Talk:Visible minority

message: Where when why how by whom was the term coined? jnestorius(talk) 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: As in "Visible minority, n.i.e." in the table. Its general meaning is obvious - "none of the above" - but the abbreviation is not, and I can't work out what it stands for. 86.132.139.119 (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which it should be noted does not mean "none of the above".Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "n.i.e." stand for? 

message: I don't have the time (or stomach) to write this but the absence of this much-needed article from Wikipedia is bothersome, epsecially given the high priority on visible minorities in many articles and category-definitions.  Visible minority advocates also are often dismissive, i.e. discriminatory, towards invisible minorities.  These range from "white minorities" of various kinds e.g. Europeans-from-Europe who have accent/language or cultural differences in North America, e.g. Polish immigrants, also peoples like the Doukhobors and Hutterites (Hutterites are actually visible because of their apparel, like Amish, but are still declared to be "part of the majority" which is defined on racial terms; even Britons still-with-an-accent are "invisible minorities" in North America and treated as such (particularly by the bigotry of post-modern historians ranting about British influence in Canada); other groups for whom the term is used are gays, Filipino-�Americans,.  Hedwig Gorski, a Polish-American, defines here group as among "Invisible European minorities".  Here is a prelimimary google for the term, which turns up all kinds of interesting things.  I may come back and point-form a short version of such an article, but if someone would care to write up a more full exegesis on the topic in the meantime that would be great.  And in a non-Wiki moment, I really believe minority politics cannot be fairly or adequately addressed until the racial biases and reverse discrimination built into the application of the concept of "visible minorities" in government and organizational policies until the invisible minorities are fairly dealt with, and not dismissed by visible-minority activists as "just another kind of white" and therefore unimportant.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Invisible minority]]

message: The Government of Canada "Visible Minority" definition is either racist or born out of complete ignorance. Why are Greeks, Portuguese, and Italians not classified as visible minorities when they are clearly visible in the sense that you can easily identify them as as being of non-English and non-French background? For example the majority of Syrian Arabs have lighter complexion, hair and eye colour from your average Greek, Portuguese, or southern Italian, yet the former is defined as a visible minority while the latter is not. I think it would have made more sense to say you are either of European or non-European background for census information and employment equality purposes. The government of Canada has no right in defining which race people belong to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderKnight (talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about People from the Mediterranean Basin? 

message: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/pop127-eng.cfm
 Moxy (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New data Oct 25 ,2017 

message: One of the other things that is a struggle with this classification is the lack of clarification as to where a person who is of mixed heritage, minority (racialized) and non-minority (aka Caucasian), puts themselves.
There is question as to which is the right one, or which classification would be the most advantageous to oneself, or rather which one is not going to disadvantage me?
But the bottom line is that with someone that is equally mixed, they are forced to choose and that shouldn't be necessary nor required.
This is not unlike the issues that people face in the gender realm and the forced categorizations that have gone with the choice between female and male.
One should not have to choose, and if they are asked it should be open to allow for variances.
:Looking at what qualifies as a 'visible minority', it seems like "mixed [descent/race/etc]" is not one of the recognized visible minority groups. People who write-in multiple ethnic entries, like Latin American and a European ethnic response, or a West Asian or Arab and a European ethnic response do not count as being 'mixed' or a 'visible minority'. But someone who says they are 'South Asian and Irish' and 'Black and French' would be. Though they are still counted as just "South Asian" or "Black" irregardless of their partial European heritage.
:Confusingly, this seems to imply that someone who is half-Latin American and half-European descent or half-West Asian/Arab and half-European descent does not count as Latin American or West Asian/Arab respectively in the visible minority groups of Canada, while people can write-in multiple responses in combination with other groups like South Asian or Chinese or Filipino and still be counted as a visible minority. 
:I've noted in the article, with sourced quotes about the stipulations around multiethnic responses and certain visible minority groups. But at the end of the day, this is how the Canadian census is set-up and reliably sourced criticisms of it can be noted, but do not change the census. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Heritage