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide for assistance with naming convention as I'm unclear what's best and alternative title possibilities abound. Statistics Canada uses the term "European origins", so "Canadians of European origins" is a suggestion. Sources in this article used "Euro-Canadian" or "Canadians of European descent".  Articles regarding Canadians of European country-specific origins don't follow a specific naming convention (see English Canadian, Italian Canadians, Canadians of Danish descent, Canadians of Finnish ancestry, Canadians of German ethnicity, and Russians in Canada). Articles regarding Canadians from other continents also lack a standard naming convention (see Indo-Canadians, Asian Canadian, etc.). --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

requested move to proper term

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

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

Euro-Canadian → European Canadian —
 * European Canadian is the more common usage, any cites that use "Euro-Canadian" are affecting a post-modern p.c. usage that was imposed by academic/political fiat and which few people of any of these origins would identify with. Most common usage should apply, as should the reality that "European Canadian" is not a neologism, while "Euro-Canadian" very much is, and also has p.c. origins (i.e. POV origins).}}Skookum1 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - infact i redirected European Canadian to Euro-Canadian and not Canadians my fault there did not see "Euro-Canadian" article when i did this.Moxy (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

remove them please

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


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

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

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

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

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

and who considers Armenia to be culturally European, you ?

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

Where are these numbers coming from?
We have the 2013 report on the 2011 census sourced, but editors are changing the numbers and claiming that the numbers are as of 2015. As far as I can see, the 2011 census http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Canada&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1 reports a total population of 32,852,325, of whom 20,157,965 are of European origins. That's 61.4%. In the last 3 months alone we've had claims of 74.9%, 76.6%, 73.0%, 76.7%, and 82.6% European origins, and the article claims the total number of Canadians of European origin as 25,186,890 apparently by subtracting the North American Aboriginal origins group from the total non visible minority population. Why are we not using the Statistics Canada classification "European origins" with its listed count of 20,157,965? Meters (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this page needs an overhaul. Do you know where the c. 25 million number is coming from for 2016 because the census says c. 19.6 million are of European origins? If it is some form of subtraction with other groups, I think we should avoid that as possible WP:OR and just go with what stats can reports. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like some IPs were tallying it like this in 2016 followed by in 2019 by subtracting visible minority totals and aboriginal totals. This is purely WP:OR. This article is titled "European Canadians" and as such we should report the stat that Stats Canada reports for "European origins" which is the 19.6 million stat. Seems that this is what they're using at Demographics of Canada using "European/White" to report the stat. If this is really the stat that people want to report, perhaps this article should be moved to "White Canadians", or at the very least, the two values should be listed, while also specifying where they came from. Right now the c. 25 million value is conflating the Stats Can "European origins" stat with no explanation whatsoever for why that is the case. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my latest edits clarify the numbers. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Reference named "anthem-fr": From Music of Canada:  <li>From Calixa Lavallée: </li> </ul>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 19 April 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

European Canadian → European Canadians – WP:PRECISE correct spelling Alexander Iskandar (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;"> (talk)  00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is in keeping with the standard nomenclature adopted a couple of years ago for ethnicities and diasporic groups across Wikipedia. We are referring to a group, not individuals. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a number of these being proposed (should have been done as a single mass RM, but whatever), so I'm copying this same comment into all these discussions.


 * The article lede and text throughout uses "European Canadians". And that is what the article about -- not the term or concept, but the people. So just on the merits I support the move.


 * Also, this 2015 move discussion was a mass request for moves of "X Canadian" -> "X Canadians". It was turned down, but it appears that since then that articles have mostly been moved anyway -- to Afghan Canadians etc. etc. Whether there was another discussion(s) or someone just did this I don't know, but per Consistency (one of the Five Virtues), we should move this article to match those others. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

page should be locked do to pervasive vandalism
this page and specifically its table have been frequently vandalized by a user with dynamic polish IPs, which after geolocation appear to be VPNs. the user seems to be only doing this for the sake of trolling on 4chan's /pol/ board and stirring international and racial tensions, which is rather sad imo. the page should be protected from vandalism for a period of time until the vandal finds a hobby or employment of some sort and finds something else to do.

archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.121.133 (talk • contribs) 19:31, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
 * Requests for protection go to WP:RPP, but seeing as how this article has not been touched in more than two weeks I don't think you'll have any luck. Meters (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are these numbers coming from? Second time around
Hi, I've just come off a lengthy OR discussion from the "European emigration" page, where different editors have been extrapolating numbers from articles and censuses. That's led me to take a look at the numbers on this page. I think there is a similar issue here, with the population figures for Canadians of European background, from 1996 onwards. I'm having trouble verifying the numbers in that table, and am particularly concerned with the note that says anyone who isn't First Nation or visible minority is added to the category of European descent. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the census data, because it is making an assumption that is not stated in the source being cited. Strikes me as a failure of OR/Synthesis and Verifiability. I think the article should just use the numbers for European descent stated in the Stats Can tables, without any attempt to add to those numbers. Would welcome your thoughts on it before I make any changes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your assessment. IPs have made the stats unwieldly, and probably would continue to do so if we don't keep an eye on it. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 13:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove references to European identity as racist immediately!
Who allowed such nonsense to be on this page? Not only is it clearly some fringe opinion, the European Union and Council of Europe literally exist and are recognized by the UN. There is legitimate internationally legal recognition of European identity. This entry alone implies almost half of the UK that voted against Brexit and for European identity are racist. In the 21st century hundreds of millions worldwide identify as European and this smears them all. Put a stop to this nonsense immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikkyAcct (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WikkyAcct fails to provide evidence from Canada about how Canadians think of ethnicity. Rjensen (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources such as an opinion writer from "The Georgia Straight" and links to quarter century old events are not proof either. European is a legitimate identity according to the United Nations. European-Canadian is not yet an entry on the Canadian Census either so European-Canadians have no official option yet. Also the European ancestry of European-Canadians is now so mixed that there are few that can even identify as exclusively one European nationality. In the 21st century European is a legitimate identity and trying to smear it as racist is just sick. Remove this sick smear project immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikkyAcct (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that European ancestry of Canadians "is now so mixed that there are few that can even identify as exclusively one European nationality" does not lead to the conclusion that a new ethnic group has emerged, namely European Canadians. There is no evidence of that in the article. For some Canadians, it may mean that they continue to identify with a particular ethnic background, but other Canadians may no longer do so. The mixing of European ancestry may be a contirbutor to the fact that people increasingly tick "Canadian" on the census box.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are comparing bananas and pineapples here. The European Union and Council of Europe are organisations that base their focus on geography, not race or ethnicity or even place of birth. Their European identity refers to someone who is a citizen of an EU member country, and includes a lot of people of Asian and African descent. In Canada, and throughout this article, European Canadian is a reference to White Canadians, and excludes a lot of people who would be considered European in the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.49.102 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Article is fundamentally flawed
Essentially, this article is trying to create a category of Canadians that does not exist, and is primarily white. There is plenty of evidence that Canadians of different ethnic backgrounds may still continue to identify with those specific backgrounds; however, other Canadians may not. What is clear is that no evidence is advanced in the article that there are Canadians who identify primarily as European-Canadians.
 * For example, in the Muskie letter episode, it was clear that the slur in the letter was against Americans of French-Canadian ancestry. It wasn't a slur on "French European-Canadian Americans" as the article states. You can't create an entire ethnic group just by sticking "European" into the descriptor;  you have to have evidence that there are in fact Canadians who identify themselves as "European-Canadians".
 * Similarly, if you were to ask the musicians who created "O Canada" and "The Maple Leaf Forever", there is no evidence that they identified themselves as "European-Canadians". At that time, they likely would have identified as French-Canadian or British-Canadian, respectively.  And the English soldiers who played hockey for the first time would likely have rejected any suggestion that they were "European Canadians".  They would have thought of themselves as English or British. (And, how the hell does playing hockey with frozen cow dung amount to a "distinctively Euro-Canadian aspect" of the game?!?)
 * As for the individuals mentioned in the "diaspora" section, unless there is evidence that an individual identified as "European Canadian", a wikipedia article has no reliable source to tag them that way.
 * There is the basis for an article here, to summarise immigration to Canada from Europe, but after that it gets very murky. What with inter-marriage, settlement patterns, and the growth of a Canadian identity, plus the way Stats Can poses its ethnicity questions on the census, there is no reliable source for "European Canadian" as an ethnic group.  It really is being used as a dog-whistle for "white", as the reference to "the first white child born in New France" suggests. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Canadian identity" does not take priority over Indigenous or Québéois culture
The article states: "...a Canadian identity, without eradicating specific regional or cultural identities such as Aboriginal or Québecois." That terminology assumes that there is a dominant Canadian culture that tolerates lesser cultures, which are not part of "Canadian culture". That's wrong. Québecois culture is Canadian culture. Aboriginal culture is Canadian culture. "Canadian culture" doesn't just mean Anglo-Canadian culture, as this wording suggests. They all add up to Canadian culture. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Two tables in "Demographics" section contain Original research
I have tagged two tables in the "Demographics" section with the "Original Research" marker. The reason is that the tables appear to be combining data from two different Stats Can sources, or simply making an assumption about how to interpret the data and giving numbers which are not directly stated by the cited Stats Can Reports. Either way, it's a breach of No original research: "Synthesis of published material", as well as the basic principle of Verifiability.
 * The first difficulty is the table entitled "European Canadian population in Canada".
 * For the entry for 2001, there are two citations given. The first is "Ethnocultural Population of Canada," which sets out the total population, then lists five categories of visible minorities.  The second is a 2001 Census Aboriginal profile.  As the note to this entry states, the number for "European Canadians" was derived by subtracting visible minorities and Aboriginals from the total number, and then assuming that the difference is all European Canadians.  There is nothing in the Stats Can data which supports that approach.  As the guideline on Original research states:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."  However, that is exactly what has been done for the 2001 entry.
 * The same approach was used for the entries for 2006, 2011 and 2016. Although only a single data table was used for each of these entries, again, the note states that the number for European Canadians was derived by including "all persons that did not make up part of a visible minority or an aboriginal identity."  That conclusion is nowhere set out in the Stat Can data tables.  It is an assumption by whoever entered the data in this table and therefore Original research/Synthesis.
 * There is a third problem, also relating to the entries for 2006, 2011 and 2016. The notes to these tables state that respondents to the census can tick more than one box for ethnic origin, because a person may have ancestry from more than one group.  See note 343 to the 2006 Stats Can data:  "This is a total population count. The sum of the ethnic groups in this table is greater than the total population count because a person may report more than one ethnic origin in the census."  Because individuals can be counted more than once, in different ethnic groups, it is not correct to use those numbers to indicate a percentage of population.  However, that is exactly what the table does, in the third column:  "% of total population".
 * Given these extrapolations, I conclude that there is no reliable data given for the entries for 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016, and that the entries for those years should be replaced with "N/A".


 * The next problem relates to the table entitled "European Canadians by province and territory (2001–2016)". The difficulty is that this table uses exactly the same citations for those years as is used in the preceding table.  For the same reasons, that data cannot be used to support the numbers and percentages set out in the table.  In addition, the total numbers have somehow been allocated by province and territory.  In addition to the extrapolations set out above, no information is given as to the source of  numbers that are used to allocate the "European Canadian" population by province or territory.  More synthesis or original research appears to be an issue, which again raises the verifiability concern.
 * Given the significant flaws in this entire table, my inclination is to delete it entirely. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Basic Population Number
The basic number for the European Canadian population has been flipping back and forth over the past few days. There have been three numbers used at the top of the infobox: 25,111,695 (prior to November 13);  19,683,320 (number which I inserted on November 13);  and 28,800,000 (number inserted on November 14 by an IP editor). The difficulty is that the first and third numbers are not backed up by the Stats Can census summary of 2016, which is cited in the lead of the article. In short, in my opinion, the number of 19,683,320 should be used throughout this article as the basic number for European Canadian population (subject to being updated when the results of the 2021 census come out, of course). If someone wants to use a different number, they should be prepared to come here to the Talk page and explain their rationale for a different number. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The number I have used, 19,683,320, is the number given in the 2016 summary, under the heading: "Ethnic Origin Populations :  European origins".
 * The number used prior to November 13, 25,111,695, is not found anywhere in the 2016 Stats Can report, although the note accompanying that number cited to the 2016 report. There was an additional note accompanying that number:  "Statistic includes all persons that did not make up part of a visible minority or an aboriginal identity."  That reeks of original research:  whoever put that number and note on is assuming that anyone who is not a visible minority or aboriginal is of European origins.  There is nothing in the Stats Can report that allows that inference to be drawn.  That number therefore fails "No original research/synthesis", and it also fails "Verifiability", because there is no way for the reader of an article to see exactly where that number is coming from;  the editor who came up with that number has apparently added 5,428,375 to the number actually set out under "European origins" (19,683,320), but has not given a cite to where that additional 5,428,375 number can be found.  It should not be used.
 * The number which was added by an IP editor on November 14, and subsequently reverted, was 28,800,000. No citation was given to support that number, and it is a suspiciously round number.  Since no citation was given, or any note in the edit box explaining why it should be used in preference to the Stats Can number of 19,683,320, it was properly reverted.

Split re-direct 'White Canadians' and 'European Canadians'
Putting this proposal up partly because I created the map which showcased the percentages of those who are (the percentage is not formally published by Statistics Canada but 'White' is still a census option and can be inferred) White on Canada's census (with partial ignorance and mis-remembrance of Canada's weird racial definition's including the word European on it) and to settle the most recent revert dispute.

The reason as to why I am proposing a spilt of the article is for 2 reasons; while Statistics Canada essentially mean European people's when they mean 'White', the White census option also allows Arabs, West Asians and Latin Americans, who are racial groups by the visible minority standards of themselves, to declare themselves as 'White' in the mark-in box and then their racial origin as 'Arab' etc. in the write-in box (or vice versa), hence a difference between 'White' Canadians and 'European Canadians'. From Statistics Canada's website (1, 2, 3);


 * "In contrast, in accordance with employment equity definitions, persons who reported 'Latin American' and 'White,' 'Arab' and 'White,' or 'West Asian' and 'White' have been excluded from the visible minority population. Likewise, persons who reported 'Latin American,' 'Arab' or 'West Asian' and who provided a European write-in response such as 'French' have been excluded from the visible minority population as well. These persons are included in the 'Not a visible minority' category. However, persons who reported 'Latin American,' 'Arab' or 'West Asian' and a non-European write-in response are included in the visible minority population. For example, respondents who checked 'Latin American' and wrote in 'Peruvian' are included in the 'Latin American' count. Respondents who reported 'Arab' and wrote in 'Lebanese' are included in the 'Arab' count. Respondents who reported 'West Asian' and wrote in 'Afghan' are included in the 'West Asian' count."

This definition has been used for a while from at-least 2015 (if not longer I have not checked) to my knowledge and should be accurately represented in two different articles.

Second reason being is to treat Canada's topic's of racial groups and pan-ethnic groups the same way America's articles are, with currently one article on European Americans (those who declare a European origin ethnic group on the ethnicity question) and a Non-Hispanic White American article (and the White American article as well) for the racial group in which the vast majority of European Americans fall under. This way we can avoid confusion and edit conflict's etc. which have been in this article for a while and the European Canadian article here can then link off to White Canadians page for those who want to view the racial group page.

@Loopy30 hope you do not mind me tagging you here. Tweedle (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support a split into two distinct topics but with the following observations.


 * The map chart appears to be original research and the data used is from assumptions and inferences.
 * Nowhere does Statistics Canada conflate the racial term "white" with the geographic origin term "European". In fact, StatsCan does not even use the term "European-Canadian".
 * There is no reason to change the StatsCan racial or immigration grouping terms to match those used by another country just to be convenient for Wikipedia article titles.
 * The main difficulty with this article is that the term "European Canadian" is not actually used by anyone, academically or culturally. Even many origin-category terms that are used (eg. Italian-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians, etc) mostly fall off in usage three or four generations after arrival. This is not true for racial terms, as most Black-Canadians and Chinese-Canadians will retain these group identifiers as long as they continue to marry within that community.
 * As (correctly) identified in a previous discussion thread, this article is already being used as a proxy for an article on white Canadians under the guise of a partially constructed StatsCan immigration term. If we were to use the racial category as a title instead, then at least the sources available would better support the text to be used in the article. It would not be wrong to delete this whole article in its present form! Loopy30 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this was over a year ago @Tweedledumb2/@Tweedle and @Loopy30, but I'd like to clarify that the stipulation cited seems to be due to the fact that being "mixed" ethnicity is not really an option in the census. If people claim to have both European and West Asian/Arab/Latin American ancestry, they will simply be counted as "European" and not "mixed", and thus, they are "white" or not a "visible minority" or "POC" or whatever equivalent terminology.
 * Either way, most articles you come across won't be calling people like the Afghans in Canada as "white". And in general context, they may often lumped together with South Asians considering their shared border/ties with Pakistan. To me, I am fine with "White Canadian" being a re-direct to "European Canadians". Otherwise, the Asian Canadians page might as well be split into "Yellow Canadians" or "Brown Canadians", since I'm sure there are loads of reliable sources where Indian- or Filipino-Canadians personally describe themselves as being "Brown", while Japanese-Canadians do not use such a descriptor.
 * Per the 2006 census, if someone says their ethnicity/ancestry is "Black" and "French or Malaysian", they would be included in the "Black" count, not "mixed" or "two or more races" like in the U.S.
 * "Respondents who checked 'Black' and wrote-in 'French' or 'Malaysian' are also included in the 'Black' count."
 * Similarly, in the 2021 census, someone who says their ancestry is both "South Asian" (i.e - Indian or Pakistani) and "European" (i.e - Irish or Swedish) would be counted in the "South Asian" category, not mixed. So again, it seems like if someone says their ancestry is both European and West Asian/Arab/Latin American, they are not counted as West Asian/Arab/Latin American, but "European", and thus, are not mixed, visible minorities, or people of colour. But, if European ancestry is checked off with a visible minority group that isn't West Asian/Arab/Latin American, they are included in the visible minority group.
 * "For example, respondents who checked both “South Asian” and “White” are included in the “South Asian” category. In addition, respondents who checked “South Asian” and had a write-in response such as “Swedish” would also be included in  the “South Asian” category."
 * Under these stipulations, one of China's 55 recognized ethnic minorities includes the Russians. Hypothetically, going by the census terms, a Chinese of Russian ethnicity can put that they're both "Chinese" and "Russian", and be presumably counted in the "Chinese" count, and thus, are visible minorities or "non-white" despite their European heritage and the general idea that European ancestry = "whiteness". Similarly, an Anglo-Indian of full or predominant British ancestry can say they're both "South Asian" and "English/British", and be included in "South Asian" count and thus, are "visible minorities" or "non-white". Even if they look completely Anglo-Saxon and would never be perceived as having Indian origins in everyday contexts.
 * The Canadian census also recognizes West Asians and Central Asians as being "Asian"; two Asian regions omitted from the definitions of "Asian" in other countries like say, the United States. But in popular context, they may just be referred to as "Middle Eastern [Canadians]" or something. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I will note (1) it makes no sense at all that Asian Canadians and Black Canadians have maps on their groups but European Canadians can't have one, (2) i will also note that in Black Canadians it says (also known as African-Canadians or Afro-Canadians). Why can't the same be said for European Canadians as [Euro-Canadians or White Canadians)??. becouse if thats bad, then its also bad for saying that African-Canadians as Black Canadians becouse people like Elon Musk (who is American but i will use his case) is said to be African but his White. and what about White South African Canadians where do you point them are they African-Canadians/Black Canadians or are they White-Canadians/European Canadians becouse thats what their roots are with British, European and Afrikaner ancestry.

Either way, my postion is that the map that Tweedle made should be on a page. either on a 'White Canadians' or 'European Canadians page. La lopi (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

European Canadians misnomer
Now we see the problem with using solely the Stats Canada reported value for "European Canadians". Anyone with some sense can see that this number is very underreported. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is why it's prudent to retain the population reporting/estimate consistency that's been used back to the 1981 census, otherwise it's plainly obvious (as you mention) that there is a severe undercount by using the "European Origins" population under the ethnicity tab. Van00220 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just corrected it to . <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry didn't realize that. I'll undo my most recent edits then. Van00220 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's some incontinency with what Stats Can reports. I thought we didn't use "white" however they use it in the link above. Perhaps better to go with an actual reported number though than one we derive with arithmetic? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. However, I believe the total population should be changed to 25,364,140 to retain consistency with the Stats Can news release today stating, "In 2021, just over 25 million people reported being White in the census, representing close to 70% of the total Canadian population. The vast majority reported being White only, while 2.4% also reported one or more other racialized groups." This number takes into account the total "White" population, and not just single responses. Source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm Van00220 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did you get 25,364,140? I don't see it. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From this source: . Single "White" responses (24,493,090 ) and also multiracial "White" responses (871,050). Total number aligns with the Stats Can news report stating just over 25 million Canadians reported being white (see in the new source I added in my last response). Van00220 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, that's fair. If you want to update the provinces chart I just updated it with single white before I knew this. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 20:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just updated it!Van00220 (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The recent changes made to the article to incorporate figures originally collected by SatCan for a different category (White) instead of the actual official data provided for self-reported ethnic origins (European) are contradictory to the results of the discussions over the previous two years (above). The use of this article as a proxy for one defined as a racial category instead uses a fundamentally incorrect flaw in categorization that cannot be coherently sourced. Using such self-produced "alternate facts" would strongly violate WP:OR, and also WP:V. Further, despite our desire to use the StatCan figures in a consistent manner for a Wikipedia article, the 2021 figures are explicitly stated as not comparable to those of previous years due to changes in the census questionnaire format. Additionally, there are problems with using the reported language percentages, since they include Portuguese-speaking immigrants from Brazil and southern Africa, French-speakers from the Caribbean and West Africa, and Spanish-speakers from South and Central America, Mexico and the Philippines, and are not directly correlated with persons reporting a European origin. Loopy30 (talk)
 * What do you make of the 25 million number? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Vaselineeeeeeee, the 25 million in the page you have linked to is found about three quarters the way through the document under the title "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". In it, the text explains that of the 25 million respondents that self-classified themselves as "White", 11.1% of them were born abroad - but their origins are not given. The next sentence attributes a European origin to 78.8% of white immigrants to Canada, but it is not clear if this is 78.8% of all white immigrants, or just those who immigrated to Canada prior to 1990. The most commonly reported ancestry origins of all White Canadians are also given, but White Canadians are not necessarily the same as European Canadians as discussed above. Overall, this StatCan news release talks a lot about White Canadians, but not European Canadians as a group, only a little bit about Canadians who identified as both white and of European ancestry. Mildly interesting perhaps, but not very helpful for us to use anything for this article. Loopy30 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Referencing issues
I've cleaned up a lot of the referencing issues due to recent changes in this article. , you made [this change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Canadians&type=revision&diff=1118731651&oldid=1118720178&diffmode=source] which deleted a lot of material, and also caused six or eight undefined reference errors, leaving key parts of the article unreferenced. Do you have a plan for addressing these problems? Maybe the unreferenced material is also meant to be deleted, since you said it was OR in your edit summary? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mikeblas, yes, I expect all the OR portions article will be deleted (or replaced, if sourcing can be found). Where refs are accidentally deleted, I can normally restore them on the next edit if a bot doesn't catch them first. Loopy30 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Charts
Talk at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board Moxy - 14:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ted Cruz
Why is there an obsession with referencing Ted Cruz as a member of the “European Canadian Diaspora”? 2601:703:200:DD40:9E9:545A:F032:DD72 (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)