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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stock Canadians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable IMO. Aloha27 talk 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a phrase that was used once and is not used to describe an ethnic group in published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge a redacted version to Canadian federal election, 2015 or elsewhere. Although presented as an article about ethnicity, this is clearly not an ethnicity article. If a suitable target is found, use of the term and its relevance should be merged into that target (perhaps Canadian federal election, 2015), but the original research and synthesis present in this article should be excised. Mind matrix 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. It's a specific example of a generic expression, defined here at the Oxford online dictionary:

old-stock: adjective, Designating a person or people whose ancestors have lived in a certain country or area for several generations.

Origin - Late 19th century ; earliest use found in The New York Times.

We don't have articles about Red-headed Canadians, or Guitar-playing Canadians, why Old stock? The only reason this article exists is because it garnered a few days of media notice when used by the then Prime Minister; see (WP:NOTNEWS) and (WP:PERSISTENCE). I have added a single line for (September 17 under "Conservatives") to the appropriate section of the appropriate article: Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies, which I propose is proportional to its significance. If the decision here is keep I will go back and link it. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, others have said it well. Unlike the long-established and notable concept of Pure laine in my home province, this was a momentary, short-lived controversy. And I'd be surprised if Harper really had in mind to appeal only to those whose parents emigrated here prior to 1900 -- but then much of what he did puzzled me. Anyway, European Canadian isn't the same. Pure laine is too distinct. I agree a redirect to Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies is best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies per my comments at Talk:Old Stock Canadians. Meters (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- strike redirect pending current rewrite by User:E.M.Gregory per discussion below Meters (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change to keep after nice rewrite. Now more than sufficient sources to show the notability and prior use of the term, and the article no longer attempts to define this as an ethic group. Meters (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. --Moxy (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Erik Fossum; Paul Magnette; Johanne Poirier (2009). The Ties that Bind: Accommodating Diversity in Canada and the European Union. UBC. p. 285. ISBN 978-90-5201-475-3.
Dirk Hoerder (2000). Creating Societies: Immigrant Lives in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-7735-6798-6.
Cecil Foster (2007). Blackness and Modernity: The Colour of Humanity and the Quest for Freedom. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 349. ISBN 978-0-7735-7581-3.
Reva Joshee; Lauri Johnson (2011). Multicultural Education Policies in Canada and the United States. UBC Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-7748-4117-7.
Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann (2003). Compassionate Canadians: Civic Leaders Discuss Human Rights. University of Toronto Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-8020-3664-3.
Nina Bascia; Alister Cumming; Amanda Datnow; Kenneth Leithwood; David Livingstone (2008). International Handbook of Educational Policy. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4020-3201-1.
Vijay Agnew (2009). Racialized Migrant Women in Canada: Essays on Health, Violence and Equity. University of Toronto Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-8020-9904-4.
- - most but not all of those book references do indeed make mention of the term as a way to describe Canadians of English and French descent, descended from those original settler groups. (The Vijay Agnew book, for one, does not, it refers only to "old stock" French, i.e. Pure laine). At the very least, it's an argument for redirecting somewhere else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Moxy: I, for one, wasn't trying to suggest that Harper had coined the term. I was suggesting that no one would have thought of creating the article if it weren't for the brief furor that erupted after his use of it during the leaders debate in 2015. And while it wasn't in common usage in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's when I grew up (here - preceded by Extra - it referred to a brand of beer, if anything), I don't doubt that it was in use elsewhere. I would observe, however, that most of those who use it in the references you cite above (many of which are cited in the Old Stock Canadians article) still feel the need to put it in quotes, indicating that it isn't all that common.

My main reason for supporting deletion is that I don't see what insightful or nuanced analysis an encyclopedia article could provide. Or why Old Stock Americans and Old Stock Canadians would merit separate articles. With the increase in immigration throughout Europe, there could conceivably be an Old Stock article for any country with a significant number of New Stock citizens. It's a straightforward concept easily understood in any nationalist context from a generalized dictionary definition, and (WP:WINAD). I agree with you that redirecting to the 2015 elections is a bad idea, because it does then give the impression that Harper had something to do with coining the phrase, but I respectfully disagree that it deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. nerdgoonrant (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Note that we do have a Old Stock Americans article, created by the same editor, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for a better redirect target, I was looking at Immigration_to_Canada#First_wave and Immigration_to_Canada#Second_wave? The difficulty is that an "old wool" Quebecois has little or nothing in common with an "old stock" English Canadian, with immigrations often separated by century or more, and a vast cultural divide. Again, Quebecois/French Canadians are descended from a group that would have basically stopped arriving by the Conquest of 1760, whereas we're told old stock English parentage continues until the dawn of the 20th century. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a unified ethnic group, but simply refers to anybody of British Isles or French descent whose ancestors arrived in Canada before a certain specific arbitrary cutoff — while strangely ignoring the aboriginal peoples who were already here before the Europeans started arriving. Basically, it's a dog-whistle for "white Canadians of European descent", not a unified ethnocultural group with anything in common beyond census statistics. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into 2015 election article. You could mention it in the Racism in Canada article. But, by itself, I don't see the merit of the stand-alone article. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to strong sources on page and above. Although the term appears to have gone out of fashion (Bernie Sanders got caught in a similar way, using a term that was mainstream when he was young), the category: people whose ancestors have been in Canada for generations, is a valid one. i would be willing ot consider a redirect if someone can source a contemporary term for this concept (something parallel to "first nations") but the deletion arguments appear to me to be a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT indicating repugnance for the term, but leaving us with a a well-sourced term for a significant category of Canadians. We can't just delete them. Or this reliably-sourced but archaic term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those sources define "old stock Canadians" as an ethnic group? If you wish to rewrite the article so that it makes sense then go right ahead, but right now it defines the term, in one sentence, in a way that appears not to be supported by the sources used, and then the rest of the article is a discussion of the recent political controversy over the term. If this is about hte controversy then either the article should be redirected somewhere, or the title should be change to reflect the actual topic. If this is to be an article about the concept of "old stock Canadians" then it should be completely rewritten. Amusingly, approximately one-quarter of the article's content is actually an argument against the definition of the term as used in the lede. Meters (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Give me 24 hours.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that the material shown in this thread seems to justify some type of article. I'll try to help out. Meters (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article and can certainly use all the help we can get.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start; only a start. Sources certainly exist, "old stock" as a term for Canadians of long-standing Canadian descent has been discussed in Academic sources for decades, although perhaps not until after the middle of the 20th century. I have no doubt that this is a valid topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN I have revised lede and written/sourced a section on the definition and use of this term, that I beleive to be objectively worded and to satisfy NOTABILITY. I have not touched the existing section on the 2015 political brouhaha. I leave others to deal with that. @Meters:@Moxy:E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job. I suggest every editor who !voted to delete or redirect should take another look at the new version. Meters (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (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.