Jump to content

Talk:South Asian Canadians

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

The Statistics Canada's South Asian groups are listed here

The issue with this edit is that its source is Statistics Canada - If you search the document you will find it uses "East Indian" - The paper says on PDF 8/18:

"This profile is based on people who reported an ancestry that originates in South Asia, including those reporting their origin as at least one of Bangladeshi, Bengali, East Indian, Goan, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Pakistani, Punjabi, Nepali, Sinhalese, Sri Lankan, Tamil, or South Asian. The origin could be listed as the only ethnic or cultural group of their ancestors, or listed along with other ethnic and cultural groups."

Statistics Canada does not use the term "Indo-Canadian" as an official category of people (this is stated explicitly in Sumartojo p. 8 but one can also tell from the absence of "Indo-Canadian" from Statistics Canada documents). I already worked in "Indo-Canadian" according to Nayar's definition; Nayar says the term "Indo-Canadian" refers to Indian subcontinent origins as a whole WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Indo-Canadian are here: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Definitions_of_Indo-Canadian

So Indo-Canadian is used specifically to refer to Canada-born South Asians/and/or children of South Asian immigrants. But it does not make sense to say "Indo-Canadian" is a nationality-based subgroup of "South Asians" - it is not based on nationality as its definition includes all South Asians. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're trying to recruit support for you presumptuous SYNTH/AGF campaign on yet another discussion board, complete with editorializations to advance your view. What's this now, the eighth - ninth, tenth? - discussion board you're wallpapering with your ideas/SYNTH agenda? My reply re WP:NCET is on the section of the Indo-Canadians already... you are conflating your readings of cites over and over again, it is ALL WP:SYNTH and is a t iresome and time-wasting bore.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have already been told that using reliable sources is not WP:SYNTH. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, told by you? And who are YOU?? WP:SYNTH includes using RS in such a fashion as to make an argument to reach a conclusion, as you are endlessly doing. Don't not-quite-quote a guideline to me in the course of deflecting/ignoring a very specifically relevant one (NCET) and stop presuming to wiki-morality when ALL of your discussion board rants/WoTs are very much WP:POINT and increasingly WP:SOAP. What's with your obsession with all this anyway? You don't know the subject matter, you don't know the country...and you don't respect guidelines (AGF and NCET and others). How much more time are you going to waste trying to overturn an applecart you (for some reason) don't like???Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.3F
  • " agree that this isn't a synth/OR problem. I think that Skookum1 is not being very civil, and that his arguments from personal experience are obviously spurious, at its core the dispute isn't about original research, just demarcation. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)"
  • "there does not appear to be SYN issue - multiple reliable sources specifically discussing population distinctions. The question is: "Can this aspect be covered appropriately in the 'parent level article' without creating an WP:UNDUE weight to the distinctions, or are there sufficient sources to create a valid spin out?" Wikipedia generally favors the spin out where there are sufficient sources to create content more than a stub paragraph, which appears to be the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)"
1. Post by Moonriddengirl
2. Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Should_titles.2Ffocuses_of_articles_be_determined_through_reliable_sources_or_personal_experiences_and_opinions.3F: "Is anyone disagreeing with you (other than Skookum1) on the question of whether it would be OR to determine article titles or content based on personal experience? That's pretty much the definition of OR. I'm guessing it's not hard to find a consensus on that."

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

globe needed

[edit]

This page would be enhanced by a globe like on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghan Canadian which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Asian 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

[edit]

The section under "history" contains a significant amount of POV language in reference to European Canadians reaction to Sikh Canadians/Migrants, particularly using generalized language (lumping all European Canadians together as one group for example, where the reality was likely more nuanced). This section does not cite any sources either making the statements even more dubious. Given the sensitive nature of the subject I feel that this should 100% cite it's sources and overall be re-written to remove loaded statements such as "began to face the ignorance of Europeans". Not an expert on the subject but this section just stood out like a sore thumb. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 23:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the history section has now been sourced. If there are no further issues, I will remove the POV tag. Van00220 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart spam

[edit]

Talk at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Mass charts being added all over Moxy- 15:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghans

[edit]

The StatsCan Candian census definition should determine what is considered to be included in "South Asian" for this article. Afghans are not. They are classified under "West or Central Asian or Middle Eastern", not as "South Asian". See https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810035601 Meters (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Asian_Canadians&oldid=1241784118"