" 

 :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.  "