Talk:Canadian people: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reply)
m (I see what you mean about having articles such as this, and their value)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{subpages}}
== This article is somehow misnamed ==
== This article is somehow misnamed ==
"Canadian people" is too general and would include people NOT part of First Nations people.  What is this article intended to be? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (CDT)
"Canadian people" is too general and would include people NOT part of First Nations people.  What is this article intended to be? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (CDT)
Line 10: Line 10:


: Pat, you have changed a number of these redlinks to point to the countries the individuals came from.  I don't think that is the best approach.  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (CDT)
: Pat, you have changed a number of these redlinks to point to the countries the individuals came from.  I don't think that is the best approach.  [[User:George Swan|George Swan]] ([[User talk:George Swan|talk]]) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (CDT)
::I understand your point.  Thanks for the explanation. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:33, 23 December 2023 (CST)

Revision as of 11:33, 23 December 2023

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Definition [?]
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Sociology, History and Geography [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English
To do.


Metadata here


This article is somehow misnamed

"Canadian people" is too general and would include people NOT part of First Nations people. What is this article intended to be? Pat Palmer (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2023 (CDT)

  • There are various terms, like "Canadian", "American", "Russian", etc., which are broadly used, and should not, IMO, simply redirect to the parent country, as in "Canada", "America", "Russia". Canadian, American, Russian could refer to an individual from that country. Or it could refer a product or initiative from that country. Therefore, I prefer to be specific, and link to an article on "Canadian people", "American people", "Russian people" - even if that article is a red-link. That is what red-links are for. A red-link is an assertion that a topic is worthy of an article, even if hasn't been written yet.
The United Nations recognizes close to 200 official nation states. But this is just scratching the surface, as there are peoples, with a distinct culture, who do not currently, or may never have had political sovereignty. The Roma people, widely distributed, with a very distinct culture, do not have political sovereignty.
What about the option of using the term Canadian citizen? Well, as per the Roma people, some peoples don't have sovereignty. In other cases, the people may have a small enclave of sovereignty, with larger and more aggressive neighbouring countries denying that people who live across their border, in their territory, are entitled to sovereignty in their country. The Armenians would be a good example. Their are substantial groups of Armenian people, living in the triangle where Turkey, Syria and Iraq share borders. In describing one of these people it would be best to link to Armenian people, not Armenian.
Pat, you have changed a number of these redlinks to point to the countries the individuals came from. I don't think that is the best approach. George Swan (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (CDT)
I understand your point. Thanks for the explanation. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2023 (CST)