Talk:Indo-Canadians

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

Abbotsford is near the Vancouver International Airport???=[edit]

Untitled[edit]

hardly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Archives[edit]

Talk:Indo-Canadians/Archive 1

Rudy Dhalla[edit]

Why is there no picture of Ruby Dhalla?(Dewan 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Because no one has provided one.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no picture of everyone in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.30 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few pictures of individuals in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.30 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Immigration Question[edit]

There are many Indians in India, who want to immigrate to North America. To get to Canada and United States, they need to apply for immigration and pay some fees and then buy expensive airplane tickets. Indian rupee(INR) dollar is worthed very low compare to the Canadian dollar and American dollar.

Are the Indians who can pay for the immigration fees and airplane tickets to come to Canada and U.S, are rich? Is buying an airplane ticket to North America for a middle-class Indian in India like an average Canadian buying a new BMW or Mercedes in Canada? 72.140.11.75 (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Standard of living in India, "In 2006, the per capita PPP-adjusted GDP for India was US$6,737." I don't know how disparity of wealth in India would affect this, but if your flight costs $1500, you're going to have trouble bringing over your family on an average annual wage of $6,737.
Also, from http://www.avocat.qc.ca/english/iicanimmigrationfaq.html :
"Applicants generally must provide evidence of sufficient funds for the family to travel and settle in Canada as measured against the current annual Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) published by Statistics Canada. A sum of $14,280 would satisfy LICO requirements for a family comprising of the applicant, spouse and one child. Such evidence may be furnished immediately prior to visa issuance. "
By my reading, you need to have a job lined up in Canada, or you need to have a significant amount of assets to immigrate, flight and immigration fees aside. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of the an airplane ticket from India to Canada or the U.S. is way more than $1500 CDN. Don't forget that India is half a world away from North America. It would make sense that only rich Indian immigrants can come to Canada. 72.140.11.75 (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way more than $1500 for a one way flight? You need a better travel agent. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 2008 CIA Factbook, the GDP - per capita (PPP) for India is $2,700. Other sources say it is little more than $3000. A middle-class Indian can't afford to buy an airplane ticket to North America, right? 72.140.11.75 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously some of them can. You sounds like you're trying to win a bet or something. As far as I know, the income distribution isn't like North America, where the majority of people are middle class. There are a lot of people in India (like maybe a third of the population) earning a dollar or two a day, so for the average income is 6,737 (or the GDP per capita is $3000), there are people making a lot more than that. In other words, when they say "average" here, they don't mean "most common income" but total income divided by population. Maybe someone at Standard of living in India knows more about the average salary of a middle-class Indian. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Indians can immigrate easily to Canada because many of them can speak English fluently and they have high education levels. But when they do get to Canada, they need to find jobs and that would usually take time to do. If Canada gets a lot of Indian immigrants, there would be a problem because most Indians are Hindus which means they are vegetarians and that would affect the Canadian meat industry. 208.124.207.122 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happen to the previous discussion?[edit]

Hey, there were other discussion like the Indo-Canadian history on this talk page before. What happened to them and who deleted them? Sonic99 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It looks like it got left behind at Talk:Canadians of Indian descent during a botched move. Anyone know how to fix this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to an archive of this talk page here. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Indians from the Republic of India or South Asians?[edit]

I can't figure it out, is this about republican Indians or subcontinental Indians? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Indians who have ancestral origins from the Republic of India. Read the first paragraph of the article. Sonic99 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article itself "Indo-Canadians are Canadians whose origins trace back to the Indian sub-continent." So it seems to disagree with you. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be changed to Republic of India, since most Indo-Canadians have either immigrated from the Republic or have parent, grand parents that moved from the Republic. Immigration was only opened up in 1967 to allow immigrants in, firmly establishing that since the Republic of India became independent in 1947, these Indians had to have come from the republic of India. Otherwise, they would be considered Pakistani or Bangladeshi. --Parihav (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for "Hindu" as derogatory term for Sikhs et al.[edit]

Although disambiguation pages normally do not require citations, someone has placed a fact tag on the entry for the usage of "Hindu" as a derisive term for Sikhs in Canada on Hindu_(disambiguation). I'd venture that the term is also used for Muslim Indians and Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans, but the primary focus, and resentment, about this term has been in relation to Sikhs. Can anyone come up with a citation as to its use as a derisive; the citation should go on teh disambiguation page's talkpage rather than in a reference tag. List of ethnic slurs is another place it should appear.Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article include Pakistani Canadians?[edit]

If not, and this is about Canadians with ancestry only from India, then why does South Asian Canadian redirect here? EasternAryan (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

This fractious and bad-tempered RfC turns on how many articles we should use to cover Canadian people of Indian descent in a part of Canada. One editor makes a determined, vocal, and well-argued case in favour of two or more articles, and everyone else thinks we need one. WhisperToMe's had every opportunity to make his case, and he hasn't convinced anyone else at all, so I'm afraid I have to say that the consensus is merge.

This conclusion was reached after a lot of wasted words and a great deal of entirely unnecessary hostility.—S Marshall T/C 02:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indo-Canadians in Vancouver was started by a "Texan Indian" using US sources, titling it as Asian Indians in Vancouver (maybe first Indians in Vancouver as that's a redirect.....anyone familiar with Canada would know why that title is unworkable; he used US sources for the most part, including in his justification of his chosen title, after being advised it was not workable; I've improved it slightly, and added "Greater" to "Vancouver" for reasons familiar to anyone who actually knows anything about BC, but it's still totally redundant relative to this article (Indo-Canadians) and the actual merge of what little is there won't really add much here. Indo-Canadian history in BC maybe one day would warrant a separate provincial-level article, but as with History of Chinese immigration to Canada and Chinese Canadians, it was decided long ago that there was no call for separate provincial or by-city articles. The same applies here.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says.
  • "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
So what do we have?
  • Nayar, Kamala Elizabeth. The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations Amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism. University of Toronto Press, 2004. ISBN 0802086314, 9780802086310.
  • Nayar, Kamala Elizabeth, "Misunderstood in the Diaspora: The Experience of Orthodox Sikhs in Vancouver." Sikh Formations 4, No. 1 2008), p. 17-32.
  • Sanghera, Gumar S. The Male Punjabi Elderly of Vancouver: Their Background, Health Beliefs and Access to Health Care Services. University of British Columbia, 1991. See profile at Google Books.
  • Singh, Mohinder. Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver : a Socio-economic Study. National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, B.C. Chapter, 1981. See profile at Google Books.
We have entire books that discuss the Indo-Canadians of Vancouver so therefore this topic is suitable for a standalone article.
"Indo-Canadian history in BC maybe one day would warrant a separate provincial-level article, but as with History of Chinese immigration to Canada and Chinese Canadians, it was decided long ago that there was no call for separate provincial or by-city articles." - Thanks to what I've uncovered, there is such a call now. Don't want to take my word for it? Here are some AFDs you can look at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles - This was back in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Americans_in_New_York_City
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for Indo-Canadians in BC, it won't "one day" warrant a separate article. It already does. I found a bibliography here (Archive)
  • Ames, Michael M. & Joy Inglis. 1974. “Conflict and Change in British Columbia Sikh Family Life”. In British Columbia Studies, Vol. 20.
  • Ames, Michael M. & Joy Inglis. 1976. “Tradition and Change in British Columbia Sikh Family Life”. In The Canadian Family, K. Ishwaran (ed.). Toronto: Hold, Reinhart and Winston of Canada.
  • Archie, Trudy & Sherry Edmunds-Flett. 1999. The History of Sikh-Canadians in British Columbia: Fundamental Reading and Writing Exercises. Abbotsford, BC: UCFV.
  • Bains, Nina. 1974. A Brief Study of East Indian (Sikh) Community of Victoria. B.A. Hons. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Bolarian, B. Singh & G. S. Basran. 1985. Sikhs in Canada: History of Sikhs in British Columbia- A Research Report. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.
  • Button, R. A. 1964. Sikh Settlement in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. B.A. thesis, Geography Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Hans, Raj Kumar. 2003. “Gurdwara as a Cultural Site of Punjabi Community in British Columbia, 1905 – 1965.” In Fractured Identity: The Indian Diaspora in Canada, Sushma J. Varma & Radhika Seshan (eds.). Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
  • Joy, Annamma. 1982. Accommodation and Cultural Persistence: The Case of the Sikhs and Portuguese in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia (Ph.D. thesis), University of British Columbia.
  • Joy, Annamma. 1984. “Work and Ethnicity: The Case of the Sikhs in Okanagan Valley in British Columbia”. In South Asian in the Canadian Mosaic, Rabindra Kanungo (ed.). Montreal: Kala Bharati.
  • Joy, Annamma & Verne A. Dusenbery. 1980. Being Sikh in British Columbia: Changing Definitions of Self and Others. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Asian Studies Association.
  • Koehn, Sharon Denise. 1993. Negotiating New Lives and New Lands: Elderly Punjabi Women in British Columbia (M.A. thesis), University of Victoria, Victoria.
  • Kumar, Hans Raj. 1998. “Punjab Press and Immigrant Culture in British Columbia between Wars”. In Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 33:16.
  • Lal, Brij. 1976. East Indians in British Columbia, 1904 – 1914: An Historical Study in Growth and Integration (M.A. thesis), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Lowes, George H. 1963. The Sikhs of British Columbia (Ph.D. thesis), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Sandhu, Karnail Singh. 1972. “Indian Immigration and Racial Prejudice in British Columbia”. In Peoples of the Living Land: Geography of Cultural Diversity in British Columbia, Julian V. Minghi (ed.). Vancouver: Tantalus.
  • Sandhu, Teresa Jane. 1983. Social Distance and the Pidginized Speech of Punjab Women in British Columbia (M.A. thesis), University of Victoria. Also in Resources for Feminist Studies, Vol. 13:3, 1984.
  • Schroff, Rani. 1978. East Indians in British Columbia (M.A. thesis), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Verma, Archana B. 1994. Status and Migration among the Punjabis of Paldi, British Columbia and Paldi, Punjab (Ph.D. thesis), Simon Fraser University.
  • Walton-Roberts, Margaret. 2001. Embodied Global Flows: Immigration and Transnational Networks between British Columbia, Canada, and Punjab, India (Ph.D. thesis), University of British Columbia.
  • Wilson, J. Donald & Dahlie Jorgen. 1975. “Negroes, Finn, Sikhs: Education and Community Experience in British Columbia”. In Sounds Canadians: Language and Cultures in a Multi-ethnic Society, Paul Migus (ed.). Toronto: P. Martin Assoc.
This list here won't include sources that don't have British Columbia in the title but instead mention Vancouver or a Vancouver suburb: those ones are going in the Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver article in the "Further reading" section. I am going to check university databases for more sources and list those too.
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Skookum, I'm finding too many sources from Chadney alone specifically about Vancouver Sikhs. I think that alone settles the debate, doesn't it? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Skookum1: Please consider the BC Indo-Canadian sources above and the BC Indo-Canadian sources I have listed at Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#Further_reading - Think carefully about the decisions in the AFDs I have presented here. This subject has even more sources than Armenians in Los Angeles which was a keep. Even if you subtract master's theses, there are still too many sources to not have an article on these subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tell that to the rest of WikiProject Canada; I argued long and hard for the history of the Chinese in BC to be a separate article but the omnibus articles were what was gone with; maybe time to revisit that, likewise with the separation of BC material out from the rest of the Indo-Canadians article, as though there are more in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) than there are in the Lower Mainland (which is Greater Vancouver plus the parts of the Fraser Valley not already in Greater Vancouver), they have a much higher public profile in BC, particularly in Surrey, British Columbia (part of Greater Vancouver) and in Abbotsford, British Columbia (not part of Greater Vancouver though right next to its eastern edge) and in nearby Mission and in Chilliwack. And I'm sure you'll find in some of those sources mention of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo and Okanagan; "in British Columbia" was my recommendation but because no sources are available to me here (I am in Cambodia right now) without adding them I didn't want to bother. Suffice to say that the long-time mayor of my hometown in the Fraser Canyon (Lillooet) had Canada's first Indo-Canadian mayor, Johnder Basran, a Sikh; though there as in other places there is no temple or "community" as such; Mission/Abbotsford is the home of Erwin Braich who I went to high school with and is the world's second-richest Sikh; it's not like Indo-Canadians in BC are limited to Vancouver or even Greater Vancouver. That was my point but some AGF was going on as if there were no sources and what is common knowledge in BC was being wiki-doubted by someone not familiar with the place, or even with the proper term....List of Indo-Canadian politicians in British Columbia would be fairly long, for example, and Herb Doman and others like Braich are notable industrialists "going way back". Then there's Dave Basi and Ujjal Dossanjh and more..... also re BC the IC community is dominantly Sikh, or until recently it was (more Hindus and some Muslims now, though SFAIK not many of the latter from India but rather Pakistan or Bangladesh); unlike Ontario where non-Sikh groups, I believe, are around in stronger proportions. If you want to work on all of this, that's fine, and you will learn much in the process, but knowing the mass of information that there is out there, and knowing there is some resistance in WP:Canada to by-province articles for ethnic groups, I'll leave this merge discussion open for now. And I still think/know/recommend that Indo-Canadians in British Columbia or Indo-Canadian history in British Columbia is the way to go. My dinner's here.....Skookum1 (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Chinese history in British Columbia: I can help you find sources for that if you want. If you have enough, it will pass GNG, and you can cite the AFDs I mentioned if anyone tries to AFD it. If I were you I would begin to just write the article and show sources in the further reading section if you have that. Anyway, Indo-Canadians in British Columbia is certainly possible. If I have a simple source mentioning where Indo-Canadians are in BC I can start it in an afternoon and the collection of sources above will be in the further reading section. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to get journal articles from Wikipedia:RX? I love using that resource. Also, http://reddit.com/r/scholar may be a place to get some too. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares that you "love using that resource"? And citing reddit is just as bad as using about.com; is reddit even a reliable source in Wiki-terms?Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Skookum1: This was advice to help you! WP:RX] is how you get sources to write articles!. (If they are stuck behind a paywall you get someone else to get the article for you). And my mention reddit.com/r/scholar has absolutely nothing to do with citing articles. You don't cite Reddit. You go on Reddit and say "Hey guys, I know this source but I can't get it. Can you get it for me?" Again, if an article is stuck behind a paywall, you ask Reddit guys to fetch it for you. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being patronizing; it was ME who was trying to help YOU and advise YOU, and you ignored everything I had to say, and started being a passive-aggressive attack-mode waffler and defender of your mistakes and bad sources. I don't want to work on these articles, though have done a little bit to "pick up after you" when you've made glaring mistakes and omissions because of your lack of knowledge on the subjects at hand; there's plenty of other much more impottant BC history/society articles in need of writing, isntead of pandering to the ongiong wiki-obsession with ethnically-focused articles as you are evidently doing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were also in need of help. You didn't have access to sources, so I told you how to get more. The only "picking up" was the article title and maybe About.com. (I say maybe). Every other source I use is more than reasonable. You know, other seasoned Wikipedians don't complain when they see a "stub" or a "start" condition article and may get something wrong, and they don't berate the people who are trying to be helpful in starting them. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, your condescending/patronizing arrogance and ongoing denial is breathtaking. "picking up" was changing the completely WRONG usage that you started off with (Asian Indians doesn't wash in Canada), and expanding the title from the City of Vancouver to the name of the metropolitan region; I should have just changed it to "in British Columbia" to prevent you from coopting that title for your POV fork using it. That you resisted and criticized my changes and defended your use of the wrong term by pointing at uninformed/mis-termed Yankee sources and continue to stonewall this merge discussion with your self-justifications is noxious. I tried to advise you when you first showed up on CANTALK about the Air India disaster, and your posture and postured and postured and did the same with the German item about "if no sources are found, I'll file a move request" as if what I had done, as a British Columbian editor of long standing, was completely AGF. But here you are whining about being "berated" instead of paying attention, and now trying to draw me into helping you with articles that you are "in the business of starting" yet to date, don't have anything new in them than Indo-Canadians or German Canadians already have. Seems you didn't even look for them. And the "German title" is complicated, as German-heritage people are not all from Germany, many are Russian Germans, ex-Sudeten/Czech Germans, Transylvanians, Baltic Germans, Swiss and others. It's not me taht's wasting time, it's you by preventing these merges by your WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with lists of sources you finally found - once you deigned to acknowledge the proper Canadian usage, after arrogantly disputing it by referring to US sources.Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge expanded Rather than move Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver (originally per the author "Asian Indians in Vancouver" to Indo-Canadians in British Columbia as recommended, the latter title was used for a separate article from the one on Greater Vancouver....they are inseparable topics, which has yet to sink in to the Texas-based author of these articles, who has YET to provide a reason why a [Greater] Vancouver subarticle, or a BC subarticle, should ex separately from Indo-Canadians and/or [[List of Indo-Canadians. IMO you created the BC title to prevent me from moving your pet GV article to it, wherre it should have been all along and as I had recommended. You can "start it in an afternoon" indeed; showing me your lack of depth on the subject...and I still have to ask WHY are you so obsessed with these topics? Right now you are creating "wiki-clutter" using cherrypicked items from the host of sources that are out there (once you finally started searching for "Indo-Canadians" instead of "Asian Indians").Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't need a depth on a subject, Skookum. I just need to start a stub and show sources. That's how Wikipedia articles start. That's what stubs are for. Do you know why I am "so obsessed" with ethnicity? Because I am interested in it, and I myself want to start these articles. This is a Wiki. You are going to encounter Texas-based editors editing articles on your city, and you are going to work with them, and you are going to accept that. Just as much as the ENSCO Inc. guy had to accept me editing the article on "his" company. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all the blather about sources and what-not here, NO REASON has yet been provided why these articles are needed in addition to already-extant content covering the same material. Your article content is amateurish, you have never even been to the city in question, and it doesn't matter how many books you cite (but have yet to read and incorporate content from), and here you are stumping as [[WP:OWN]er of the articles you are "in business of starting".Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. I gave the reasons. If the reasons are acceptable to NIU or the Encyclopedia of Chicago then they should be acceptable to you.
    • 2. Skookum, this is a volunteer effort. If it's "amateur" that's better than "nothing". If you want it to be more than "amateur" put a smile on your face and improve it.
    • 3. "you have never even been to the city in question" - that doesn't matter in the Wikipedia world.
    • 4. "and it doesn't matter how many books you cite (but have yet to read and incorporate content from)" - How am I not incorporating content from the books??? Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it fundamentally relies on the books cited.
    • 4. I have every right to fight an attempted merge/removal of content that I started. That is not WP:OWN.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YOu DON'T have a right to launch POV-fork articles as you are doing. You don't seem to get that, and so what if you're a volunteer? So am I, and you ignored me and are now engaged in extensive patronizing comments/excuses in the course of what is, yes WP:OWN behaviour. This merge discussion should be about reasons why these articles are needed on top of those that already exist; your bludgeoning of me and your citation of books you haven't even read yet in the course of defending your amateurish content adds nothing to my attempt to get other Canadian and Vancouver editors to comment.....I note similar WP:OWN behaviour in the AfDs you tossed down as "precedents".Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way in heck those are "POV-forks" (what point of view). Skookum, please do yourself favor and take a break from editing. This is not cool. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, maybe this will show the sitution: A city-based ethnicity article takes specifics related to the city and ensures that the province-based article does not have too much detail related to the city, and likewise the province-based article has generalities about the province and maybe specifics on the smaller cities, so there is not too much detail in the "Indo-Canadian" article. Indo-Canadian needs to be a very general article that lacks too many specifics. There is a need for places for specific details, and these city articles are those places. Does this explanation make sense? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, two more reasons: 1. The article serves as an "index" for city-based topics related to an ethnicity. For instance Chinese in Chicago links to prominent people, organizations, history, etc. related to the Chinese community in Chicago. Someone interested in the Chinese community in Chicago can use the article to explore the topic. 2. It provides a list of references for people researching the topic. If someone wants to research Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver in particular, they can do that with this article. This article provides the reliable sources from books, journal articles, periodicals, etc. That is the true value of an encyclopedia article: to show the reliable sources that a person may use. And I strongly disagree with complaints about the state of start articles. It takes time to build the articles, it takes time for me to read them, and it takes time to gather information and present it. And I prefer not to do userspace drafts because I want to give other people the opportunity to add to it. You did take the opportunity to add information to it. You know the subject, don't you? See, arguing over this stuff and getting angry over article starts is a waste of time and leads to problems from all of us. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You not listening to valid advice/inputs is what's causing the problem, as has your creation of a POV fork for "in Greater Vancouver" vs "in British Columbia" - apparently done to obstructively prevent a move to the proper context/framework of a discussion of Indo-Canadian history in BC. You have also ignored the context of the "FOOs" title of "Indo-Canadians" i.e. about individuals, not a comprehensive history/sociology as you have embarked upon, which should be something like "Indo-Canadian history in British Columbia". Separating content about Indo-Canadians in Abbotsford-Mission-Chilliwack (not part of Greater Vancouver) is not viable as you may learn if you stop imposing your external perceptions based on lack of knowledge of local geography/society, same goes for the Indo-Canadian presence on Vancouver Island or in the Interior. These merge discussions are needed, but you are being obstructively OWNer in a big way, and the merge of "in Greater Vancouver" and "in British Columbia" is NEEDED. But you are determined to stonewall that happening, just as you created the "in British Columbia" title to prevent the necessary move. All your blather about how Wikipedians can write whatever they like if the sources are there is completely ridiculous when you refuse to listen to or respect a local trying to give you the low-down on proper terminology and actual geographic reality.Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging is that you'll put in Wikipedia:Undue weight on Vancouver in an article that's supposed to be about the province. Undue weight covers facts and not only opinions. Putting too many local Vancouver facts in a BC-oriented article is considered to be a problem. I don't think we want undue weight.

Plenty of locals in Vancouver and/or people familiar with the Indo-Canadian scene believe that covering the Vancouver/Surrey community in particular is warranted as seen by the long bibliography for that article, so therefore Wikipedia should have a dedicated article for that. Even though today the proportion of Vancouver area Indo-Canadians to those in BC but outside of Vancouver is high, it was lower previously and there are separate books that cover each community on its own. Also people interested in Vancouver want a place where the ethnicities of that city are discussed (similar example: Ethnic groups in London). Then if you write all about the Indo-Canadians in Vancouver the section would be so long that it would overwhelm the article, so there would anyway be a need to separate it all into its own article.

There are many cases where people are Wikipedia:BOLD and just go ahead and write the darned article to show that it's notable, especially during AFD cases. It's considered acceptable and not reckless to "bulldoze" and write the article against the objections of those who say the article shouldn't exist: then in an AFD all the "Keep" votes come in an the article is saved. In any case the existence of Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver should not and will not take away from Indo-Canadians in British Columbia. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your UNDUE weight "argument" is RUBBISH'. Specious and grasping; there is no "opinion" that there is no separation between Indo-Canadians across BC with those in one of the 20 municipalities that make up Greater Vancouver. Hell, you argued against the change from "Vancouver" to "Greater Vancouver" without apparently knowing f-all about Surrey; Your personal claim that "Plenty of locals in Vancouver and/or people familiar with the Indo-Canadian scene " competely belies you own lack of familiarity with any such locals, and the way you have brushed off THIS local who tried to set you on the right path, only to be patronized and insulted; you created a POV fork, based on the "undue" notion that Indo-Canadian/Sikh history in Vancouver/Surrey/Richmond can be separated or is written or separately from Indo-Canadian/Sikh history in Squamish, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Duncan, Kelowna, Quesnel etc. This line is just silly "the existence of Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver should not and will not take away from Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" - who says? YOU? Two weeks ago you didn't even know the right term to use" and now claim that "plenty of locals" etc etc.....BOLD? You use THAT to justify a completely uninformed POV fork?Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The tendency of history and journalism to focus on major cities and metropolitan areas vs smaller places is standard fare anywhere; my opponent's complete lack of familiarity with the province and the lack of a lot of local history not being on-line I suppose makes it difficult for him to comprehend what a "local" is telling him, even though he invokes "plenty of locals" as if he knew a few dozen when in fact he's never been here, as gaffe after gaffe on his part have shown, both in the articles and in this and other "discussions". The notion that Indo-Canadian history/society in BC can and should be treated as separate from that of Greater Vancouver is SYNTH pure and simple; SYNTH being advanced by a neophyte on the subject as this bit of sillinesss demonstrates "Then if you write all about the Indo-Canadians in Vancouver the section would be so long that it would overwhelm the article, so there would anyway be a need to separate it all into its own article." The reality is that the histories of those smaller places cannot be treated separately......once you get around to reading them. All your arguments resisting these mergers/moves on wiki-guideline-nitpickery are completely tomfoolery and are evidence you are not interested in cooperating with "plenty of locals" (one in particular) and are intent on your "business of starting ethno articles". To what end, I have to ask? Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The notion that Indo-Canadian history/society in BC can and should be treated as separate from that of Greater Vancouver is SYNTH pure and simple; SYNTH being advanced by a neophyte on the subject"

One trick I do to avoid misunderstandings to quote from policies. WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - I am very careful to avoid WP:SYNTH. We have multiple books and articles specifically discussing "The Sikhs of Vancouver" or "Vancouver Sikhs" or "Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver" or "The Construction of (East) "Indian Culture" in Vancouver, Canada"" or "Indo-Canadian youth identity and belonging in Greater Vancouver" (I think we get it now) and I don't make any SYNTH arguments. It's simply a different focus.

If you change the focus of the article from British Columbia in general to Vancouver/Surrey in particular, it is a distinct subject. Have you talked to Kamala Elizabeth Nayar (one author on this subject) about it? She made separate works on Vancouver vs. those in other parts of BC. Wouldn't she agree with this summary? That doesn't mean that there are no connections to one another, and it does mean some Vancouver/Surrey Indo-Canadian history/events/people should be mentioned in the British Columbia article. But we have to have an article with focus on Vancouver. All the nice specifics go there.

I find it curious that "The Indo-Canadians" versus "Indo-Canadians" (as a starting sentence) is such a grievous gaffe. Since I'm so curious about "gaffes" (the "Asian Indian" to Indo-Canadian doesn't count because that's been corrected awhile ago) I think you should list them. I am interested in improving this material, so I would like for you to list them all. Then I'll consult the source material and show you what comes from what source. Once I show the sources on my end I will ask you for your sources (on why what is wrong is wrong). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I added an RFC so hopefully second and third parties will come along. I'm surprised at the lack of participation from other Canadian editors. Hopefully this will solve things. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the formal RFC tag, I also notified the WP:OR noticeboard (to resolve any concerns about WP:SYNTH), and I notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I came here based on the request posted by WhisperToMe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I have several comments which I will present as bulleted list:
    • Merge - I think that Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver should be merged into Indo-Canadians in British Columbia because their topic are related subjects that have a large overlap, as per WP:MERGE. Vancouver has more than half of the population of British Columbia and I haven't seen strong arguments that sources present the society or history of Indo-Canadians in Vancouver as much different from rest of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia.
    • Merge discussion?: If this is merge discussion it should have been tagged as such as per WP:MERGE. Otherwise, somebody who don't AGF (not me, of course) might think that WhisperToMe did not put merge tag to advance their position in this discussion.
    • Editors conduct: I think that important issue here is also an editors conduct. Both editors that participated in this discussion violated wikipedia policies and needlessly personalized the issue creating huge wall of text that may distract uninitiated editors from productive participation. Both editors are very experienced (Skookum1 has 86775 edits) on en.wiki alone so I think that both of them know their behavior here was less than exemplary. WhisperToMe is admin so their responsibility is bigger. Their patronizing provocative snide comments, creation of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia contrary to valid objection of Skookum1 (diff) ... are probably sanctionable or at least deserve a warning. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, it was me who placed the mergeto and mergefrom tags, originally from the "in [Greater] Vancouver" title to here, then once the "in British Columbia" title was created, revised that merge to merge the two articles WMT has created, which I maintain, and as you affirm re "valid objection of Skookum1", are POV forks imposed based on a SYNTH reading of titles and selected passages, by someone not familiar with the whole context. The merge discussion here i.e. to Indo-Canadians is now moot; the issue now is to fix the artificial division of a British Columbia topic as imposed by someone not familiar with the place, or its historical and geographical realities; he has always looked for justification for a particular series of "ethnicity by city" articles of his authorship, he has not listened to reason and has rather rejected it by trying to bury my input and criticisms by multiple discussions loaded with repetitions of the same lengthy SYNTH citations/arguments. Anyways, this article had had mergefrom tags when this merge discussion was started (by me); the merge tags remain on the two forked articles.Skookum1 (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reply about your conduct is at your talkpage (diff) because the subject of this discussion is merge proposal and I presented my honest opinion about it (I !voted for merging). All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Here is my reply to that (Clarification). WhisperToMe (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Maybe this will solve any concerns of whether this topic should stand on its own. I've found consistent statements, from three different sources, that the Vancouver Indo-Canadian community is either among the largest South Asian communities and/or the largest Sikh communities in the world, second to London. This is a powerful assertion of notability, is it not? As I've explained to Antidiskriminator, there are legitimate ways of using Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that argument cannot be automatically dismissed. If we're going to make Irish in New York City (which survived AFD back in 2007) then we should make this.
  • International Journal of Punjab Studies, Volume 2. Sage Publications, 1995. p. 178. "[...]and also in the two largest populations of Sikhs outside of India — in Britain, in London, and in Canada, in Vancouver."
  • Tucker, Alan. The Penguin Guide to Canada. Penguin Books, 1991. p. 539. "Vancouver has the largest overseas community of South Asians (from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka — many by way of Uganda or Fiji) outside of London, and the largest Sikh community outside of India." - See search page
  • Todd, Douglas. "Mapping our ethnicity Part 1: South Asia in Surrey" (Archive). Vancouver Sun. May 2, 2012. Retrieved on October 23, 2014. "West Newton is where Metro Vancouver’s main annual Vaisakhi parade draws hundreds of thousands of Sikh and Hindu celebrants. It’s among the largest South Asian diaspora communities on the planet — second only to enclaves in London."
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Elizabeth Kamala Nayar's book makes a point of specifically comparing Indo-Canadians in Vancouver to Indo-Canadians in Skeena.

  • The Punjabis in British Columbia: p. xx.
    • "Not only do these internal migrants now face the hererogeneity of the Vancouver Punjabi community, but they encounter a different experience of multiculturalism from the one they encountered in Skeena."
    • "[...]this study should prove useful not only to members of the Punjabi community in Canada, but also to Canadians in general because it provides a more comprehensive understanding of the socio-cultural and econoic dynamics of the Punjabi community in the Skeena region of northwestern BC and Metro Vancouver."

Now we have a book which intentionally discusses Vancouver in isolation and compares it to another BC community. The same author brings up he unique rural BC Indo-Canadian culture that is not present in Vancouver, which is why a separate article on BC Indo-Canadians as a whole is also needed. Not all Indo-Canadian cultures in BC are the same.

You can see, The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver, and a preview of the book.

  • The preface in p. xi says: "This study examines the Sikh community's process of adaptation to Canadian society in Vancouver." and "Especially so, because the Sikh community in Vancouver is unique among South Asian communities in that many of its members hail from an agricultural society."

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Nayar, The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver, p. 201: "In contrast to Sikhs in Vancouver, which has a large Sikh community, [sic] Sikhs in small towns throughout British Columbia interact far more with other communities." and "The Vancouver Sikh community is more insulated from the mainstream and is networked according to village and clan ties (partic-[...]" (don't have the preview for p. 202-203) - If Nayar is making Vancouver Sikhs to be distinct, then it's not SYNTH to write an article specifically about the habits of Vancouver Sikhs. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Here is something interesting:

  • Nayar, The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver, p. 211. "Those who have been raised in Vancouver, who have experienced the world basically confined to that city, view multiculturalism as 'how things are' and 'necessarily good' because it allows people to keep their culture[...]In contrast, those who have lived elsewhere - be it in England, Singapore, Hong Kong, small B.C. towns, or the United States - assess multiculturalism more critically." - Again, making Vancouver Sikhs a distinct topic
  • Now here: Nayar, The Punjabis in British Columbia, p. 286-287. "Nayar's social-anthropological study - on the multifaceted process of the Vancouver Sikh community's adaptation[...]the Canadian-born generation living in Vancouver whose antecedents had originally settled in rural BC tended to assess Canada's policy of multiculturalism more criticially than those born and raised in BC's Lower Mainland." - This is referring to the previous book The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver and is in the footnotes.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • COMMENT When are you going to let this be an actual merge discussion instead of you wall-papering it with speculations based on your readings of the texts you've just found? And what is meant by "rural BC" anyway? Do you even know??? Nanaimo, Duncan, Kelowna et al are NOT RURAL. What you are committing in using this to endorse your own Vancouver vs BC division is yet again SYNTH and nothing more.Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: The "wall-papering" (which are not "speculations") is strong evidence against a merge. This is what is supposed to happen in a merge discussion. We are having one now, and my "wall-papering" is a statement saying "a merge is wrong, don't do it."
      • The goal is to avoid Wikipedia:Original research. It is not original research to refer to Kamala Elizabeth Nayar's own "Vancouver vs BC division", which is what I'm referring to. She never brought up "Nanaimo, Duncan, Kelowna et al" in that sentence in Sikhs of Vancouver, and it doesn't matter if "Nanaimo, Duncan, Kelowna et al" are not rural. She never refers to them in that part of the book, so they are a non-issue. As long as she compares Vancouver to anywhere else in BC, it's A-OK. There is no original research needed to make a conclusion that she distinguishes Vancouver from "rural BC".
      • Somebody else made a distinction between Vancouver and rural BC (it doesn't matter "Nanaimo, Duncan, Kelowna et al" are not included). Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means it reports on what other people write about. If other people write about the distinction between Vancouver and other places, and if somebody writes about what makes Vancouver Sikhism special (comparisons to London, USA, and "small town BC"), we write about it.
      • If you have a problem with other authors distinguishing Indo-Canadians in Vancouver from those of any other part of BC, you should talk to them. The literature decides what is on Wikipedia.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the sizes of the cities you brought up aren't like Vancouver. In 2006 Duncan had a total of 4,986 people with a total of 40 South Asians. This is not anywhere near the magnitude of Vancouver. That year Kelowna had a total of 106,707 people, with 1,870 South Asians. I haven't found the figures for Nanaimo yet. That is not the same magnitude that you have in Vancouver and Surrey. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, you've been using welcomebc, which is the BC Ministry of Tourism site. Hasn't it even once occurred to you to use StatCan/Census of Canada figures? As for Duncan, next time you search make it "Cowichan Valley", the larger area that Duncan is the "downtown" for.......and when I said "Nanaimo/Duncan" I was meaning, as any British Columbian or person actually familiar with the place (BC) instead of writing from an aloof distance as you are, would include Chemainus, Ladysmith and other points in between. Point is about Duncan is one of my good friends in BC was raised there; he's Sikh, but lives now in Richmond; his life cannot be separated by arbitrary titling judgements made by someone in Texas who only knows about the place through books he's found so far. You sourced Kelowna but did you know to include West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country which are part of "Greater Kelowna". Of course not, because you have no idea where you're talking about. BTW the mayor of Lillooet I spoke about, his extended family is in Kelowna, I worked under his nephew (a film producer, now deceased) who lived in Burnaby; as with many IC families, they are not limited by the boundaries of Greater Vancouver, nor should your neophyte article be so limited; your opposition to the marge and the way you are doing it is obstructionist and your behaviour very questionable.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"BC Ministry of Tourism site. Hasn't it even once occurred to you to use StatCan/Census of Canada figures?" - Take a look at each page: "Source: 2006 Census, Statistics Canada"
I can refer to judgments made by other people. Kamala Elizabeth Nayar made a point to talk about differences between Indo-Canadian life in Vancouver, with the "Punjabi bubble", and Indo-Canadian life in smaller communities, which don't have this "bubble". There are authors who have chosen to focus on Vancouver, and there are authors who have chosen to focus on smaller cities. The judgment I made is based on the existence of the literature. WP:V is very clear that judgments are based on what's written down on paper or typed on a computer and published.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Skookum, please consider these three articles about City of Vancouver Indo-Canadian politics:

From those articles I learned there is a controversy about the at-large voting system in the City of Vancouver and how that affects Indo-Canadian political representation. There are proposals to legally abolish it and South Asians seem to be opposed to it. It has been going on for years and can be covered in detail.

This topic is considered to be of importance to the Indo-Canadian community, but it will not be possible to cover this subject in the appropriate amount of detail in Indo-Canadians in British Columbia due to WP:UNDUE. Excess content would be trimmed so there is a focus on the province as a whole. If people are interested in the politics of New York City, there are articles all about that. Likewise articles on ethnic groups should discuss their group's role in politics. There are people who are interested in the Indo-Canadian voting issue, and it needs a place where it may be covered in detail and is done so in the context of Vancouver's Indo-Canadian community. This is why city-based ethnicity articles are crucial. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • STOP... this is supposed to be a request for comments... which means you are seeking third party opinions from others... so stop arguing with each other. Each of you has made your case as best you can... your job now is to step back and wait for others to comment. Stop trying to convince each other that "I am right and you are wrong". Accept that two people who disagree so strongly simply can not form a consensus. You must both step back, listen to others... and let them form the consensus for you. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at consensus, respond here[edit]

  • Merge. The local article title (r.e.: Vancouver) seems redundant and synthetically created; it should be incorporated into the national article. The article creator(?)/defender cites "Other Stuff" as one main reason for the existence of the article, and the examples he cites are apples to oranges. Another reason cited for its continued existence is "UNDUE," which is simply a strawman argument in this case. The decision is about whether or not a merger should occur. Picking through the wall of words above, I see there is no compelling reason why one should not. RfC respondant, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge NB also Indo-Canadians in British Columbia needs to should maybe be merged, if this one is. The national article was my original merge proposal, the secondary merge of the "in BC" one was necessitated by the synthetic and unsubstantiated POV forking of the first (originally mis-named) article. Neither one was necessary, and IMO a lot of the Vancouver one that's been being worked on so ardently is UNDUE and overbuilt and pieces together quotes and cites to form various SYNTHs. Ontario is the other province with a very notable Indo-Canadian component and there may be valid reason for BC and Ontario sub-articles; but not for Vancouver or Toronto sub-articles. I trust this section will not be burdened by yet more lengthy lists of cites and synth arguments.Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a parallel/related RM is at Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Requested move, where the same urban/provincial claims are being made.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is another discussion at CANTALK launched by WMT that is now trying to change the article title or definition-game things, again based on his cursory knowledge and his ongoing SYNTH of whatever he reads being used to back up (he thinks) what he is "trying to prove" - he's trying to change the normative Canadian usage that this article has been at for so very long....the one he was completely unaware of until just a few short weeks ago and presumed to deprecate by the use of non-Canadian sources. The titles of the Indo-Canadian Times and Indo-Canadian Voice speak for themselves, and per WP:NCET what a group of people call themselves is what the priority title for an article should be. I tire of arguing with him when he doesn't listen to anything, only makes endless demands and strawman arguments, and I'm a bit disappointed in other WPCANADA editors for not weighing in; but we are fewer and fewer because of nonsense like this driving so many of us away in recent years. I really think he should have his adminship pulled for his ongoing AGF and FORUMSHOPPING and what amounts to SOAP and more.Skookum1 (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This conversation is also worth noting (not his reply, but what he was told).Skookum1 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now; recreate if this article reaches 100k. The subject of this article is clearly notable, it can be argued that the subject of in british columbia Indo-Canadians in British Columbia, and the subject of Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver may both meet WP:GNG, that being said both subjects fall within the scope of this article. Given that this article does not yet meet the size requirement where a sub-article should be created, it might benefit this article and the other subjects to merge them (if two exist) into this article. If this article meets WP:TOOBIG, in the future the sub-article Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply There is as yet no merge discussion section on Talk:Indo-Canadians in British Columbia but suffice to say the notion you have fielded that if Indo-Canadians gets TOOBIG, then "Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver can always be recreated" is not correct, what the proper context is would be "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia can always be recreated" a the artificial POV-fork creation of that title by WMT has no basis in social or geographical reality (no matter what he has interpreted/SYNTHd from sources he's chosen/selected to advance his spurious notions/claims). "Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver" would be no more useful/acceptable than would be "Indo-Canadians in the Greater Toronto Area" (GTA) vs "Indo-Canadians in Ontario" which would be the proper geographic/social breakdown. Please note I have removed the mergefrom template from Indo-Canadians and changed the mergeto on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver to direct the merge to his POV-fork creation of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia, which he created solely to prevent me from re-moving the supposedly urban-only pretext of "in Greater Vancouver" to "in British Columbia" as I had done with his his Chinese Canadians in Vancouver title and also his German Canadians in Greater Vancouver, which is now at German Canadians in British Columbia, the proper geographic breakdown, vs one interpreted from someone in Texas who knows only about these subjects/terms second-hand and who has never been to Canada and who has been rankly AGF about anything I have to say as a Canadian/BC editor of long standing. Obstructionism is rife in all his several discussions on numerous talkpages, which are invariably SYNTH in nature and confrontational in origin/motive. Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though, as noted just above, I have removed the mergefrom from this article, given the support for the merge originally proposed in lieu of the more immediate POV fork he created re Indo-Canadians in British Columbia, my original motivation here was the model of History of Chinese immigration to Canada] and Chinese Canadians, where a national article has long been deemed all that was needed or appropriate, without any "in BC" or "in Vancouver" (or "in Toronto" etc) subarticles. His own hobby/"in the business of" (as he puts it) is creating a series of "ethnicity by city" articles worldwide, so he he is hostile to anything and anyone that stands in the way of his original research on his pet series of OWNed articles; his behaviour on the titles he has created is blatantly WP:OWN, and given his complete lack of familiarity with Canada, or Canadian English usages and context this is entirely out of place and has been from day one highly AGF and contentious, as has his behaviour on the numerous sub-discussions in the course of his FORUMSHOPPING to find support for his agenda (which he has apparently listed at WikiProject China's talkpage as someone else has noted); I lose track of which is which, but he repeats his assertions and pet quotes in each one it's hard to tell them apart - which is why I have as yet started no merge discussion on Talk:Indo-Canadians in British Columbia despite having added the mergefrom tag there, and adjusted the mergeto tag on his Greater Vancouver title; which is really a POV fork, though he created the "in BC" title afterwards, as noted expressly to prevent me from moving the title to its proper context.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • further comment to those voicing support for this merge, despite the deluge/bludgeoning of it from the opponent of the merge; the POV fork created re

in BC I've started a merge section at Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion as a formality; if this merge goes through, as I believe it should, that title should also be merged forthwith, it was a POV fork anyway, see the exchange between "the opponent" and @Adntidiskriminator: in the previous section. I am glad someone out there has common sense and that you are supporting the merge, and submit that a lot of what's in Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver is little more than dross and an indiscrminate collection of stuff cribbed together in UNDUE fashion and can be deleted wholesale, rather than imported into this article, which now has also, per the same avid editor, a huge "Terminology" section which is UNDUE in the extreme; the other reason for this comment is that too much of my time and wiki-energy has been taken up by all this, and I am de-watchlisting this page and others, including WP:CANTALK where similarly repetitive cite-thumping has been overwhelming. That I am even de-watchlisting my own country-wikiproject's talkpage speaks t o my frustration/exhaustion, I leave the rest of you to whatever may come of "wikipedia in its wisdom" and trust that someone will see the merits of disciplining "the disruptor" here appropriately.....maybe even with a topic-ban given his behaviour and attitude....I'm done, done, done.Skookum1 (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong templates[edit]

There is no reason at all to include WikiProject India here; this is not about India but about Canada - I have removed it; the template was added by User:Dimadick in 2012, the {{British English}} template was added in 2012 by User:Kkm010 without explanation or, apparently, without any knowledge of concern that British English is NOT the same as Canadian English and should not be used on Canada-only topics.Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject China and WikiProject Japan cover the disasporas and not only China and Japan themselves. Does WikiProject India cover the diaspora from post-partition India? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that logic, which I dispute the validity of, were to be applied consistently, then Canadians should have WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject France, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Caribbean, WikiProject Germany et al, and also WP:IPNA and more on it.... plus WikiProject Middle East, WikiProject Lebanon, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Greece et al on it. The extension of national-projects onto so-called "diaspora" nations was fallacious from the start, but when a topic is not about "Citizens of India who are now Canadian citizens" it is highly unsuitable; the ethno-political agenda so popular in Wikipedia remains questionable, from start to finish. You are dismissive to my "beliefs" to start with, so my knowledge that Canadians-as-Canadians (of whatever ethnic background) is something else you will claim is "original research" even though you've only just dabbled the waters and are using SYNTH over and over again to justify your artificial divisions between articles. It would seem also, that {{British English}} was added by someone extended the presence of WP:India to infer that this article should be in British English, which it clearly should not be..... and it's not as if {{Indian English}} weren't distinct from British English. This article is not about India, not in the least; it is about Canadians. Maybe one day you'll realize taht "Canadians" includes all of us, not just the small sector of us you are now obsessing about, but who I know many of personally; all would identify, and would be identified in news reports as such, as "Canadians" pure and simple. But what would I know? I'm only a Canadian, you somehow know all and judge all according to some readings you've just begun digging into....this is similar to the old use of national-flags on ethno-articles that are now removed; this article is about Canadians in Canada....... GET IT?Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Canadians" doesn't focus on a particular diaspora while this article does. Now, this is a guideline and not a policy, but the idea is that generally... Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#WikiProjects_define_their_scopes. This discussion wouldn't be with me, because I'm not a member of the project. It would be with the guys here: Wikipedia:WikiProject India WhisperToMe (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started here WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, in case you hadn't noticed, Indo-Canadians were well-established in Canada long before India was partitioned. Reality is that if it is put back then WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject Bangladesh should also be added as the Indo-Canadian community's origins aren't JUST in what is now defined as India. Hell, add in WikiProject East Africa too, since many were from Uganda and Kenya.....then there's wikiProject Trinidad. Ethno-clutter Wikiproject templates are questionable to start with, often wildly misapplied, as with flags; in this case it was AHEAD of the Canada template and seems to be why some other editor added teh {{British English}} template. Go ahead, add it back if it's so important to you; but don't put it at the top this time. Don't forget to add WP:Pakistan, WP:Bangladesh and while you're at it, WikiProject Sikhism and WikiProject Hinduism and WikiProject Islam, too....in deferenc to Goans, add WikiProject Catholicism too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the history of South Asia (British India was divided in the 1940s, and then Bangladesh broke off later). The Khalistan movement in BC concerned itself with post-partition India. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia and it can easily be put under South Asia to be broader. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Does_WikiProject_India_cover_the_Indian_.28post-partition.29_diaspora.3F there is clear consensus that some "home country" template should be included. I will tag this with WikiProject South Asia. If there is a revert I will notify the India project and they will be involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information on early census data (around 1911)[edit]

On page 106 (PDF 114/265) it states that the Canadian census described Indo-Canadians as "Sikhs" and "Hindus" and that "Sometimes these categories were treated separately and sometimes they overlapped." - The largest immigration was to Vancouver, Calgary, and Victoria WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Indo-Canadian[edit]

It is clear from my research that "Indo-Canadians" include people of all South Asian origins and not only those with origins from post-partition India.

Master's degree theses:

So "Indo-Canadian"'s specific distinction is to refer to Canada-born South Asians/and/or children of South Asian immigrants. If/when the definition only includes "Indian" rather than all South Asians, that's because the scope of the discussion of the paper/article only consists of those with origins of post-partition India. Based on the research the definition "Indo-Canadian" includes every person born in Canada who has some kind of origins from South Asia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really are hot on the campaign to do away with "Indo-Canadians" or redefine it according to your own readings of sources, aren't you? As I did just now on yet another of the multitude of discussions you have fielded your walls-of-text SYNTH game with citations, academic definitions do NOT trump WP:Naming convention (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification:
"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.
What a sophomore in Texas who's not Indo-Canadian wants to formulate by citing academic definitions is not relevant; academic citations are not the be-all, end-all, as various passages in WP:TITLE (a policy) and elsewhere in other guidelines all make clear; I don't have time to spend my whole day finding them and citing them. The principle of self-identification is what's relevant here, and the titles of the Indo-Canadian Voice and Indo-Canadian Times are clear evidence that you are wrong and that you are presumptively arrogant in challenging what they call themselves and should drop this right now. "Indo-Canadian" is the normal Canadian English usage as a scan of Canadian media and blog sources will easily show; more and more you remind me of this little essay about Wikipedians who live in a bubble of their own self-concocted reality, wasting others' time with your one-man campaign to overturn a term you didn't even know existed a month ago. How many hours a day are you spending on this, and on making demands that I spend more time counter-citing you based on your own demands and not on any respect for me, or for Canadian English, or for Indo-Canadians themselves? go find something useful to do.Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl post. Please listen to her. @Moonriddengirl: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What she said was not a license for you to use RS to advance your SYNTH and POV forks.....you have SYNTHd what she said t o suit yourself, that's plain. And I'm done with this/ you don't listen to me, rather you patronize me and demand I waste more time on your agenda and t ell me "I have no place here" on CANTALK, which I just dewatchlisted] for the first time since I joined Wikipedia. Why don't you go over everything in WP:Outline of Canada and start title games for the whole place. maybe one day you might even visit canada, rather than just pontificate about. I'm approaching 60 and don't have time for more asinine disruptiveness and obsessivness from a less-than-20 something; ddespite the active merge discussion on this page (which is still there and not going in the direction you want, hence more BLUDGEONing by you here and elsewhere), I'm disengagingfor the good of my blood pressure and walking away, and de-watchlisting this page and all others where you have dumped all your newly-found/cherrypicked cites and quotes. Moonriddengirl, I won't see any reply here; you can email me if you want or talk to me on my talkpage, I'm done with this and because of it may soon quit Wikipedia again. Bored of this shit and tired of being patronized and talked down to by someone whose terminology games belong in Wiktionary not in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Indo-Canadians. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Gender[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aphroditia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nothinbutsierra (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Canadians&oldid=1207712399"