Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Russian-Canadian. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Russian-Canadian, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Russian-Canadian in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Russian-Canadian you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Russian-Canadian will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Russian-Canadian, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Leaning keep for English-Canadian & French-Canadian because of how they're often juxtaposed due to the social geography and sociopolitics of the country, and how they're not just simply "related to x person who comes from France/England". For the others, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting, and I wonder if the others are really used to mean "related to a Canadian person who speaks y language". AG202 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I will say that African American is markedly different as it is means "American and Black" and not "American and of African descent", meaning that it wouldn't be used for white Africans and would be used for Black folks from places outside of Africa, for example. So the circumstances are different. For the others, I do see your point, though Mexican American already has a {{lit}} for the noun sense and has been nominated below already for the adjective sense, along with Irish American, so I wouldn't be surprised if the other ones are later nominated as well. AG202 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
African is a synonym for black (albeit an imprecise and dated one), and thus one might argue that African-American is SOP. (I don't agree with that reasoning, but hardline deletionists might). But the picture being painted here seems to be that Mexican American and Irish American were only nominated as an afterthought after a slew of Canada-related entries. And more editors are stepping forward with arguments in favour of keeping those two entries than any of the Canadian ones. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
So is your stance that any combination of nationalities is worthy of being kept, as long as three citations can be scrounged to back it up? E.g., consider Italian Turk . I'm sure the vast majority of the roughly 200^2 possibilities (Qatari Cambodian, Bahamian Tunisian, etc.) would be ruled out by attestation requirements, but I wonder how many actually used terms like this there are. 70.172.194.2508:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Do have a salient explanation for why Irish American should inspire a lengthy discussion but the two most prominent enthocultural groups in Canada get nominated for deletion with nary a peep? WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't really have one, other than perhaps US-centrism. But then again, some of the people arguing in the Irish American RfD discussion aren't American.
My comment above applies to all nationality combinations (from Irish American to British Pakistani). The options are either allowing any such formation that has three quotations (seems against the consensus in the British Pakistani RfD), allowing none (possibly going against the Irish American RfD, but that still remains to be seen), or having fine-grained criteria for determining "importance"/"lexicality". If we're going with the third option then I would at least like to know where we're setting the boundary line. 70.172.194.2509:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncertain as to whether it would be possible to create clear and consistent guidelines for such terms. I'm in favour of a case-by-case approach, but "Does it have a Wikipedia article?" is a pretty good barometer, in my experience. If an ethnic/cultural identity has a Wikipedia article, it's likely been the subject of academic texts, documentaries, novels, films, etc. It's relevant to the documentation of language in a way that a thousand hypotheticals will never be.
Wiktionary would certainly be doing itself no favours by further entrenching an apparent US-centrism. This is one of those cases where it would behoove editors to step back and consider whether they may be examining an issue with a blind spot. "English-Canadian" and "French-Canadian" aren't just two of the largest ethnocultural groups in Canada. They arguably represent the main sociopolitical (and linguistic) division in Canada. Ukrainian-Canadians are a significant ethnic group, representing 2.7% of the population, in contrast to the U.S., where Ukrainian-Americans represent 0.3% of the population. Immigrants from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe made up a significant proportion of the settlers of the prairie provinces. That continues to shape the identities of residents of those provinces to this day. These are things that Canadians and people familiar with Canada are likely to know, but those outside of that sphere generally wouldn't. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
WordyAndNerdy My simple answer for why Irish American inspired a lengthy discussion is because it’s a community I know more about. I’m regretting not getting involved in British Pakistani, too, as that is also a community I know more about and I suspect it was US centrism (and perhaps the lack of realisation that it is a sizeable community in the UK) that resulted in its deletion - despite the fact that its word order is reversed, which is an important difference in making such terms not SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete most of these as trivial SOP combinations, although "French-Canadian" and "English-Canadian" are a bit different as discussed above so I would keep those. If the others are kept, sense 1 (use for any Canadian who speaks Russian, even if they have no Russian ancestry and just learned it at university) needs to be RFVed and will probably fail; based on the edit history, who added it and when, I strongly suspect it's only the phenomenon of "list multiple descriptors of the people the term describes, as if they were multiple definitions" and not even really intended as a claim that the university language-learner should be counted. - -sche(discuss)16:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
