Talk:Canadian people

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)