Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Canadian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Canadian

I believe this article's topic to be something that neither requires nor merits a Wikipedia article. I believe that the current low quality of the article (which seems to be not much more than a recitation of demographic statistics with the addition of a single paragraph of not-fully-relevant history) does not, as some might suggest, mean that the article should be improved. I believe, instead, that it demonstrates that a Wikipedia-quality article cannot be written on this topic. The poor article quality is, of course, just a symptom of the lack of encyclopedic nature of this topic. First, I believe that this article has been created to bolster a school of thought which believes that this identity exists. An article on that sort of racialized thinking might be valid, of course, but that's not the same thing as creating an article which should only exist if you buy into their belief system.

As an example of the sort of confused thinking that must have lead to the creation of this article, the "Ethnic group" infobox template has been used. However, this confounds the concept of a skin colour and an "ethnicity". Ethnicity, as reported by Statistics Canada (for example), includes most national identities that can be seriously considered. "Quebecois" (apologies for lack of accents) is included, as is "Canadian", "Irish", "Lebanese" and "Ethiopian". THOSE are ethnicities (or at least, they're worthy of Wikipedia articles, because they clearly encompass a set of people who understand themselves by the label. However, the set of people who understand their own ethnicity to be "White Canadian" is very different from the set of people described by the label.

Finally, I will head off the most obvious and useless argument - which has been used both in the article and on its talk page. In fact, the first sentence of the article is, I believe, nothing more than an attempt to justify the very existence of the article. Any article that must do that is on shaky ground.) The argument basically says that because StatsCan counts it, it must be a valid article. This is an irrelevant point, as StatsCan counts numerous things that are not worthy of articles - can you picture an article with the title "Single Family Dwellings in Kenora" ??? AshleyMorton 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can I expect to see White American and White British nominated for deletion as well? - Eron ^Talk 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly not by me. I don't believe that I'm someone who can comment on those groups' existence within the milieu of the countries in question. However, I would certainly have the immediate reaction that the concept of "White American" certainly is much more present in the mass media of that country than the concept of "White Canadian" is in Canadian mass media, making "White American" more article-worthy than "White Canadian". AshleyMorton 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Ashley Morton, I agree that the term confounds color and ethnicity. I primarily consider the term to imply the physical description of light-colored people which would not be an ethnicity, but my sources I used for citation said it meant European ancestry. In the sense that white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry, white is in fact an ethnicity. I consider the "single family dwelings in Kenora" to be a poor analogy. Surely, not everything should be an article on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia considers ethnic groups to be noteworthy. User:AshleyMorton claim "Canadian" is noteworthy enough to warrant an article, but aren't recent Chinese Canadians culturally or if I may ethnically different from European descent Canadians with a long history in Canada? If your definition Ashley Morton of ethnicity revolves around history and culture, European Canadians have a separate culture from other Canadian groups like Aboriginal Canadians.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—"White Canadian" is only defined by StatsCan by what it is not: not a member of a category of visible minority, as defined by the Employment Equity Act.[1][2] StatsCan does not associate white with any ethnic origin.[3] The article's reference to Latin America comes from the assumptions made for one specific labour study, which don't belong here: they are being used by some editors to add an unjustified white European slant to this article. Furthermore, the categories are self-reported and may be written in, so the definitions of ethnic groups are loose, and not encyclopedically defined. Some of the material in this article regarding ethnic origins belongs in Demographics of Canada or ethnic groups of Canada, but there is no justification for or definition of "white Canadian", by skin colour. Associating StatsCan's category of "white" with any ethnic group is original research. —Michael Z. 2006-12-04 20:54 Z

Keep--In response to Mzajac, a defintion defined by exclusion is still a clear defintion. If a White Canadian is a Canadian who is not a visible minority and we know who Statistics Canada considers a "visible minority", then we know who is defined as a White Canadian. It is true that anybody of any ancestral background could fill in the White Canadian category on the Canadian Census, but this is true of most censuses. The US Census has clear racial definitions, but on census day people mark whatever box they feel like.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a precedent for similar articles, such as Black Canadian, White American, White British, White Australian, African American, Asian American, Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, Asian Canadian, and Arab American. Either they — and all similar articles — should all stay, or they should all be deleted. There is no logical justifiation for singling out White Canadian for deletion. Spylab 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the eventual outcome, this argument doesn't hold. If an article were created called "White Newfoundlander", for instance, it would be even more tenuous than this one. How about "Iberian Canadian" (to lump together people from Portugal and Spain", or "North Asian Canadian" - my point is, simply because you can categorize a group of people and put them under a single label, does NOT mean that that categorization holds equal value to the encylopedia project as all other groups. "Chinese Canadian" - of course! That has to stay - it's a group with many elements of common history, identity, etc., etc., etc. Most relevantly, most members of the group see that as group to which they belong. I and many other white Canadians do not see "White Canadians" as a *group* to which we belong. Similarly, we clearly should not have an article for "Canadians who own umbrellas", because that group does not see itself as a group, and even though it has common elements (nationality, umbrella-owning-status). So, yes there IS logical justification for "singling out" White Canadian - it does not share the other common traits or historical identities that ethnic or cultural groups that have legitimate articles share. AshleyMorton 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic (which I don't think holds water), then White American, White British, White Australian, White people and any similar articles should be deleted as well. You have not explained why white Canadian should be singled out for deletion.Spylab 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, to be clear, I'm not using a categorization to disagree with the existence of white Canadian. I'm simply arguing that it, as a group, as an "identity", doesn't meet the sort of criteria to be in the same place as many of those other ones you list. I suspect that if I knew more about the circumstance, White Australian might also be something of which I'd support the deletion, but that's key - I don't know. I DO, on the other hand, know about the circumstances of fair-skinned people in Canada. I am one, and I know many. In short, they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour. At that point, it is either labelling for the sake of labelling (at which point my "umbrella" example is relevant) OR it is a strategy to foist this identity upon the world, as if it is an existent subject. That, I believe would be Wikipedia inventing the world, not Wikipedia describing the world. ...and that's not okay. AshleyMorton 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering this point, if these other articles are equal in quality and inanity to White Canadian, they should be deleted. There's no onus to be "fair" and allow every insipid article to spawn a thousand copycats because it's slipped under the radar. --MattShepherd 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "they have nothing in common OTHER than their skin colour" applies just as much to White American, White British, White Australian and white people. There is absolutely nothing that makes the situation of white Canadians any different. For example, even in the UK, where it can be argued that whites are the indigeonous population (instead of immigrants), there are differences between English, Scottish, Scots-Irish (in Northern Ireland), Welsh and Cornish cultures. There are even differences in culture within those groups (such as south and north England), different economic classes, different subcultures and other differences that lead to a non-homogoneous culture. Spylab 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. From a quick look at the respective articles, it appears that "white British" and "white Australian" are both defined by a census question about ethnicity, and the British article specifically addresses the cultural groups. In contrast, the Canadian census does not mention "white" at all in the question about ethnic origin, only in a separate question about visible minority status—race and colour are separate variables. Although we're trying to clean it up, some editors are conflate the two concepts based on orthogonally-opposed data variables, to paint their own picture of a white "Canadian race", completely insupportable by the data. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 00:37 Z

Keep. The article is a mess, but several editors are working to clean it up. There is some verifiable statistical data that can be referenced. This is as legitimate a topic as the other [[Colour/Ethnicity - Nationality]] articles noted above. - Eron ^Talk 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm repeating myself, but it is simply not the case that all "groups that can be labelled" are legitimate groups. You need to actually believe that THIS one is legitimate. Second, verifiable statistical data: As I've said, there are verifiable statistical data about many things - "homeowners in Moose Jaw" or "teenagers in Yellowknife". That doesn't mean they deserve articles. They need to be justified in their own right. AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Black Canadian should also be deleted(along with White American etc...). You could not keep one and delete another. TestPilot 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can keep one and not the other. If one is an identifiable - well - identity, with common history, socialization, and a feeling of commonality, while the other one is a label and nothing but a label, then of course you can distinguish between them. That's like saying there needs to be an article on "Italians in Canada before 1400" because we could write an article on "aboriginal people in Canada before 1400" - Sure, it's equal, but the facts intervene and inform us that one doesn't exist. Of course, I'm not saying there are no white Canadians - I'm saying that you can't off-the-cuff generalize from one article of a certain type to another of the same type - you must actually consider the validity of each article seperately.AshleyMorton 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think the overwhelming majority ethnicity is an "ethnicity" that needs an article. The nature of the majority is that it's the default culture. Will the authors also diligently set about creating articles on "Flying Birds," "Walking Mammals" and "Two-Legged People"? --MattShepherd 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "White Canadian" is a meaningless label, of at best suspect POV status, which does not define a unified group that has any common history, culture or social context unique to the circumstance of being white. Accordingly, this article can never be anything more than a questionable POV fork of Demographics of Canada; there's nothing encyclopedic that could possibly be written about any sort of unified White Canadian culture that crosses ethnic boundaries. The comparison to Black Canadian is invalid; there is an objective and encyclopedic Black Canadian identity, history and social context that is shared across the various black ethnicities. Minority identities are encyclopedic, because they are bound together by circumstances unique to being a minority group; privileged majority groupings simply do not have that kind of commonality. Bearcat 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with previous statement. CJCurrie 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because blacks are a minority in Canad doesn't mean they all have a common homogoneous culture or history, any more than whites have a common homogoneous culture and history. Black Canadians have a wide variety of ancestries and cultures. The argument that the Black Canadian, White American, White British, White Australian and White people articles should stay, but White Canadian should be deleted, has not been presented with logic or consistency. Spylab 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all the differences that exist among the various black ethnicities, there is a common experience and history defined by the state of being black: slavery, racism, being on the losing end of white privilege, police harassment, racial profiling, Driving While Black. Caribana. George Elliott Clarke's Africadia. Michaëlle Jean. And on, and so forth. For all the variety within it, an objective culture does exist which can be and is labelled "Black Canadian", whereas "White Canadian" culture is a meaningless abstraction that doesn't objectively exist, and can only be created by cobbling together bits of demographic data that have no connection to each other, no shared experience, no applicability to any cultural terminologies used in the real world, and no remotely encyclopedic reason to be lumped together as a single group. Wikipedia's job is to reflect terms that are actually in use in the real world, to write about and reflect topics that other sources have already deemed encyclopedically significant. "Black Canadian" fits that criterion; "White Canadian" does not. European Canadian is a much better approach to this — while I'm still not sure there's that much that can be written about the topic, and would therefore still have to think very carefully about whether it was keepable as written, the title comes much closer to reflecting the distinctions that actually exist in Canadian culture as defined by the external sources that determine the encyclopedic value of a WP article. Bearcat 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "White Canadian" is a neologism without widespread currency. - SimonP 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of new European Canadian article per prevalence of the term (see Talk:White Canadian#FYI for Google hits, but these must be read in light of Bearcat's comments in the same section). Deet 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat and SimonP -- Jeff3000 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per cogent arguments provided by AshleyMorton, Bearcat and SimonP. In the census, people get counted as "White" if they do not identify themselves as members of a visible minority and do not identify themselves as aboriginal. At best a dictionary definition, better, just a census definition. Luigizanasi 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a "white Canadian," this article is just annoying and just seems to be an outlet for latent and not-so latent racists, or worse, colour-blind liberals who think that we're all colour-coded equally. Nothing useful can be accomplished here that can't be accomplished better at European Canadian.Bobanny 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely it is possible to vote in a deletion discussion without attacking those who are attempting in good faith to contribute to the article in question? I'm not sure that I enjoy being called either a racist, or worse than a racist. - Eron ^Talk 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for painting all the editors of the article with the same brush. The article itself has racist undertones in my opinion, regardless of the world view of its editors, which I find offensive and is why I think it should be deleted.Bobanny 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I personally share your concerns about the possible racist undertones, and I have been hopeful that they can be removed without deleting the article. The unwillingness of some editors to consider a non-racial approach has me reconsidering my keep vote. - Eron ^Talk 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. My first instict was to go with delete, but since White British and White American exist (and are not on AfD), deleting this would be inconsistent. Either delete them all or keep them all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, redirect and merge any relevant text into the demographics articles. I have refrained from voting so far, due to my initial involvement in removing related material from Canada and Canadian English. However, taking into account the response to attempts to clean up the article, I cannot help but think that it will be a continual source of problems, requiring constant monitoring and revision. The core details would be easier to maintain if they are "protected" by incorporation into the larger context of a Canadian demographics article. A stand-alone page about this specific topic is hard to justify given the lack of solid, verifiable information, and the potential for abuse. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A poor, racist, incorrect and inconsistent article on a nonexistent ethnic group. michael ^talk 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe arguments for deleting are essentially an attempt to suppress WP coverage of a political tendency. DGG 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the way it's presented, it looks like this is an actual group, rather than a "belief in a group". I'm happy to see (and contribute to) an article which discusses various colour- and race-based analyses of Canadian society. ...but that's different from simply presenting the article, at which point it looks like the only NPOV stance is that the group exists. AshleyMorton 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What is all this business? Many nations have articles about the white people living therein. This article seems to be a reasonable quality to me, and I do not agree with its deletion. Lofty 11:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It's a group of people in Canada. People of European ancestry. It is a relevant article related to Canada, and is not "low quality", it is similar content in all other "ethnic group" articles. If you delete this, why not delete "Chinese Canadian" or "French American"? You don't have much of a reason why you would like it deleted rather then critisizing its quality. But it shows accurate facts and percentages etc., and seems pretty fine to me. Don't see any reason for it to be deleted. Are you a racist ? A racist American could delete "African American" then. "Not relevant" what are you talking about, it is the majority ethnic group in Canada, how is that not relevant? I think maybe you are scared it is racist, or something like that, but either way your personal opinion does not matter 100% and you should focus on wether the article can benefit any reasercher, or wether it is relevant. It IS relevant. If they have an article on "African Canadians", who are around 4 % of the Canadian population I believe, why on earth can't there be an article for "White Canadians", the largest ethnic group in Canada? I fail to see an adequate reason for deletion, rather than some sort of personal grudge. RyanRP 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Michael Z., the point you just made would mean that all the ethnic group pages should be deleted, because that's basically what they all are. And the "Latin American not counted" part was always there, on the original version. Seriously, with your argument, that means we should delete EVERY ethnic group page for EVERY country on Wikipedia, because what you say is "wrong" with this article is what every ethnic group article is. Information about a certain group of ethnicity in a country, what percentages they are in population, and the like. 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And eron, if you say that, then lets have "African American", or "Indian British" deleted aswell. Seriously, "White", no matter what your personal opinion is, DOES exist. there are WHITE , PEOPLE. They are REAL they EXIST. every group of people "really exists" but white people"?? That certainly isn't true! This is obviously some sort of personal grudge RyanRP 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I was implying by my comment. I was not suggesting deletion of those pages; I was rather suggesting that if the concept of "White" is strong enough to support them, then there may be a case for a "White Canadians" article as well. That wasn't a vote to delete. - Eron ^Talk 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I just added something to the page that should clear up everyones concerns. Check it out, definitions of White Canadian I added it, hopefully that fixes your problems ``` RYAN RP

You know what people, you're bringing up some OK points, so therefore based on your theories, Black Canadian should be deleted aswell. RyanRP 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Black Canadian" actually exists in the real world as a term actually in use to define a cultural grouping. Whether you agree with the cultural value of that grouping is irrelevant; the term actually signifies a specific grouping recognized in verifiable sources as having a specific cultural context. "White Canadian" is not a term used in the real world to signify any specific or unique culture shared across multiple ethnicities. Bearcat 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - much of the disputed material is now in a new article, European Canadian. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.