Talk:Demographics of Canada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

White Canadian

I was under the impression that a "White Canadian" was a cocktail, but it redirected here. Anybody? Ich (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits of statistics

Ethnic origins

At the ethnic origins, there are a lot of nationalities, but there are not the Romanians. In Canada there officialy 400,000 Romanians, and that is it not mentioned over there.When I write it, everytime somebody takes that down. User:NorbertArthur 11:01 04 December 2005

  • The official numbers can be found from Statistics Canada 2001 Census. In 2001 there were 131,830 people who identified themselves as of Romanian origin, of which 53,320 were "pure" Romanians and 78,505 were of mixed Romanian and other origins. The number of people of Romanian mother tongue in Canada was 50,895, see here. Number of people born in Romania was 60,165 (which also includes ethnic Hungarians, Germans, and Jews), and 2,300 born in Moldova [1]. There is a lot of ethnic "boosterism" in Canada and many exaggerated numbers floating around for different ethnic groups. Things like Toronto is the third or fourth largest Italian city in the world, half a million Chinese-Canadians can't speak English, etc. If we added up every ethnic boosterism claim, Canada would have a couple of hundred million population. But the only valid, verifiable and official numbers are from the Census. That's why your changes keep on getting reverted. Luigizanasi 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Largest European Ancestries

Pasting this here after cutting it from Canada.

  • English - 20.2%
  • French - 15.7%
  • Scottish - 14%
  • Irish - 12.9%
  • German - 9.3%
  • Italian - 4.3%
  • Scandinavian - 3.6%
  • Ukrainian - 3.6%
  • Dutch - 3.1%
  • Polish - 2.8%

[2]

...in case it is useful. Jkelly 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but the article mentions that Jamaicans make up 7% of Canada's population. When you click on the link to go to the page entitled "Jamaican Canadians", it says that there are 260,000 or so Jamaicans in Canada. Have we just mysteriously lost several million in population, or is there a misplacement of a decimal?

--Mattthemutt 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted per your find - it now says "0.7%", although it would be best if whoever created the list in the first place could get the exact figure. I've also moved "Jamaican" to the "Other" section as it was in "European". --Ckatzchatspy 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks very much. --Mattthemutt 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maronite?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know where (mainly Lebanese) Maronite christians are included in the statistics for religion? There are a lot here, I was just wondering. Dan Carkner 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but they are part of the Catholic Communion... --Charlene 04:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Visible minorities

Why does the statistics lump the Vietnamese Canadians with Southeast Asians while listing the Koreans and Japanese separately? Vietnamese Canadians outnumber these two groups by a significant margin. 207.178.224.50 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Because Vietnamese share common linguistic family with Cambodian and Vietnam lies in Southeast Asia, although Vietnamese share a common culture with Chinese. Sonic99 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The minority totals add up to 76.7 + 19.1 + 4.3 = 100.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.65.168.24 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not use 2006 statistics?

Canada had a census in 2006, am I wrong? We need to update the charts showing population growth from 1996 to 2001.

Yes, we do need to. Lexicon (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The data pertaining to visible minorities and ethnic groups has just been released by Statscan for the 2006 census. It is time to update those sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.246.165 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Map request

This article could use a population density map. -- Beland 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the licensing on this one; though it would be nice to show city names as here but without all the side graphics. -- Beland 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Statistics Canada maps are copyrighted, someone would need to re-create it from the data (which is sadly not free or I'd do it). Kmusser 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
@Beland: I made a map of population density by province, but it sounds like the source you linked to originally had more granular data. I've taken down the map request tag, as it looks like over a decade of waiting wasn't getting very far. Feel free to restore if you had something more specific in mind. MarginalCost (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, great, the per-province population density map is definitely an improvement. I still think a fine-grained map would be informative, since especially in the east the population tends to hug the southern border, so showing an entire province uniformly populated could be a bit misleading. We could ask Statistics Canada to release the data or graphics under an appropriate license...I'm not sure what the government's interest would be in restricting access to information they post for free on their own web site.[3] It looks like there are also free sources for this data, though; our population density map of the U.S. happens to include Canada and Mexico as well: File:Us population 2005 lrg.jpg -- Beland (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Cropped map of more fine-grained population density
@Beland: Okay, I've made a modified map of that last one at File:Canada Population density map.jpg that crops it to just Canada (though parts of the far northern islands are cut off), and removes the outlines of the US coast, leaving only the US-Canada border. It's still not really great quality, and the greater population density in the US takes the visual attention away from the Canadian part specifically (no metaphor intended). It also kind of reminds me of File:Earth's City Lights by DMSP, 1994-1995 (large).jpg, where we could do a similar crop, but that would likely suffer from the same problems. I'll leave it to you to make the call on which image to include. My personal feeling is that the data tables already make the article too crowded to easily include both (especially at the top, where they're most relevant), but feel free to disagree. MarginalCost (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@MarginalCost: Thanks muchly! It's looking great at the top of Population of Canada. -- Beland (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Religions

Does anybody know where to find a source so as to use newer statistics for the religion section rather than 2001? Ghyslyn —Preceding comment was added at 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but I really think someone should.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

articles needs to be updated with Census 2006 numbers

I will start updating the numbers. You can help.

Please indicate your sources, as your numbers look dubious (the percentage of people using French at work in Canada for example is about 21%, according to StatCan[4]).--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Couple of mistakes: 1)you should use the column "most often" instead of "regularly" for the language at work 2)That table only gives non-official languages spoken by native speakers; one cannot presume that non-official language speakers speak their native language at work if they speak a non-official language (although that's probably the majority case).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overseas born as proportion?

as a non-Canadian, I am surprised there seems no section covering "country of birth" .....is this a politically incorrect subject in Canada ? I was interested to know as a comparison to my own country (Australia)and New Zealand. As I understnd it, each of these countries , as well as USA, are relatively significant attractors of immigration, but I'd like to see the comparison numbers Feroshki (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Canadian people" article

I would suggest and would be happy to collaborate on an article on the people of Canada similar to that of the "British people" article. Rather than the simple article on demographics we have now. Jacob Richardson (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, why there is no "Canadian" article baffles me. There's an American one, and according to their census, only 7% of residents of the states claims to be American, while 32% of Canadian residents claim "Canadian" as ancestry. Especially for Canadians who have very mixed backgrounds, they don't really fall into any of the hyphenated Canadian groups. 67.71.31.52 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

7% of the United States population is equivalent to something greater than one half of the canadian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.91.43 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Income in Canada

Should there be tables showing the income in Canada by province, or the richest places in Canada and poorest by per capita income? There is many American articles that show different income locations and Canada has none of this even though we have the statistics for it.

Mother tongue section

There are several languages ahead of Tamil in raw numbers; I don't have the time or inclination to add them in, but the issue of how many of them to list is debatable; 10? 20? Right now the individual languages shown, of the non-official ones, are only 6% v 13% for the "other languages". And special cases, like Cree being the largest indigenous language (Inuktitut and Ojibway next), and the relatively large numbers of people who are raised with one official language and an unofficial language, i.e. with two (or more) mother tongues. What is shown in the article right now is a subjective selection from the source, and doesn't reflect the variety of the source, or as noted gives a mis-impression of language ranking in the country, i.e. the suggestion that Tamil is the sixth largest mother tongue (is a consequence of such a short, and incomplete, list.~ And I'm thinking at least twenty languages, and a tag line about the rankings of aboriginal languages and other things to note....The Cantonese/Mandarin/Hakka split and its overlap, of unknown scale, with "Chinese" should also be pointed out. The source also has an interesting set of columns of languages spoken regularly at home, which is much more revealing and pumps up some of the European languages rates quite a bit.....Skookum1 (talk)

I have no comment on the above, but fixed some typos.Camcurwood (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I type fast and typo-ify a lot sometimes; thanks for catching/fixing them.Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

percentages vs. raw numbers

Connected to the topic of the previous section is the issue of whether to present the raw numbers in the source, or the calculated percentages as in the mother tongue list; at least they should be to two decimal points, I think. But the source doesn't have them, they're calculated by editors making such lists (I know, as I made the ethnicity one). Thing with the language - and I think the ethnic numbers - is that the numbers in the source are only projections based on the 1-in-10 sample used i.e. only so many people got the full form; the numbers in the source are not real, tallied numbers, they are actually representations of percentage of the total; nobody actually counted all those heads; only 1/10 of them....my own gut feeling is to go with the data as presented in the source, or at least have parallel columns with those figures; and the second column with the calculated percentage - to more decimal placesSkookum1 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-Visible Minorities

We should change the wording (or grammar) of "Non-Visible Minority Population" in the "Visible minorities" chart to "Non-'Visible-Minority' Population". A 'Non-Visible Minority' is someone, like a white American, who you cannot tell 'visibly' is a minority, while the chart really means someone who is not a minority at all. Camcurwood (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough that StatsCan does not use the phrase "Non-Visible Minority"...but they may user "Not a visible minority". "Visible minority" is, sadly, a legal classification meaning "non-white", and is effectively a form of racism. Try googling "invisible minority" and, between religious minorities and non-British ethnic minorities (which sometimes overlap, like Hutterites and Doukhobors), who may also happen to be white (although there are cases like teh Hui, Chinese Moslems, though under Canadian classification they're still "visible". Someone once coined the phrase "audible minority", e.g. in reference to newly-arrived Polish immigrants in Vancouver....ironically, when "multiculturalism" was first sold to Canadians, the multi-ethnic background of Western Canadians was used to sell teh idea to them, but they were then designated as "not multicultural" and "multicultural" became a buzzword meaning "visible minorities", rather than all minorities, and the now-invisible minorities became submerged into "white (Canadian)", with none of the multicultural protections and reinformcements such as visible-minority status/funding/legislation that gives the non-white minorities a "leg up" in Canadian society; a "leg up" that newly arrived Poles and Russians and others are, to me, wrongfully deprived of. But this is a rant, granted, and Wikipedia's not supposed to be a soapbox; but just pointing out that the casual definition of "non-visible minority" as code for "white" is an invention of the visible minorities and those who created that term. The ongoing focus of the racial classification (which in US articles is simply given, honestly, as "race") becomes an absurdity when figures for towns and census divisions that have no visible minorities, or miniscule percentages of them, are presented; but there is no account of known visible minoriteis in those towns because StatsCan does not survey for them, OR publish that information (unless you pay for it). Kitimat is known for its Portuguese, Trail for its Italians, the Fraser Valley towns for their Dutch and German Mennonites; but just try and find those figures in the census, and try and find minority-oriented politicians and analysts who even acknowledge them with anything more than a shrug of "they're just white".....multiculturalism started out to be about culture and ethnicity; it wound up being institutionalized as race-based, with no relevance to the people who the politicians used to justify its introduction....Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Chart Error

It would appear that in the chart "Top Self-Identified Religious Affiliations in Canada," in the section "Religions," that the section starting with "Anglican Church of Canada" and ending with "Adventists" was supposed to go under "Protestants," not under "Christian Orthodox" like it is now. It could be argued that "Christian, not included elsewhere" is supposed to go there as well, though that one is debateable; and the only thing that is certain about that one is that it is not supposed to be under "Christian Orthodox."

Would someone who understands wikipedia code/markup text or whatever it is that's used please fix the chart? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.6.26 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction: the section starts with "United Church of Canada," not "Anglican Church of Canada." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.6.26 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

obsession with visible minorities

a national passion, it seems.......where are the age-strata tables, employment/income, and economic sector etc.........?? Oh yeah "so fix it" is the usual response.......how many different ways are non-white/Euro people analyzed here? And even including "Visible minorities and aboriginals" in one section is something like synthesis; StatsCan doesn't do that. Demographics pages from other countries, and town/city demographics sections, don't obsess over who's which shade of brown or purple........and there's bits here claiming that single-ethnicity responses represent a "homogenous population" and not scattered through the general population as they really are........segregating Canadians by colour/race is what I see this page is about. It's not demographics in the broad sense......it's racial tub-thumping. And one new table is aligned with the racial/ethnic groups along the top, meaning it stretches way off to the right and requires horizatonal scrolling......and doesn't really add anything to the page except more figures about minorities vs so-called "whites".Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow - you're right, this has gotten bad. I have worked on several articles in this area, but not for a couple of years, and I hadn't realized it had got like this. This needs to be fixed. There are some serious problems here. The most critical, in my mind, is the use of the terms "White" and "Black". However, the very presence and "size of footprint" of this information is massively inappropriate. I am worried that these might be some attempt to demonstrate some sort of racialised argument about growth rates of "white" and "non-white" segments of the population. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this issue? AshleyMorton (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly nobody else wants to take it up....or not many people have this page watchlisted. The contrast to US demographics sections which include a lot of other census information is painfully blatant. That there are so many articles in CanWiki with this problem is a larger issue; it's like a giant bot, or a cogent taskforce, is needed to fix them all. Whose agenda it is serving, the way it is now, is hard to say, also. But given the reversals you've noted, there's some dogged folks working on keeping things this way.Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I added this article to my watchlist this past November and didn't see this thread until now. There is quite the history. I'll do my research and chime back in soon. Hwy43 (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this discussion in one place. So see my recent post at "White" re MOSFOLLOW below and let's take it from there. Hwy43 (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Terms on ethnic tables on many articles are not from the source

more and more of these are appearing on community pages, or on those t hat already have them the terminology has been adjusted from what Census Canada uses. I was looking at the Abbotsford, British Columbia page and the census source (once you hone the linked ref, which does not go directly to this page by the way, but to a main census portal, and maybe is for the CMA, not the City of Abby, i.e. including Mission, I haven't compared the numbers yet), the term "East Indian" at Census Canada has been changed to "Indian" which of course is highly confusing in Canada in that context. Most wrong however, is t hat whomever is adding all these tables is using "white" instead of "European or British origin" or whatever Census Canada's term is. Such tables are also being added, full of zero fields, on pages with tiny visible minority populations; why does it matter if a place of a few thousand people has no Koreans or West Asians, for example? I was hoping to find particular ethnic breakdowns for Mission itself, as there's a big difference between it and Abby's ethnic makeup (I would know, I went to high school in Mission and Abby and MEI are different worlds, probably still are), but StatsCan doesn't make that avaialable on line not that I'm aware....noting this "Indian/East Indian" issue, I'm concerned that people are changing the fields to match their own biases about what they table should use......and is "Black" really a term used by the source, or "white"?Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Had to take similar action again today. I'm willing to discuss ways to present some of this data, but what's being done is really not okay, in my opinion. Until and unless there's actual discussion and consensus, I'm afraid I'm going to continue to delete content that has the kind of serious failings you detail. AshleyMorton (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Black" really is the term used by the source. Note my recent post at "White" re MOSFOLLOW below. Let's take any further discussion from there to keep everything in one place. Hwy43 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Visible Minorities by City

So earlier today someone was editing from an IP address, and was adding tables - I think the intention was eventually to have one for each Visible Minority category - of the top 5 municipalities by population for certain visible minorities. So far, all that were complete were several aboriginal identities (which I know aren't vis. min. by Statistics Canada's definition), "Arab" and "Black". I decided to remove them for three reasons. One was formatting (they had variable and messy formatting), one was incompleteness (it appeared the work had stopped, with only 5 of the maybe 20ish tables completed), and the last was a kind of issue with them being included at all - first, it's pretty much original research, second, it seems to put way more focus on vis. min. stuff than on other, arguably more relevant demographic factors like age, marital status, employment, family structure, language, urban/rural splits, etc. However, I'm certainly willing to be wrong, so I thought I'd put the text in question in a sandbox of mine, so that if someone thinks that I'm wrong, they can a) fix the formatting, b) complete the work, and then maybe bring it back. Here's a link if that's what you want to do: User:AshleyMorton/sandbox/VisMinStuff Cheers, AshleyMorton (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Okay, now a different IP address has reverted my changes. Going to flip it back, but I might need some help here.AshleyMorton (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
See my comments below, I think we may be of the same mind.Skookum1 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that 178.217.192.27 at that time was Djodjo666 except not signed in. The IP that reverted the revert did not appear to be the same as 178.217.192.27/Djodjo666. Hwy43 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"White" re MOSFOLLOW

On the source (Census Canada), for the aboriginal table it uses "non-Aboriginal population", for the visible minority tables it says "All others". And StatCan makes a point of not putting these two tables together; when combined as has long been the case here and in the many tables scattered around community and provincial articles, and the "white" is juxtaposed for "non-aboriginal population"/"All others", we have a very serious aberration from WP:MOSFOLLOW. The tables should be separate, and the terminology of the source used. The implications of continuing with the way it is right now I won't get into; except to say that this is SYNTH/OR and also a tad POV the way it is right now.

I'm not concerned about the combination of tables, and won't go further into that at this very moment. I agree with the juxtaposition concern. Yes, the terminology from the source should be used. As mentioned in the above thread, there is history here. I'll report back once I've reacquainted myself with the history. Hwy43 (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The now-blocked UrbanNerd started this with an absurd complaint regarding so-called offensive demographics tables. While the discussion was ongoing, the editor reverted an edit by Djodjo666, which brought him to discover the ongoing discussion and a reply here where I speculate he felt indirectly attacked.

Anyway, there was no consensus outcome to the discussion. The conversation died and it was archived. Three weeks later, UrbanNerd, who initiated the discussion, went to the archive page to post this (which is not allowed) and then proceeded to format some tables according to his preferred POV. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Other similar edits occurred in the months that followed.

If I recall correctly, I noticed the hard-working Djodjo666 changed his formatting habits to generally comply with UrbanNerd’s preference. I can’t speculate why. Didn’t want to rock the boat perhaps? Regardless, he did so in good faith.

Anyway, I think we should be following the exact terms and ordering of StatCan in the tables. It is ridiculous to suggest that following StatCan's ordering and terminology is disparaging to the white majority. The tables are about people who aren’t the majority. We shouldn’t be allowing apparent xenophobic behaviour to stand. Hwy43 (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

D'ya think there's any way to botomate the table conversions? There's so many articles that this was done to; I've also been frustrated at ethnic tables only being freely available (as opposed to pay-for) for many places with distinct ethnic profiles, making their ethnic history hard to cite (Italians in Trail and Revelstoke, Doukhobors throughout Boundary-West Kootenay towns and EAs. The obsession with visible minority demographics for communities with '0' or 2-3 anyway of some obscure minority does not serve to represent the communities, where more meaningful statistics like child poverty, education levels, type of employment etc are much more relevant. This is a taskforce problem and I'm well aware there's only so many of us; but at least insofar as the visible minority and aboriginal tables go, if there was a way to bot-change them to how they should be (including breaking them into two tables) that would save a lot of energy huh?Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm clueless when it comes to bots and what they could be programmed to do, but gather the mess is too complex to fix. Djodjo is quite enthusiastic about demographic tables and may be willing to revisit. Hwy43 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if he's an eager beaver by all means then.....I think it might be possible to work from the CSV tables obtainable from StatCan, i.e. parsing them into wiki tables, but I don't feel like talking to the coding department..... census data is myriad and various, the issue is more what is relevant and useful for readers; how to summarize them. The Canadian obsession with "rainbow multiculturalism" seems like a tubthump to me...being from a multi-ethnic community and extended family where the emphasis was on being Canadian (not a flag-waving Canadian, but meaning "like everyone else no matter your accent or colour"), not where you (or your bloodlines) were from, is maybe old-fashioned nowadays. But in cases where the local reality has little to do with visible minorities, it's a bit weird to see such an emphasis on this kind of census date, and nothing else.Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to inquire on the talk of MOS:FOLLOW to confirm if what we are observing are violations. If so, I think we would have solid grounding to be bold to return/replicate the ordering and terms in the StatCan source. I'm no visible minority. Nor is Djodjo according to his page. Inclusion of this data doesn't bother me. After population and dwelling counts, this demographic topic just seems to generate more interest among the others in Canada. It would just be nice to have similar eager beavers to cover off all other census and NHS data release topics. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Somewhere in piles of notes I had found, then had to clean up/ relocate because of..... incessant cleaning/reorganization agendas imposed on me - I found handwritten notes I'd taken of data for Lillooet in the 1881, 1891 etc censuses...grain production, country of origin, amount of land owned, average assets etc...can't remember the fields' names, but as you probably know by now I have a thing for the history of that town; what I'm getting at is older non-online sources are very relevant in any article; finding the eager beaver for any local history or geography to do that kind of legwork (these were in the basement of the Bennett Library at SFU when I was there back in '03) is de rigeur for good content in the long run; as much as we should follow the sources as they are currently presented now, it's not like StatCan's portrayal of Canada has to be the model for what should be in Wikipedia; Wikipedia has to be more than a mirror of official sources; at the same time it can't be SYNTH or OR, especially not when re-tooling data tables smacks of POV or SOAP....Skookum1 (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
So it turns out that MOS:FOLLOW doesn't apply per this discussion. It is nested under MOS:TM which applies to trademarks, and the terms StatCan uses aren't those. Hwy43 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I transferred my inquiry to Wikipedia talk:No original research#OR/SYNTH contravention?. Though we don't agree with how groups have been aggregated and different terms have been used, I'd suggest leaving everything intact until we get confirmation there. Hwy43 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ending SYNTH in ethnicity sections

I finally took the time to do this and it should be done across all articles where such combined tables, with SYNTH/POV terms, have been placed. That all demographics sections seem to obsess on this and/or language or religion, with other census/demographic data like income, occupation, health and so on left out, says a lot about the subconscious demographic priorities and perceptions of Canadians and Canadian Wikipedians; at least this one has a median age section....Skookum1 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No opposition to breaking the table out into two tables here or elsewhere. However, I caution that combining multiple tables into one table is not SYNTH. Consolidation of tables is done all the time on Wikipedia. I therefore have no opposition to keeping the tables combined either.

Note there is a missing column header in the "Aboriginal population by province and territory, 2011" table. Can you fix? Hwy43 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The way the data is defined as that "All others" and Aboriginal people are not presented on the same data table as Visible Minority populations; there is no reason to group the two together except for the inference they (Aboriginal people) are also "visible", i.e. non-white. It is for that reason, and also that Aboriginal people as a statistics grouping present a whole different entity within the non-Aboriginal population by dint of their primacy and here-first status. There is no reason to group them with any other group. Except for what? - colour? The ethnicity tables around, some of them I built, because of the diversity of the "All Others" population, including the rainbow of European ethnicities of all kinds - and all kinds of mixes such as many Canadians, that cannot be adequately be represented in having visible minority tables which are really, despite their careful wording, divisions by race. There'd be more of them if I had access to more of what StatCan has; individual obscure census divisions "deep data" costs a buck or two to get into. Noting in passing here that the Languages section also deals with, without the term being used by the census, "invisible minorities" who are recent immigrants who, though not visible minorities, experience discrimination and various other issues similar to any of the "visible" groups. There are no stats on that formally, though somewhere in some newspaper copy, of only a few articles I ever saw on this particular demographic group's situation in Canada, a person being quoted stated some figures, and some of the areas of concern. Lack of translators in non-visible-minority minority language groups who face linguistic and social and economic hurdles - he listed some off (the lack of translators at Vancouver airport for a certain European language with tens of thousands of local speakers (Polish) even led to a death); as in new generations of Eastern European immigrants en masse being every bit as "visible"....ah, the term I remember now is "audible minority".....I'm sorry I don't have the quote for that, it's just my eidetic memory relating the story; point is that at least with language tables - and ethnicity tables, when available on the StatCan site (very limited) - it's a lot better than just the old Visible Minority-combo-Aboriginal population table alone; sure people are interested in it, the media feeds it to them daily. But the scientific and commercial/industrial output figures and education information, especially when important re the community in question in a given area - Hazelton's extreme child poverty rate and some equally poor education rate from childhood on up (last I looked it was outrageous at 85% or so...: reported in the Tyee, including how there were only two cellphones); or Hamilton's decline in steelworkers, where "art is the new steel"); Demographics doesn't have to be just raw census date, or only from one source (BC Development Regions, which are agglomerations of regional districts, 3 or 4 at a time, produce their own set of social and commercial figures, for example) - and demographic data might show up in a media article or book or other publication; Census Canada doesn't have to be the main source...but I respect its reasons for handling those data definitions and terms in the way that it did; it had to for what should be obvious political reasons. But all of this, ultimately, is a side show to divert the public at large from the other societal figures that constitute the rest of demographics; encyclopedias shouldn't have just what people come expecting to find, but what's on the whole of the topic. "Encyclo-" infers that by its etymology/composition; means something like "takes in all/everything [about something]". Thing is, it's true, because the media publish so much of immigrant-related news, that means there's lots of citable copy out there, given the tendency of WP:RS to rely on media, government and academic material, so even though it's desirable to include "all that other stuff" there's just not as much out there; the media too, respond to the public interest and because of the high ratings give them even more;
But beyond race, the topic of demographic section content improvement and expansion means "all that other stuff" - transferring figures on science, industry, education, agricultural output, whatever else is in there, especially if it relates to the community under discussion; and other sources are out there than StatCan; in addition to bodies like the Development Regions, there are Counties and Cities that have their own publicly-available data - open information, the Third Pillar of open government, isn't quite there yet - especially not with provincial and federal governments; there's more out there, it's all been politically massaged and carefully worded also; and there are reasons for that just as there are in teh census. Because of the way Census Data has been arranged, and what is freely available, has a political purpose; none of it is accidental - not in its terminology nor its arrangements/groupings. Like any government agency or policy, it's meant to influence the public mind about what it wants it to know. That access to data in Canada is under siege - I'm not SOAPing - to the point that libraries and databanks get destroyed means there's a further, almost Fahrenheit 451-like air to it... thing is when those publications go offline, they can't be live-cited anymore, only referenced (not everything has to be online).
OK, I'm done, that wasn't meant to be a rant, or even a ramble, it's more like a stump; I was scanning this page's discussions and old issues and got me philosophizing about demographics and political geography/political data management..... Basic message above is about long-term goals for demographic content; what's missing, places to find it; and the obstacles to it and the dangers facing public access to data...and I didn't even talk about the new census .... meant to be useful thoughts, if it's TLDR for you (I eon't mean you Hwy43, I mean whomever - then you won't get what it's about anyway.... g'nite.Skookum1 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Population projection

Is it an error that a table showing population projections for Canada is titled US Census Bureau? Assuming it's not, perhaps a few words of context would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalkill (talk • contribs)

US Census Bureau, 2010 est.
YearPop.±%
202036,387,000—    
203038,565,000+6.0%
204040,070,000+3.9%
205041,136,000+2.7%
[1]

References

  1. ^ "International Programs – U.S. Census Bureau". Census.gov. Retrieved 2012-01-22.
Resolved by revising to a more informative title. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate numbers

The subsection ″Provinces and territories″ states that Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories have each more 'people per seat' than their respective populations. This means either the Population or People per seat numbers are incorrect or (more likely) from different years which isn't sustainable either (comparing apples with oranges).90.181.138.240 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Canadian" ethnicity

If a Quebec resident puts down his ethnicity as "Québécois," is he counted by the census as "Canadian"? Just curious. It looks like "Québécois" isn't listed anywhere in the totals, which is hard to believe. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Its just a smaller ethnic group see Ethnic origins of people in Canada - Québécois 146,585 - 96,835 - 49,750 -- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

House of Commons seats

How do some territories and other areas, for example Nunavut, have more people per seat than they have people in the province. If they have 1 seat, then the population per seat is the same as the population of the territory. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic composition

Where can I get number of each first nation group?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No education or economic information so I removed it from the introduction

I don't know if I should have posted here before removing it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.186.80 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

First nation

Why dont number of each first nation count in census? for example how many cree? --Kaiyr (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Canada. 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 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographics of Canada. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Canada/Archive_1&oldid=1176471093"