Wikipedia

Talk:South Asian Canadians in Greater Vancouver

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Haritosh in topic Vishwa Hindu Prasad??
Learn more about this page

This subject is suitable for a standalone-article

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let's review WP:GNG: "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."

There are entire books and works that discuss the specific Indo-Canadian diaspora in Vancouver:

  • 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 also have precedent from two AFDs:

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Focus of this article

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This should focus specifically in the Greater Vancouver region. Some ideas on what to cover:

  • What is the effect on the politics/culture/cuisine of Vancouver and its suburbs?
  • What neighborhoods and suburbs did the Indo-Canadians settle?
  • What educational programs do the local school districts have?
  • Statistics related to the Greater Vancouver region

The Indo-Canadians in British Columbia article should have the overall province-wide statistics and the information on Indo-Canadians not in Greater Vancouver. It can discuss the culture and history of Indo-Canadians in rural areas such as Skeena. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

That example is yet another demonstration of your complete ignorance of the subject matter...what do you know about the Skeena Country? Or anywhere else in BC? Zilch, it seems; and it's not like you can't find Census data for anywhere in BC... you haven't even tried have you? I should ahve moved the Greater Vancouver article to this title before you had a chance to dissemble it with half-informed comments about "statistics" you haven't even looked for, or brought up the Skeena...... "rural areas" apparently means to you "anywhere that is not Vancouver"...Quesnel, which is a city, has a significant Indo-Canadian presence. So do Kamloops and Kelowna, both cities; Duncan and Nanaimo, on Vancouver Island, both are cities. Abbotsford, too, is a city, so is Chilliwack. All with Indo-Canadian presence and none are "rural".Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

" "rural areas" apparently means to you "anywhere that is not Vancouver"" - You realize these sources are talking about over 100 years ago. Are these places rural now? Maybe not. Were they rural then? Kamala Elizabeth Nayar's pages? Here p. 46: "Although the Sikh community in British Columbia was close-knit and the gurdwaras worked together, over time, the small-town gurdwaras on Vancouver Island actually preferred to be independent from the Vancouver KDS." - Perhaps I'll change it to "small town" but often small town means a rural area. In fact, if you read Nayar she makes it clear that Vancouver is not the only urban area. My next in Indo-Canadians in British Columbia does not say that Vancouver is the only urban area in BC! Nayar says that the Vancouver KDS controlled the urban gurdwaras, but many of those gurdwaras were not in Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

These stubs are not harmful. What is harmful is a hostile attitude that makes other people feel unwelcome. The more you argue, Skookum, and the more you berate me, that's the more of a disservice you are doing to your readers and your community. People don't like negative energy. You criticize me for adding incomplete information, I criticize the belligerent attitude that makes other people not want to edit Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Me berate you?? It was you who ignored my input adn went ahead with wrong titles and wrong contexts, and have lectured me on how to behave by way of not admitting to your errors or apologizing for your ongoing AGF towards me; you provoke me to responses which you deem "anger" and yet taht is classic passive-aggressive behaviour; and here yet again you posit things like "Perhaps I'll change it to "small town" but often small town means a rural area" as if Kamloops or Kelowna or Nanaimo or Prince George or Abbotsford were "small towns" and not the large cities that they are; and yes, the non-KDS temples are not in the City of Vancouver, they are in Surrey, which is part of Greater Vancouver, and 34% of Surrey is Indo-Canadian, which is why I changed your chosen title "in Vancouver" (there's lots of Indians, also, in both cities, i.e. First Nations people, which is why "Asian Indian", which you vociferously defended was not workable, as anyone actually familiar with Canada would know); your presumptiveness here, and on the "German" one about "if no sources are produced I'll file a move request to move it back" is just more arrogant rubbish. NEgative energy doesn't necessarily come in "angry" form, it comes in persistent stubbornness and "shooting hte messenger", which you are doing from day one; the backside of the Air India bombing you first stumped about was already on the KDS page and on the Air India page; once again, you want to reinvent the wheel so you can write a new title, without doing any research first or heeding advice from informed locals; and you presume to tell me t o read sources that you have since found, as if this subject were my only time-demand and as if I hadn't pointed you at sources who could fill in the obvious ignorance you started out with. Now you're presuming to backtrack away from your comment about "rural" as apposite to Vancouver, and style major provincial cities as "small towns" and "perhaps" you'll change your wording once you learn something. Don't tell me to go read about the subject matter; I grew up around it. One thing that does discourage people from editing Wikipedia is teh "arrogant ignorance" of many its dieahrds, particularly those who have learned to "game it" as admins and hide your aggressive ignorance with quasi-polite posturing while being completely patronizing. Talking softly while touting twaddle and dressing down those who criticize them. Yet here you go, barging on with topics that you've only just found out about, without even knowing about the existing articles that already had the correct titles/terminology in use, and more content already than you have yet even begun to fathom a tiny amount of. Yet presume to lecture me, and display AGF over and over and over again so as to not admit that you were wrong. You have now created a parallel article to this one about the whole of BC, instead of recognizing that all of BC can NOT be separated from Greater Vancouver, especially in this case.... I'm not going to explain "especially" to you since I have no more time to explain the obvious to someone who hasn't even dabbled more than his toes in Canadian geography or Indo-Canadian history. And, knowing that there was possibility I could move this to "in British Columbia" you aggressively made that title to prevent that happening; without realizing or caring that they are inseparable topics, as also with the German-speaking/ancestry folks and any others; "perhaps" you'll learn that you're shooting your mouth off about stuff you don't know anything about and "perhaps" you'll realize that it's your conduct that has me criticizing you for being off-base and, yes, ignorant of the material and apparently determinedly so. Go read your own sources, now you've finally found them.Skookum1 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully it becomes clear why I did what I did. Trying to fit all of this specific information into Indo-Canadians in British Columbia would put too much Wikipedia:Undue weight towards Vancouver/Surrey into that article. The two topics: Indo-Canadians in BC and Indo-Canadians in Vacnovuer, are closely related but distinct. I assure you that Vancouverites, people from Surrey, etc. would see this article as a welcome thing and likewise those from Victoria, Kamloops, Duncan, etc would see the BC one as welcome too.

BTW I don't mind a move to "Greater Vancouver" but in North America when you make a "so-and-so in X city" it's implied one is actually talking about the wider metropolitan area and not strictly the city proper. I.E. you hear somebody say "I'm from Chicago" but when pressed further they are actually from Naperville or some other suburb. Whether this article is called "Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver" or "Indo-Canadians in Vancouver", it would be talking about the same thing and most people would realize that. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking. I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province which you are NOT. The distinction between wiki-usages of "Vancouver" vs "Greater Vancouver" (and between "Greater Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver Regional District" ("Metro Vancouver")] has some up before, which is why "List of filming locations in the Vancouver area" is titled as it is, and not "in Greater Vancouver" or "in the Lower Mainland", as prominent locations in the Vancouver film-industry-radius are not in GV nor in the LM. What you as a Texan completely new to this topic - "I assure you that Vancouverites, people from Surrey, etc. would see this article as a welcome thing and likewise those from Victoria, Kamloops, Duncan, etc would see the BC one as welcome too." - is yet more rubbish. Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything. You posted reams of sources that in no way shape or form you could have written since the 18th (when you started IC in V) or the 20th (when you started IC in BC). Yet the one British Columbian you have heard from you have been dismissive and condescending to. here's the deal, kid - your creation of the POV fork "IC in BC" was clearly NOT welcome and is an artificial and UNDUE division of the subject of IndoCanadians in BC into two articles; impressive that you could write such vast amounts in less than a week...which leads me to suspect COPYVIO, however.Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
User:Skookum1, User:WhisperToMe, I see I was pinged on the copyvio question at WP:NORN. :) I've done a pretty thorough spot-check, picking up random bits of text from throughout the article, and I find no sign of copying. So I guess we stick with "impressive", as you characterized it. That said, without having read through this whole conversation, I am seriously confused by this particular thread. Regardless of your relative ages or origins, User:WhisperToMe has been editing Wikipedia since 10 July 2003 and has 378,464 edits. He, too, is "an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing." But that's immaterial, as are your ages and residences. Wikipedia is not based on the expertise of its editors, but the reliability of its sources and the ability of contributors to accurately and neutrally summarize them. While Scholarpedia, by contrast, has carefully vetted contributors, we accept and encourage content from anybody, and everybody is equal in that. It is one of our core founding principals and, indeed, the very reason we were created. The only authorities we appeal to here are the published ones, not our personal standing or expertise. And we should strive, according to policy, to be cordial while doing so - that's what keeps the whole thing moving forward constructively. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is all the more reason for there to NOT be two articles

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Your edit is ample demonstration of the need to have a comprehensive article for the province, not artificially limited to "Vancouver"; it is no grounds at all for your artificially-imposed division (POV FORK). Such comparisons are intrinsic to the broader article; "Vancouver" Sikh communities are more insular than less concentrated places, but it's not like they're unconnected or two entirely different groups of people. And what's she mean by "smalltowns" anyway: Certainly the few there are in Lillooet or Cache Creek are completely integrated with the local community, even maintaining their own customs, and there is no ghettoization where they predominate as in South Vancouver or Newton (part of Surrey, as you might know by now), where whole subdivision cul-de-sacs are virtually whole villages transplanted from the Punjab. They still form distinct communities, if not dominating any one neighbourhood, in Abbotsford, Mission, Nanaimo, or any of the other larger places I've mentioned (all very urban); but in small towns anywhere any ethnic group does not consolidate as separate from the community as a whole, with the exception of on-reserve communities adjacent to main centres e.g. Penticton (you, know, "Indians"); Canadian society is mixed and the smaller the town, the less practical the "separate-multiculture" in the megalopolis where large numbers have certain commercial foci and residential networks in South Surrey or South Van.

Pretending that this reality is justification to maintain separate articles is no grounds at all for opposing a merge of what is really one topic; this separation of yours is a fabrication and until you can prove that they are two completely different groups of people the premise that they can be adequately covered by putting a bubble around one and leaving 'the rest' to be dealt with separately. You do need to do more research, stop looking for proof for your stance, and back down from your high-horse and understand that you are resisting common sense as well as patronizing and demeaning an informed local in too many ways to list/link off. The Indo-Canadian experience and community you only know second-hand through your precious books; I'm personally interconnected to it and, as a long-standing BC editor who's contributed reams to Wikipedia about my home province, know what I'm talking about. YOU don't, no matter how many books or quotes your throw at me....or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case. Rank AGF; it's you who have to PROVE there is grounds for splitting the topic into two as you did, rather wantonly and in the way it was done and has been resisted, petulant and stubborn; your pretenses are false, your ears are shut, you do the opposite of what is recommended, and then dig in your heels and throw up yet more things you think are rationalizations for your position but are the opposite, like the line in the edit above.Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"but in small towns anywhere any ethnic group does not consolidate as separate from the community as a whole" - Nayar explicitly states that the small town Indo-Canadian communities don't ghettoize, so that is a point that can be attributed to her and restated on Wikipedia. It works like that. Wikipedia's purpose is to publish what other people say.
I actually do assume good faith on your part, that you want to cover the Indo-Canadian community as it is. There may be a feeling of "the media's getting it all wrong!" etc. No matter how much good faith there is, one cannot circumvent WP:V. If it's not published, if it's not written down, it can't be put on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's purpose is not to collect personal experiences, but to collect what is written down in books and articles. It's a non-negotiable principle of this place.
  • "or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case." - That's how it works here. You find sources to prove your case.
Our #1 purpose is to serve the readers. There are readers who may ask "What is Irish American life in New York City" or "What is Armenian life in Los Angeles"? And they ask in regards to a large city. Subjects related to large cities are frequently given their own articles all the time. There are articles written about Indo-Canadians wanting Vancouver City to change its voting system, so there will be people expecting a discussion about Indo-Canadians centered on the large city. That's how people think.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Consider this article:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or this one:

People want to read about the ethnic history of Vancouver in particular and they want to know about each ethnic group there. Please understand that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your presumptive speculations and claims here are petty weasel words - " Sometimes people want to study the ethnicity of a city". Who are you to state something like that. It is petty justification for your own stubborn position and clearly both SYNTH/OR and outright bogus in quality. WHO "want(s) to study the ethnicity of a city (in isolation from the larger context where that city [group of cities, actually] is located. Your ongoing posturing and grasping-at-straws to mandate your stubbornness to listen to reason and common sense is becoming nauseating, your obstructionism tainted by personal interpretation of sources used to justify your intractable position, and here you flinging out "some people". I think you should have your adminship withdrawn, quite frankly.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I invite you to read the article that has been written here. Please consider the following points:

  • Indo-Canadian demographics for Vancouver, Surrey, *and* (I did not post the following in the overall BC article) other cities in the Greater Vancouver area. Also Greater Vancouver area demographics in language, employment, and religion
  • The Indo-Canadian activist movement to abolish the "at-large" voting system in the City of Vancouver and replace it with a ward voting system in order to increase Indo-Canadian involvement in politics
  • Specific information on major Vancouver gurdwaras (including the Dalit one)
  • The wood business in Greater Vancouver
  • Specific geographical information regarding South Vancouver, Southeast Vancouver, Surrey (including Newton), and the younger Indo-Canadians moving to central areas in Vancouver and Burnaby
  • "Punjabi Bubble" and cultural differences (with "Vancouver" being specifically named as the place being compared) with "small town" BC, USA, and UK Punjabi Sikh communities.
  • Fundamentalist Sikh reception in Vancouver vs. Sikh reception in the UK
  • Punjabi Sikh relations with the Vancouver School Board and the Punjabi Sikh supplemental schools

These are many but not all of the unique aspects that I have discovered through research. If we did an article merge, would you be confident that all of these aspects would remain in the article, and not breach WP:TOOLONG and/or put WP:UNDUE weight towards Vancouver in a BC-oriented article? I also invite you to read the previous AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Hmong in Merced, California, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also consider this: There are articles like Ethnic groups in London and two I created: Ethnic groups in Houston and Ethnic groups in Metro Detroit. They cover the ethnic groups that appear in those cities. So if I wanted to make a section about Indo-Canadians in Vancouver in Ethnic groups in Greater Vancouver, it would become so large that it would overpower the article and cause it to fail UNDUE, which means it would be spun out into its own article anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sez YOU, but what would you know to state such a thing? Of course, two of the articles you mentioned you authored, and are pretty much the sole author of, as a quick look at their history demonstrates. These subjects (BC's ethnic history, the city and the province itself), are all entirely new to you; "Ethnic groups in Vancouver" is already covered at Demographics_of_Vancouver#Ethnic_origin and Vancouver#Demographics and the range and depth of the city's daunting ethnic spectrum can be observed at Demographics_of_Vancouver#Tables_of_ethnicities_.28for_census_metropolitan_area.29. Your position, stated above once again, that the City of Vancouver content will "overwhelm" the Greater Vancouver title, or a BC title, is once again specious and grounded in your own neophyte knowledge of the topics and sources and your own stated OR that "some people want to read about [x] re urban areas" - who are those "some people"? Your dismissal of local expertise from a seasoned editor who's worked on "all of the above" and more re BC history/society and your resistance to reason and determined obstructionism re topics you barely know about yet is extremely anti-Wikipedian.Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The reliable sources about this community clearly say that it can cover this topic in depth. If you want the other ethnicities covered in comparable detail, this article will be a great inspiration as it will encourage others to start similar articles on the Japanese, Koreans, etc. The word count of this article is now at 64,047 characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seek a third opinion please

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

May I suggest that you both stop talking at each other, and settle this by the standard dispute resolution process. I would suggest an RfC where each of you lays out the best arguments for your respective positions... and then sit back and let others discuss it and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is already an ongoing RFC: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
He's already deluged that discussion with WoTs and misinterpreted/misappied ref after ref, then added the RfC. Others have pointed out that he's wrong about his artificial separation of Greater Vancouver from the rest of BC (actually he wants to make it "Vancouver"), but he's ignored their input, just as he ignored mine from the very beginning.Skookum1 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blueboar, unless that consensus includes people familiar with British Columbia geography and society, and who are misled by WTM's cherrypicking and distortion of what refs infer, according to him, then "consensus" will be formed by the misinformed who similarly have no idea of local geographic and social realities. The division between GV and the rest of BC is pure fabrication, created by WMT, built out of his interpretations of titles and stray bits of text whose import he distorts to suit himself. My own pointing out of the errors of his logic, such as it is, he has ignored (and disputed ever since the needed change to Indo-Canadian from "Asian Indian"); instead he deluges any of the many locations he's fielded his same "walls of texts" and selection of refs which he claims support him, and has denigrated me personally, including in two original research board sections; rather than address the points I make (Abbotsford being as much a part of the same element as in GV, for example) he turns it into personal dismissals like his pretext that *I* am committing SYNTH, rather than him, as the case indeed happens to be.Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Inability to separate Sikhs from "Indo-Canadians"

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

In Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is it WP:SYNTH to make an article on the Indo-Canadian population in Greater Vancouver separate from that of the Indo-Canadian population of British Columbia? a Wikipedian stated:

"But we cannot take a source about South Asians in Surrey and Sikhs in Vancouver and combine them into an article about South Asians in Greater Vancouver. So far the notability of the topic has not been established, no source has been presented that does that."

There was a 1988 paper written by Hugh Johnston, and p. 3 stated

  • "The 1981 census showed a Canadian population of 67,710 Sikhs and 69,500 Hindus, with 22,392 Sikhs and only 6,865 Hindus in Vancouver. Approximately one-third of Vancouver's Hindus are Punjabis, making Vancouver's total Punjabi population in 1981 about 25,000."

Based on the figures: one third of the Vancouver Hindu population would be about 2288.33, which means there would be 22,712 Sikhs. Since the number of Sikhs was actually 22,392, virtually all of the Sikhs in Vancouver were Punjabi. As we know from other sources, the vast majority of Vancouver's Indo-Canadians are Punjabi. Therefore it's very difficult to separate "Sikh" from "Punjabi" and therefore "Sikh" from "Indo-Canadian" in the Vancouver region. (There are other sources that discuss the relationship between Surrey and Vancouver and both cities are in the same metro area) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now, if someone can find significant coverage of gora (White Sikhs, which are not Indo-Canadians) culture/life in Vancouver, one could make Sikhism in Greater Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... as more and more content is added I'm wondering if maybe it is a good idea to split a lot of the specific Sikh content into its own article. Some of the articles about Vancouver Sikhism also talk about what Hindus do in those areas. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

bhangra dancing and South Asian women

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know if it has much relevance to the article but I think it's interesting... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 90 external links on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vishwa Hindu Prasad??

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that it is Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and not Vishwa Hindu Prasad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haritosh (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Asian_Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver&oldid=1208279994"