Talk:English Canadians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Article Misstates Census Facts[edit]

The article misstates facts from Census Canada. It says that 17 million people described themselves as "English Canadian". In fact, less than 7 million did so. The authors of this article have apparently included the 10 million people who identified themselves ethnically as "Canadian".

Also, the photo at the top of the article is a racist slap in the face typical of ethnic English supremacists. The photo shows three people - the Right Honourable Sir John A. MacDonald, the Honourable Agnes MacPhail, and the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson - with the obvious intent to claiming they are ethnic English. I don't know about Pearson - he may have been an English-Canadian; but you don't need to look any further than their names to know that MacDonald and MacPhail are SCOTTISH-Canadians, NOT English!

Racist, racist, racist!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.255.142 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 1/2 Norwegian, 1/8 Irish, 1/8 French and 1/4 English (and whatever the first part of Shonfeld-Hodgkins might come from; that's one of my great-granny's maiden names...Dutch or German, doubt very much it was Jewish or we would have been told I'm sure) and I identify as an "English Canadian", which I take to be an ethnic sense only in terms of not-being-French-Canadian; I don't associate the term with my English ethnicity. Maybe with the hyphen it might mean that but I'm one of those Canadians offended by "hyphenism" and think it has been the ruin of this country, quite frankly. "English Canadian" in the way Canadians use it, and in paritcular in the way French Canadians use it, and our media, does not mean "Canadians of English ancetry" but "Canadians who identify with the English-speaking culture within Canada", which can include people like Ray Hnatyshyn, Moe Sihota and even Scotsmen like Gordon and Larry and Tom Campbell (then there's Kim and John). Are they Scottish-Canadians? - that would be their call, I'd say, but they are English Canadians and also Canadians of Scottish descent. But are they Scottish Canadians? You'd have to ask them. I certainly knew enough in my time, and true-to-the-brogue Scots like Jack Webster would qualify as a Scottish-Canadian but also as an English Canadian. It's not like anybody made all this up just to insult the English (though yes, at times, I'm sure it does feel like that....).Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article once more with a tiny amount of good will. It is not about race. Of course John A. Macdonald was ethnically 'Scottish'. (I don't know how anyone can be 'racially' Scottish). But he was also proudly, even devoutly and devotedly, Canadian: "I have the misfortune," said Macdonald during a speech in 1860 in St. Thomas, Ontario, quoted in Richard Gwyn's biography "...like my friend the deputy adjutant-general, to be a Scotchman, still I was caught young and was brought to this country before I was very much corrupted...Since I was five years old, I have been in Canada. All my hopes and dreams and remembrances are Canadian; not only are my principles and prejudices Canadian but what, as a Scotchman, I feel as much as anyone else, my interests are Canadian." Now, was Mr. Macdonald 'French Canadian'? I don't think so. Lord Durham found "'two' nations warring in the bosom of a single state." If one of those nations was the French Canadian nation (today's Québécois) the other was the nation we still awkwardly call 'English Canadian' as the term 'British Canadian' is not used. I'm not crazy about the term either. But there it is and this article attempts to grapple with the notion of what it is to be English Canadian in the broader sense. Corlyon (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needed: List of Canadians of English ancestry[edit]

...either as a section on this page or in its own right; since English-Canadian doesn't necessarily mean "Canadians of English ancestry". The Scots, Irish, Chinese, Ukrainians, Norwegians and nearly everybody else have such a list; it's only fitting that English should too. Once we figure out who they were (Scots, Irish/Anglo-Irish, Welsh and Cornish seem to be more visible/high-profile...or not?).Skookum1 07:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clippings" of new material on BC English-Canadians[edit]

The following is a copy-paste of an extenuation of my new additions to the article, which I indulged in last night before bed at length, then realized I wasn't writing a history/demography of BC and thought better to post it here; if someone can condense some of this into the article, or if maybe there should be a Demography of British Columbia article (if there isn't already) where this could go, and stuff like it. I was actually trying to write it from the aspect of the types of spoken English you're likely to hear in almost any BC town, far away from the ethnic-enclave multiculturalism of the Lower Mainland; the idea is that "offshore accents", no matter where they were from, in addition to specifically British and also American accents, have always been more common in BC than anywhere else in the country; or were until the rest of Canada was multiculturalized, which it never used to be (the Prairies were multiethnic but assimilation/cooperation/cohesion oriented, other than the Hutterites, Mennonites and Doukhobours...who I forgot to mention in the article overleaf and should be...

Inline comment brackets I'd written I've changed to round brackets to make visible. Towards the end of paragraphs I was getting talk page-ish as I realized I'd be transferring all this over here. Main cite is the book mentioned in the edit comment previous; Strangers Entertained, 1971, BC Govt Centennial Publ, not sure which publisher (might be custom job), but standard resource for BC immigration history for "all groups", although not as detailed as could be; too compressed, but lots of stuff, for sure. That's all for tonoight; it's 1:58 am and I'm off to bed....

"Since colonial times, BC has also had the country's highest share of non-British Europeans (!--historically Germans, Scandinavians, and European French, Belgians included especially but I'm not sure how to word that without even more clutter--). After World War I, Italians and Yugoslavians came in large numbers, and after World War II, Germans, Dutch, Poles, Finns, Hungarians, and people from the Baltic countries, with newer migrations of Czechs post-1967 and Greeks in the early 1970s. This earlier wave of immigration, including the historical Chinese and Japanese populations, had become completely anglicized. In the 21st Century, a sizeable influx of Latin-Americans began, including many Mexicans, Hondurans, Colombians and Brazilians, as well as a new Eastern European influx, predominantly Russian and Polish. The result is that in almost any town or neighbourhood in British Columbia, historically and to this day, the spoken English one hears is likely accented in one way or another, even in families and communities where other languages are never used, .
"British Columbia retains some of its "British ethnic" flavour partly because it remain a favourite retirement area for expats from around the Empire, as it has been throughout its existence, and in areas like Rockland, Fairfield and Oak Bay, English and other British accents remain common. Although British identity in BC remains focussed on Victoria, it was also strong on the Mainland especially prior to the Great War, when Scottish accents in were the most commonly heard in Vancouver, from both working and upper classes. Some Canadian historians express a certain horror when they recount how it was easier in Vancouver to buy The Times of London, The Daily Telegraph and other British papers in the newsstands of Victoria, Vancouver, West and North Vancouver, New Westminster, as well as in the Okanagan, when Toronto and Montreal papers were rarely seen or bothered with. The English presence in the City of Vancouver was most noticeable in the Kerrisdale, South Granville and West End neighbourhoods, where shops catered to English tastes and style. In the Interior, the Okanagan in particular was British-settled, with a concentration of better-off upper and upper middle-class settlers enticed by realtors' visions of the genteel orcharding and ranching life, with British country and salon society transplanted whole to the homes and clubs of Kelowna and Penticton, as well as "hordes of remittance men" {!--that's a quote from somewhere; I'll cite it if I remember which article/essay/editorial--} and junior scions of "good family" who were reduced to working as doormen and waiters at country clubs; as with Vancouver and the towns of the Lower Mainland, British expat society - which had reached a peak in the Edwardian era - in BC was shattered by the Great War. The story of the empty town of Walhachin, an upper-crust orcharding colony complete with ballrooms, grand piano and literary readings, died when all the men went off to war, is symbolic of that vanished society, and Kelowna and Penticton have lost nearly all of their one-time British high-society/gentry manners and cultivated cricket-tennis-and-tea lifestyle (epitomized in the film My American Cousin by the khaki and near-jodhpurs worn by the heroine's father).

I could have gone on, but stopped after completing various bits within ot as I'd realized it's more a propos for another article, or for condensation; these are matters which relate to the character and composition of the "English-Canadian" population of BC, however, so should be included in some way if condensable. It strikes me that there maybe should be an article on British immigratioh to British Columbia, as it is a very distinct (and citable) history and culture/society from the British element in the rest of the country; although British immigration to Canada and the aforementioned Canadians of English ancestry seem like necessary articles as well.Skookum1 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I admit it's a tricky article to do because of the indeterminate boundaries of what can be meant by 'English Canadian'. At its very broadest it's a convenient (albeit sloppy and inaccurate) catch-all for Canadians who aren't of aboriginal ancestry or don't speak French or another language as their first language. But many of those persons would not self-identify as 'English-Canadian' so the broadest definition doesn't do. I think some people may put themselves in two or more categories simultaneously, depending on context, so I didn't want the article to be unreasonably exclusivist either. As my parents were born in Ireland, I tend to consider myself 'Irish-Canadian' from a purely 'ethnic' perspective and retain some cultural ties to that background; but on the other hand, linguistically and culturally I would class myself with the 'English-Canadians' even though in my case any actual ethnic 'English' ancestry is a long long time ago. I know that is some of the other Wikipedia articles on ethnic groups and peoples there have been some pretty heated discussions and nasty disagreements about issues of ethnicity.
Not always ethnic articles either; individual bios can go that way, with lots of fire and thunder; see Talk:Nikola Tesla. On the other hand Talk:Chinese Canadian gets a bit creepy...Skookum1 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention 'Strangers Entertained' as I'm sure we have a copy around the house and I was looking for it the other day and all I could find was another BC Centennial publication "It Happened in British Columbia" which had nothing useful.Corlyon 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Corlyon[reply]

I used to have that too, maybe still do. Yes, quite useless, along with a lot of other similar publications.Skookum1 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Canadian of English descent → English Canadian – - article deals with colloquial use of "English Canadian" which is used by some to mean anglophone Canadian, as the article discusses - I erroneously renamed it Mayumashu 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from WP:RM and moved the request back to the top of the queue, to allow a chance for discussion of this proposed move. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as an article rather than a cat, we have to use the most common usage of the average user. Kevlar67 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because English Canadian can have a different context than Canadians of English descent, which is more precise; it's different than e.g. Category:Canadians of Norwegian descent vs Category:Norwegian Canadians because there is no broader Norwegian Canadian community, but even there there's a distinction (the former can be people who do not self-identify as Norwegian/Norwegian Canadian). In the case of English Canadian the secondary, but by far more widespread, meaning of someone from "English Canada", or a Canadian who speaks English, is an entirely different thing than some of English descent; whether it's the Slavs, Scandinavians/Germans and Asians in the West or the Scottish in the Maritimes and Central Canada; they're English Canadian, but not (necessarily) of English descent.Skookum1 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not the usage used in Canada. English Canadian is a Canadian whose primary language is English. (nothing about ethnicity), just as French Canadian is a Canadian whose primary language is French. Significant portions of the French Canadian community carry names from the British Isles. 70.55.88.134 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support' restoration of namimg that was screwed up. 70.55.88.134 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Different meanings in Canada, in most part due to the French/English history. You have people who may be be of English descent but also be French-Canadian, for reasons other than ethnic origin. It doesn't work. --Keefer4 07:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - We should have two articles, one on people from English Canada and the other on Canadians of English ancestry. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to English Canadian. The article deals with Canadians who speak English, not those of English descent. Any information about Canadians of English descent should be split into another article. –Pomte 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Two different sets of people. As Keefer4 pointed out, there are Francophones whose families hail from England, and as well there are many English Canadians whose families came from many other countries, including those in the British Isles......for example Dalton McGuinty is not of English descent, but is generally considered to be an English Canadian. Wikipedia should have an article on each of the topics, with a cross-reference, to emphasize the distinction in our society. PKT 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see that this article does need to be split, but I guess it's still oppose because the actual question is whether to move or not, regardless of past mistakes. I guess I'll actually say split to define it correctly. Bottom line two articles: Canadian of English descent and English-Canadian, for reasons all have stated whether 'oppose' or 'support'. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure that what needs to happen here is a move, by definition. A copy/paste of some of what is here to English-Canadian while retaining the relevant portions (there are some) in this article. I dunno...--Keefer4 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
The consensus seems to be that separate, inter-linked, articles are required for Canadian of English descent and English Canadian (or, perhaps English-Canadian). Since this is bound to require copying and pasting between articles, no explicit page moves are necessary, since each page will effectively be re-written.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inane discussion[edit]

I can't believe we decided not to rename the article. The entire article, with the possible exception of a couple of lines at the beginning on Newfoundland, is about English Canadians, an extremely important concept here, based on English as a language, not an ethnicity. Canadians of English descent (thus, ethnicity) is a marginal notion in comparison. Sure, historically, we can look at Canadians who were born or whose ancestors were born in England, but even that is less important than, for example, Canadians of British descent. And now we have to wait for someone to write an article of marginal interest, at best, on the Canadians whose ancestors happen to be from England, because someone made a mistake (and admitted it) and changed the name in the first place. It's sad, really. --SteveMtl 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was perhaps a little negative. A positive proposal: re-rename the article to English-Canadians (there's almost nothing to split) and someone who has an interest in Canadians of English descent can write an article on that very different topic.--SteveMtl 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also baffled at first because the lead clearly talks about English Canadians (no hyphen; see French Canadian and all those other X Canadian articles). I think the problem is the History section, which deals with people coming over from the United Kingdom as well as Ireland for some reason (Canadians of Irish descent already exists). Who has been planning to do the split into two coherent articles, so that we don't have to push for a move to English Canadian in the meanwhile? –Pomte 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed much of the history section to this article when it was titled "English Canadians" and not "Canadians of English Descent", which is why the article deals with a broader spectrum of people than just Canadians who can trace their ancestry to England itself. The text of the article was subsequently moved to "Canadians of English Descent" and I requested that it be moved back to its original home, which would necessitate the creation of the separate article.Corlyon 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon[reply]
It's obvious that what is ordinarily meant by English Canadian is an English-speaking Canadian, not a Canadian of English descent. Would anybody say that Daniel Johnson, Jr is an English Canadian? Obviously there will be a large amount of overlap because most Canadians who are not of English descent but speak English natively have adopted the culture of those Canadians who are of British descent. There really is no need for an article on Canadians of English descent because little can be said about them that cannot, now, be said about English Canadians in general. (For example, if your great-grandparents were Ukrainian, and you're a Manitoban, you may well eat pierogies, but you probably also eat pancakes and Canadian-style sliced bread. On the other hand, you probably don't eat tourtière like French Canadians. That makes you an English Canadian.) At most, a list of famous people could be given. Everything like culture, food, sports, etc., would belong under English Canadian. Joeldl 06:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB Daniel Johnson's name is actually Irish (not English). The rest of his ancestry, and his family, is pretty much francophone Québécois.--SteveMtl 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. There seems now to be a consensus that the subject of this article is English Canadians. So, what do we do? Can we ingore the discussion above and simply rename it? I'm not a regular on English wikipedia, so i don't know what the solution is, but i would suggest simply renaming it, without further discussion. --SteveMtl 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it for another day or so to see if anyone really objects to the move before I try it. (English Canadian reserve, of course) I think, reading some of the comments from people who objected above, that they may have thought that this would eliminate the opportunity for an article on 'Canadians of English Descent' if that was felt necessary. I myself have no real interest in doing so, but someone may want to tackle it. I've noticed that the link to this article from "English Canada" has been broken in the last couple of days as well, so that "English Canadians" just takes you back to "English Canada" in a Groundhog Day loop. I've never seen that before in Wikipedia.Corlyon 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon[reply]
Many of the people who opposed the move said that they thought these were different notions, and I don't disagree with that. None of them, as far as I can tell, actually said that the current article, which spent virtually its entire history as English Canadian, more closely reflected the content that would be appropriate for Canadian of English descent. Somebody said that some things should be copied and pasted. But it seems to me that that should be done from English Canadian to Canadian of English descent, if at all, not vice versa. Joeldl 06:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes, heroines and national myths[edit]

Just read through this, expecting to find Vimy and Dieppe, which the CBC regularly inflicts us with annual documentaries and talkshows and other puffpieces about. Definitely part of the national mythology and so far there's only one mention of Vimy, in a previous section; not sure abot Dieppe. Haven't quite read the whole section in detail yet, only done a scan, but the peacekeeping mythology (recently extinguished by our government/brass) is part of the national myth, also. Or more like "international good guy", which is certainly our conceit (despite being in some ways as domestically corrupt as Mexico....). An old professor/teacher of mine opined years ago that national myths were always a lie, and that includes of course the national self-image; conciliation, cooperation and moderation is the myth, likewise "peace, ordeer and good government", so much so that got enshrined in teh 1982 Cosntitution; but really this place isn't about that; it's about near-absolute authority, (ab)use of official power (legislative, juridicial or outright violence or threat of it, quite commonly in fact...) and poitical extremes (esp. in BC....).Skookum1 05:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add those if there are reliable sources (or not, as the article is largely unsourced). –Pomte 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Have copied and pasted the material to English-Canadian from "Canadian of English Descent" as the English Canadian article deals with people in the broader linguistic/cultural context rather than narrower ethnic one. Canadians of English Descent can be used for material focussing exclusively on Canadians of English ancestry. I see no point in continuing the existence of the "Canadian of English Descent" article.Corlyon 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon[reply]

Please do not perform cut and paste moves, which disrupt the edit history. That is what Wikipedia:Requested moves is for; even if it takes a while, it will get the job done. –Pomte 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was On April 4, Mayumashu requested a move. I will reproduce the text from WP:RM below. Joeldl 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move The reason the expressions English Canadian and French Canadian are often, and I would say usually, used in a sense broader than mere ethnic origin is because these are necessary concepts that are more important than ethnic origin. It is a reality in Canada that most non-Aboriginal people who have "been" in Canada for one or two generations identify with one of these two groups, even when they may additionally have other ethnic identities such as Ukrainian, Italian, or Jewish. They usually speak English or French natively (after two generations, say, with some exceptions), and adopt many elements of the culture of one of these two groups. There is little doubt, in my mind, that it would be appropriate to regard such people as Ray Hnatyshyn and Mordecai Richler as English Canadian, regardless of the fraction of their ancestry that was British. Even foreign-born Canadians can usually be identified with one group or the other. For example, Adrienne Clarkson is usually regarded as English Canadian and fr:Marco Micone as French Canadian, despite being born in Hong Kong and Italy, respectively. This kind of distinction would make little sense in a country with a single dominant language such as the United States, and that is perhaps why there might be some confusion for non-Canadians addressing this question.
While there might be reasons to have a page about Canadians of English descent, it is appropriate for most of the current content of this page to be regarded as belonging to all English-speaking Canadians. For example, the history of early settlement by English colonists could be regarded by some as only concerning Canadians of English descent, but in my view, this belongs to all English Canadians (in the linguistic sense) now. They are all part of a society with a common collective memory that has evolved over time, largely, though not completely, separately from French Canadian society, and which traces its cultural roots to the English-language culture of its British and American Loyalist settlers, in the same way that most Americans, whether or not they are of English descent, view the arrival of the Pilgrims as part of their history. One might be tempted to object that the same thing could be said about Canada as a whole. However, English and French Canadians usually view their histories as being distinct but interrelated.
On a practical level, to illustrate that these cultural groups are based on linguistic rather than ethnic criteria today, English and French Canadians have little awareness of each other's celebrities. (Few English Canadians could name a Robert Charlebois song, and few French Canadians could name one by Sarah McLachlan.) And whether your ancestors are English, Scottish, Italian, or Ukrainian has very little bearing on how much you know about Sarah McLachlan. The main thing is your language.
Since the vast majority (probably over 95%) of the current content belongs at English Canadian rather than Canadian of English descent, and was written at a time when the article's title was English Canadian, there is little point destroying the edit history by starting English Canadian anew. The article should just be moved to English Canadian and any copying and pasting that needs to be done to start Canadian of English descent should be done after that. In fact, the article List of Canadians of English descent would be a fine start. Joeldl 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason as last time. –Pomte 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons expressed above in this section. --SteveMtl 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think - I'm kinda confused; this isn't a merge-style move, but a break-out of English-ethnic from English-as-anglophone right? Some of the language confuses me: The article should just be moved to English Canadian and any copying and pasting that needs to be done to start Canadian of English descent should be done after that. Which is odd because this article already exists; I guess you mean in a re-started state, yes?Skookum1 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that at least 95% (if not 100%) of this article belongs under English Canadian, so we may as well move this article to English Canadian, and either start the other article from scratch or excise portions of this article. I would favour starting it from scratch because the parts about people of British descent are important to English Canadians as a whole and should be here as well. I actually don't see what can be done with the other article beyond what's at Canadians of English descent, but perhaps some relevant portions of this article could be copied. Joeldl 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

There seems to be a big mess surrounding these articles. It might have been better to combine those that needed combining in advance, to make it clearer which article belongs where. Currently, English Canada and English Canadians both redirect to English Canadian, while English-Canadian is different, with Canadian of English descent as a third article, although Canadians of English descent redirects not there, but to List of Canadians of English descent. I hope that someone has got a plan on how all this should be sorted out. In the meanwhile, I have replaced the redirect at English Canadian with a simple redirect, so that this article can be moved there by anyone. Other redirects that need to be deleted can be tagged with {{db-move}}, or ask me directly. --Stemonitis 09:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Somebody has decided to exclude Quebec from the infobox. There are 600,000 English Canadians in Quebec, which is more than PEI, New Brunswick or Newfoundland, unless I'm mistaken. In the population, they may also have included many non-English Canadians who live outside Quebec. The "place" should be Canada, and the population should probably be mother-tongue speakers of English in Canada. I will make the changes. Joeldl 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the "significant" in "Regions with significant populations" means. It may exclude a province with a high number of English Canadians because the ratio of English to other is low. I think the section should be removed altogether to avoid subjectivity and being misleading. It's pretty obvious that the English population is significant in most populated regions of Canada, and the article should reflect this in prose. –Pomte 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed your suggestion and misunderstood. What about "Most of Canada"? –Pomte 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think "Canada" is appropriate. I particularly object to "except Quebec and Nunavut" (I understand that you didn't put that there). As I said, 600,000 anglophones live in Quebec. Over a quarter of Nunavut residents are Anglophone, and it's likely that most of them are non-Aboriginal. Joeldl 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that number is actually closer to 1 000 000. My mother tongue is not English, but I speak it home. There are more English-speaking Canadians in Quebec than all of the Maritimes. --Soulscanner (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Symbols section[edit]

If English Canadians have no symbols specific to themselves, why is there a section on this in the article? Should this not go under Canadian identity or some other article on pan-Canadian identity? --Soulscanner 11:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to English-speaking Canadian[edit]

The article should be moved to English-speaking Canadian, English Canadian should be moved to a disambiguation page containing the dictionary definition and links to the relevant articles. This would be consistent with articles on English-speaking Quebecer or Swedish-speaking Finn, which have made similar moves to emphasize that these are linguistic and not ethnic groups. --Soulscanner 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One also needs to take into account the content of the page. If you look at the demographic statistics on this page, they all generally refer to people that are English-speaking (i.e. anglophone). Hence, although there are occasional, mostly uncited claims about identity on this page, I think the main topic here is that of a linguistic group. "English-speaking Canadian" is more precise and consistent with the subject here. Literate Canadians (sociologists, government agencies, journalists, linquists, etc.) use the term English and French-speaking Canadian to distinguish Canada's two linguistic communities in the context discussed on this page. The term "English Canadian" as it refers to a person is more a question of identity, as it would be with Italian or Japanese Canadian. In that sense, most people in Canada identify with ethnicity as opposed to language. We would call David Suzuki Japanese-Canadian (I think he'd refer to himself that way too), and that make sense considering the history of most Japanese Canadians is somewhat distinct from that of other Canadians. It would be less common to thing of him as English Canadian, unless we were talking in a linguistic context. It is Canadians of old Anglo-Celtic stock (English, Scots, and Irish) that have forged cohesive identity early in the 20th century and hence are referred to as English Canadian. Someone like Don Cherry could not be mistaken for anything but English Canadian. Therefore, an article named "English Canadian" should focus more on those who identify English Canadian as opposed to someone who speaks English. --Soulscanner (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - for reasons stated above--Soulscanner 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Kevlar67 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. English Canadian is the common name for English-speaking Canadians. It's not our fault if the term sounds like an ethnic group. We should reflect the way things are, not what is convenient. Cop 663 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True but is it also the common name for ethnically English people is Canada, hence the need for disambiguation. Basically the opening paragraph is fine, but then all the subsquent material should be moved to Anglophone Canadians. "Anglophone" and "Anglo" are common terms in Canada too. Either that or it should all be moved to Spoken languages of Canada or a new Language demographics of Canada to match Language demographics of Quebec. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just split to English Canadian (ethnic group) and English Canadian (linguistic group). That would solve the problem and reflect how people actually talk. Cop 663 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a better arrangement than the current one. But the linguistic group is generally referred to as English-speaking, not English in the academic literature; we keep track of language in Canada far more than we keep track of ethnicity. Our constitution is base in part on French/English language duality. Also, the ethnic group is not of English ethnicity exclusively; it is English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. The problem here is that English Canadian is largely a historical term. It describes the identity of Loyalist, British, and Irish immigrants who forged a common identity in the 19th and early 20th century based on British culture and loyalty to the British Crown. It is really more of an identity than a ethnic one. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People in Canada use the term English Canadian all the time, and it's clear they don't mean to exclude people of Scottish or Irish descent, at the very least. And I'd go as far as to say nobody would give a second thought to calling David Suzuki "English Canadian". This is the reason: the term exists because it can be opposed to "French Canadian", and David Suzuki speaks English, not French. And to a language group is attached a certain culture, which must be described. That includes literature, food, pop culture, a collective perspective on history, etc. Having the article at English-speaking Canadian or English Canadian (linguistic group) would trivialize that reality. "English Canadians" are the cultural group in question. "English-speaking Canadians" is just a convenient way of defining them, not their name. Joeldl (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take issue with the user who said that any BRITISH descended person considers themself an "English Canadian". As a SCOTTISH Canadian, I am an Anglophone and English-speaking Canadian, but I am not English by ancestry, and therefore not an "English Canadian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.15.187 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • move. To Joeld: caring for what words people are using in Canada or elsewhere is the job of Wikitionary. On Wikipedia, one should care only on what serious ethnologists or linguists are saying. Wikipedia is not about popular ethnological beliefs. It is about serious ethnological facts. Teofilo talk 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Composition[edit]

That ethnic composition table ios very wrong!!! There are 1.1 million Ukrainians, 0.9 million Polish, 1.3 million Italians. Just check Statcan Ehtnic groups Canada 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to the number of Canadians of Italian ethnic origin, etc., not the number of English-speaking Canadians (in the sense of having English as one's mother tongue) of Italian ethnic origin. Many Italian Canadians have Italian or French, not English, as their mother tongue, and they are not counted in the table. Joeldl (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic data in infobox[edit]

These are the data from the census. I find it hard to believe that only 6 million people in Canada have English ancestry. The fact that the number one ethnic origin reported in the census is "Canadian" suggests that there are indeed many more. Also, and I'll admit this is speculative, I have the feeling people might underreport "English" (which is seen as pretty boring) when they have multiple British Isles origins, and focus instead on Scottish and Irish. In any case, the "Canadian" problem alone is enough to throw the numbers off completely.

For these reasons, I think that the infobox, where it is difficult to provide appropriate context, is not the right place to include census numbers on ethnicity. If an estimate can be found from a reliable source that claims to compensate somehow for the problems associated with self-reporting, then its inclusion might be appropriate. In the meantime, I would favour removing the numbers on English ethnicity from the infobox on the basis that they're potentially misleading. Joeldl (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point that I'm not making this problem up, here's the abstract of

Who are the "Canadians"?: Changing census responses, 1986-1996, Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, Spring, 2001 by Monica Boyd, Doug Norris:

  • "At the close of the twentieth century, "Canadian" has become the fastest growing ethnic origin group, up from 0.5 percent in 1986 to nearly 4 percent in 1991 and to 31 percent in the 1996 census of Canada. From what groups did this "indigenous" label draw in the five years between the 1986-1991 and the 1991-1996 censuses? Using unpublished tabulations from the 1986, 1991 and 1996 Canadian censuses, this paper traces temporal shifts for a cohort of the Canadian-born age 25-44 in 1986 (and age 34-54 by 1996). We find that most of the increases between 1986 and 1991 in "Canadian" ethnic origin responses are accompanied by intercensal losses in British origin responses. Between 1991 and 1996, increasing Canadian responses went hand in hand with dramatic losses in both the British and French ethnic origin counts. In some provinces, notably the Prairie provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, shifts also occurred out of other ethnic groups." Joeldl (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians of English ethnicity[edit]

The preceding discussions point to the need for a separate article on Canadians of English ethnicity; the usual and MOST COMMON meaning of "English Canadian" is an anglophone Canada. Particularly LOL from the French perspective. I'm of mixed ancestry but decidedly an English Canadian (including 1/4 English ethnicity). If this separation is not made there will be endless quibbling about this article. And I'm also one of those people who, in addition to marking Norwegian, Irish, French (from France) and English on my census forms, also marked "Canadian"...One thing to note about "Canadian" is that many who marked that made no other ethnic indiction; i.e. they self-identify as Canadians, and Canadians only; and those aren't necessarily English or French or white or anything else. Canadian ethnicity should probably also be its own article....which would probably be difficult to keep from being Original Reserach, however .Skookum1 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians of English ancestry is probably already extant as a title/redirect - note that there is a distinction between "ethnicity" and "ancestry". Ethnicity is partly about self-identification; ancestry is about where the (great-)grandfolks came from etc.Skookum1 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm neither of those titles are in use. Why would that be?Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadians of English descent does exist, and appears in a disambiguation note. I agree with your sentiment, to a point. A strict separation isn't possible because of the overlap of the two groups. I agree that this article should be about the linguistic group, but it will naturally include much information about English settlers and their early descendants, who were the most influential group in founding what could be called the English Canadian nation, whose membership largely follows linguistic lines and now includes people of practically all ethnic origins. That these other people became part of the nation is a fundamental element of its history. Joeldl (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of category:Ethnic groups in Canada[edit]

As the introduction is saying, they belong to a multitude of ethnicities. So they are not one ethnic group. Therefore they do not belong to category:Ethnic groups in Canada. It might be a popular belief or a political keyword, but not an ethnic group defined by serious university ethnologists. Teofilo talk 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying stinks and smacks of "Canadians do not have a culture". "Canadian" is the dominant ethnic self-identifier in Census CAnada, and is therefore an ethnicity (as ethnos is a self-defining thing). And as someone of mixed Norwegian, French, Irish and English descent, I'm English Canadian by ethnicity. Ethnicity has nothing to do with background/descent, it has to do with self-identification. It's ludicrous and juvenile to claim that English Canadian is not an ethnic group; French Canadians certainly perceive us as one, as do the many "new Canadians" whose ethnicity remains primarily that of their country of origin (as also attested by Census Canada). If you removed that category, I'm putting it back.Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not put it back until you can make your claim verifiable by quoting a serious author saying the same as what you are saying. Teofilo talk 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is offensive and contrary to what is required; YOU must produce a cite saying "English Canadian is not an ethnicity" - your claim that the text of a wikipedia article is sufficient "proof" is also utterly laughable. A "serious author" could and probably does include Peter Newman, Pierre Berton, Pierre Trudeau (who spoke of English Canadians as a nation, just as the French Canadians are spoken of as a nation, i.e. nation in the French sense, an ethnicity). I've put the category back where it belongs, and it's that opening wording that needs fixing - "multitude of nationalities" was the phrase in my day (b.1955) though "nationality" has a complicated meaning, but so does ethnicity. Just because something is composed of a "multitude of ethnicities" doesn't mean it can't also be an ethnicity itself. Especially if it sees itself that way. The asme would easily be true of the French (in France), Spaniards, Russians, Germans and Italians and many other macro-ethnicities. Again, and as defined by Census Canada, ethnicity is defined by self-identification, not by someone from another ethnic group saying "this ethnic group does not exist because I don't think it's right", which is really the only argument you're making.Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous your position is; even the English (in England) are composed "of a multitude of ethnicities", and I don't mean (but can also mean) modern-day ethnic groups; I'm meaning the Cornish, the Geordies, and the history of Brythons/Britons, Picts, Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Normans and others who make up the fabric of English ethnicity.....your entire position here smacks of ethno-POV baggage....and it doesn't help that you turn out to be French, considering the history of French bigotry towards the English, and French-Canadian resentment and bigotry against English Canadians....."they're all the same" is a common theme in such bigotry, and that in and of itself is a demonstration of the perceived unified ethnic identity of English Canadians as seen from outside. Your claims is original research and also reeks of the usual hostile attitudes towards English Canadian culture found among francophones; please take it elsewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skookum1 current position 100%...no need to say more..Skookum1 has said all i would say ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skookum1's position on keeping the 'ethnic groups in Canada' category but not without acknowledging the difficulties created by the inescapable fact that it is a challenge to pigeonhole ethnic groups that are in constant evolution. But a French Canadian can be a descendant of Irish ancestors, mixed with French. Yet some Scottish-Canadians might resist being labelled English-Canadian (See above tirade from Anonymous IP, as an example) There is a core group where language and ethnicity overlap, and then there are the rest of us, descended from a variety of ethnic origins with a little more or a little less 'English' in the mix, but culturally and ultimately ethnically we self-identify as English-Canadian. It's awkward terminology, but it's pretty well understood, still used commonly and the most useful we have. Corlyon (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox pictures[edit]

According to the infobox, the picture to the right of Pearson is that of Lennox Lewis, which it is not. I cannot figure out who it is. However given the collage's deliberately broad use of the term English, hence the appearance of Toronto-born Pearson, the British-born to Jewish parents from Bavaria Aaron Hart, and the Lebanese-born of English, Native Hawaiian, Chinese, Irish, and Portuguese ancestry Keanu Reeves, as well as a few others. It would make sense in my mind to add the British-born to Jamaican parents Lewis' picture, if for no other reason than to illustrate the broad use of the term by including a black man in the collage. The objective of these collage is to illustrate the broad spectrum of the specific demographic. We should however make sure that the current person next to Pearson does not provide a unique characteristic, lest we replace one unique subject with another. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on English Canadian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on English Canadian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

move[edit]

This article needs to be moved to English Canadians. Gringo300 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English Canadian. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2017[edit]

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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Canadian → English Canadians – WP:PRECISE correct spelling Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 "English 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)[reply]
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.

WP:OR issues[edit]

This article consists of section after section of unsourced content. I've tagged it for having WP:OR issues, plus needing (far) more reliable sources for content within the body of the article. All in all, however, it's in dire need of a good clean up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has largely been abandoned even from the very beginning, as pointed out, look at all the unsourced material and it’s been there for years. There are enough census statistics about the Canadians who self-identified since 1871 with ‘English’ ethnic origins. With history of course. Perhaps a new title of Canadians of English origins..or along the lines... the English-speaking Canadians are a large group and for example include even people of French ethnic origins who left Quebec..they may use English as their first language but are still of French ethnic origins. Linguistically, it partly overlaps but not all British settlers were English in origin. In the 2016 census, 23 million Canadians said English was their sole language..with 6 million choosing English as their ethnic origin..even if that is a likely undercount. There surly is enough information to have two “specific” articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.165 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_Canadians&oldid=1207117303"