Talk:Golden Hawks

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

Lead photo[edit]

Can we get a better pic? This one doesn't cap the gorgeous gold color at all...

On another note, can we do a jet demonstration teams page? Just tracking dn the Golden Hawks was a bit of a trial... Trekphiler 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a better pic if you can find one, that's the only one with an acceptable licence I could come up with. As for a Jet Demonstration Teams page, I dunno. What all would go on there except for a list (I think the list use is already served by the categories). -User:Lommer | talk 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking of something on the history, development, & comparative merits or performances. Like, how do the Snowbirds' CT-114s stack up against the Thunderbirds' T-38s or F-16s, or the Red Arrows' (Hawks?), or the Russian Knights' Su-27s, or whoever. Trekphiler 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of 8X10 pictures of the Golden Hawks flying around Alberta. They we given to me by my Grandfather in his will. (j1j2j3j4j5j6)

Pilot biographies[edit]

This page is about the Golden Hawks. I am adding some data about the Golden Hawks. There is no logical reason for reverting these edits. This was a team of men, unusual men.

If this data about a set of men the world will not see again is not captured now, it will be lost to history forever. It is appropriate for this page. Please give a good reason otherwise, or stop reverting the addition of this information. Commonjazz (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically biographies of important or significant individuals can be accommodated in separate articles on each individual. For an air demonstration team with many participants over the years, perhaps the only thing that is necessary is a short (and referenced) note on the team leads? for example. FWiW, take a look at the RCAF Snowbirds, USN Blue Angels and USAF Thunderbirds articles as a guide to how to develop this article. Bzuk (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, detailed pilot biographies don't belong here. I could see a list of team leaders, but not detailed biographies. The main problem with them as added is that they were unreferenced. There is not chance or retaining unref biographical information as per WP:V. Overall I would support adding a list of team leaders, but not detailed bios of every member. If these people are notable then create create separate bios for each one. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of improvements I hope address the concerns. First, I have added a reference to Dempsey's book. Each of the pilots is described in many indexed entries. Second, I think what is being missed here is the small team and short duration of the Hawks. Completely unlike the Snowbirds, Blue Angels, or Thunderbirds, this was a small team that lasted only a few years. The Snowbirds, inspired of course by the Hawks, have gone on for decades, whereas the Hawks was were one small group of men, then disbanded to the lasting disappointment of the entire Air Force. Although there were only nine of them, the best pilots Canada had at the time, I do not believe separate pages make sense. Unlike other groups that were and are institutions, independent of the many pilots over the years, this team was the pilots. Short bios of what were Canada's very first aerobatic pilots, on this page, make sense. Commonjazz (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of one person's interpretation, this is a cooperative and collaborative project that requires consensus and since there is none at this point, let me suggest the following:

(Edit)Notable Golden Hawks pilots

As originally consisted, the Golden Hawks had eight RCAF pilots including: Squadron Leader Vern Villeneuve who led the team, with F/O Bill C. Stewart, F/L Ralph E. Annis, F/L Edward Rozdeba, F/O John T. Price and F/O Jim A. Holt. ref Mummery, Robert. Snowbirds: Canada's Ambassadors of the Sky. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Reidmore Books, 1984, p. 8. ISBN 0-919091-37-7. ref

S/L Ferne Villeneuve was with the Hawks from the beginning in 1959 as leader of the team, moving to flying the lead position when F/L Jim McCombe became the leader in 1961.ref Dempsey 2002, p. 139. ref Villeneuve had to leave the team when he became married, under the Hawks rule of only two years for married men. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 157. ref

F/O J.T. Price joined the Hawks in 1959 after F/O Sam Eisler died, and served as second solo. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 154. ref When F/L Jeb Kerr died in a crash in Calgary, he moved to lead solo. Price then had leave after two years because he was married. The Hawks had a rule of three years for single men, max two years for married men, since the schedule was hard on their families.

F/L Ed Rozdeba joined the Hawks in 1959. He first flew position 3, on the left hand side. In his third year, Rozdeba flew the slot. ref Dempsey 2002, pp. 161–163. ref

F/O William (Bill) Stewart joined the Hawks in 1959 as a spare, then moved to the slot #4 position, then second solo, then lead solo performing the low-level aerobatics that looked to the crowd to be particularly dangerous. ref Dempsey 2002, pp. 160–162. ref FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC). ---[reply]

"Canada's very first aerobatic pilots" Well, no, that would be the Siskins... I'm also not sure about bios. If it never goes past the capsules above, I could probably live with it, tho. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Bzuk's proposal, there being a small number of members of the team doesn't justify a lot of trivia, like which recruiting centre ex-members later commanded, about people who would be otherwise non-notable. As far as being Canada's first aerobatic team, if you read the ref you cited (I have a copy), you would know that statement isn't even close to factually correct. There were the Siskins 25 years earlier plus several others. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go with Bzuk's proposal. and update the page accordingly. (AHunt - I meant to say Canada's first 'jet' aerobatic team). Commonjazz (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry far to much detail on non-notable pilots, I cant see any evidence that the individual pilots other than the leader are of note. Just being a member of the team does not give the pilot notability. "Foo joined the team and did stuff" is not notable. No evidence that any of the names mentioned became notable for anything else before or after which might sway inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit: (probably to be incorporated into history section)

Golden Hawks pilots

As originally consisted in 1959, the Golden Hawks had eight RCAF pilots led by Squadron Leader Vern Villeneuve before being replaced by F/L Jim McCombe in 1961. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 139.

This edit is extremely small and I would make the case that the following is better:

Notable Golden Hawks pilots

As originally consisted in 1959, the Golden Hawks had eight RCAF pilots including: Squadron Leader Vern Villeneuve who led the team, with F/O Bill C. Stewart, F/L Ralph E. Annis, F/L Edward Rozdeba, F/O John T. Price and F/O Jim A. Holt. ref Mummery, Robert. Snowbirds: Canada's Ambassadors of the Sky. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Reidmore Books, 1984, p. 8. ISBN 0-919091-37-7. ref

In 1961 F/L Jim McCombe became the leader of the team, as Villeneuve left the team when he became married, under the Hawks rule of only two years for married men. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 157. ref Tag:ref Price then had leave after two years because he was married. The Hawks had a rule of three years for single men, max two years for married men, since the schedule was hard on their families. Note to reader. Two deaths altered the makeup of the team: F/O J.T. Price joined the Hawks in 1959 after F/O Sam Eisler died, and served as second solo. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 154. ref When F/L Jeb Kerr died in a crash in Calgary, Price moved to lead solo.

F/O William (Bill) Stewart's routine was often the one most remembered as lead solo performing the low-level aerobatics that looked to the crowd to be particularly dangerous. ref Dempsey 2002, pp. 160–162. ref FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Still to many names in it for my liking, still dont think a list of team members in the first bit is needed. If you dont list them all then the replacement names are not really need in the next section. Change of leader is OK and I dont have a problem with the Stewart bit at the end if the refs support it. Perhaps wait and see if anybody else has a view. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of thoughts, one on the article and another on Wikipedia etiquette.
This team page should not be treated differently from any other unless there is some verifiable reason to do so. Even if there is (were all the pilots aces or did they all become household names or something?) then I'd think that a simple roll-call of names would likely suffice. The Background section already does this, no more is needed unless some notable incident requires the odd mention. If any member is worthy of a bio, then that should have its own page and the name can be linked.
The be BOLD - revert - discuss cycle means that consensus needs to be reached before disputed content is restored. If significant content is to be restored, then it needs drafting and agreeing either on this page or on say a user subpage first. Simply editing the article again to put back what you think is the agreed consensus is likely to land you in hot water (as I can attest from experience!). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had concensus, but it fell apart.
My main point is we should be working towards entirely the opposite of "just list the pilot's name" - there are not enough names or descriptions, because it was not a franchise or institution but rather a small group of men at the peak of their fields in a brand new technological age. After the first team was joined and as as they left, a few others came in to finish up what the all too abruptly ended life of a successful Canadian experiment [Daniel Dempsey, including telegrams etc.], and they should be mentioned as well in a pilots section whenever someone has time to add a reference to something interesting from one of the excellent references.
Second, the name of the page is plural - not about the plane but about the pilots. Which in this case means small team with a significant loss record at high rates of speed in order to demonstrate Canada's readiness at a time when the fate of the Western world in a nuclear era was said to possibly rest on their performance some day in something like a last war. (It really was like that - then they went supersonic.) Therefore, it seems natural to describe whatever can be appropriately referenced about this team of pilots to build a better page. We should not be looking to prune this page, we should be looking to grow an encyclopedia where we can. And since none of the individual profiles approaches a full page, this is where they should be, where they enrich this page. Commonjazz (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even based on Dempsey's book, which is unabashed cheerleading and self-published as well, you are still very much overselling this team's contributions to history and how important the individual members were. If you are going to make the case to include entire bios on each member you are really going to have to produce some refs that support that notion, beyond your own use of superlatives. - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again:

Notable Golden Hawks pilots

As originally consisted in 1959, the Golden Hawks had eight RCAF pilots led by Squadron Leader Vern Villeneuve. ref Mummery, Robert. Snowbirds: Canada's Ambassadors of the Sky. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Reidmore Books, 1984, p. 8. ISBN 0-919091-37-7. ref

In 1961, F/L Jim McCombe became the leader of the team, as Villeneuve left the team when he married. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 157. ref Tag:ref Villeneuve and F/O Price both had to leave the team because the Golden Hawks had a rule of three years for single men, max two years for married men, since the schedule was hard on their families. Note to reader. Two deaths altered the makeup of the team: F/O J.T. Price joined the Hawks in 1959 after F/O Sam Eisler died, and served as second solo. ref Dempsey 2002, p. 154. ref When F/L Jeb Kerr died in a crash in Calgary, P/O John Price moved to lead solo.

F/O William (Bill) Stewart's routine was often the one most remembered as lead solo performing the low-level aerobatics that looked to the crowd to be particularly dangerous. ref Dempsey 2002, pp. 160–162. ref FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with including that much, as it keeps to the subject and doesn't delve into which recruiting centres the members went on to command and other trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem with this approach is it based on writing a newspaper column, not an encyclopedia. This isn't a newspaper, whose goal is to summarize as succinctly as possible, it is an encyclopedia that should be capturing the relevant information for present and future generations.
Dempsey's books should not be insultingly disparaged as "self-published" and "cheer leading". It was a very well researched and documented book covering important parts of Canadian history, widely well respected as the standard in its field. He should be congratulated.
Was the team notable? At the time, these men were regarded nationally as a Canadian treasure, were covered in hundreds of newspaper articles, and gave hundreds of radio and TV interviews. The team's abrupt termination was mourned by the entire Air Force, and many civilians across the country - that was what actually happened. This history should not be minimized because it occurred fifty years ago and you personally many not recall how important they were to this country, or the coverage they received.
I believe your statement that my description of their role to Canadian security during the Cold War are "superlatives" indicates either that you were not alive at the time, or did not know what their life and role was really like. Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff" (not the movie) gives a flavour - lives hung in the balance and were often lost. My reference to "supersonic" was a reference to the fact that it just got worse - after the Hawks many of these pilots spent their time as nuclear strike attack fighters, the best pilots in the Air Force, with one team always sleeping within steps of their planes to launch within minutes on what was widely known as suicide missions when the biggest war came. These are not "superlatives". Again, that was what it was *really* like.
These were the men who held these unique roles. Please do not be cynical about this time a half century after the fact. It was a time that will not come again, and this small team in four short years lost two pilots standing up for issues that, at the time, were momentous, and widely understood to be so. Don't let our relatively comfortable time now prevent you from understanding the time then. This team was a group of the Air Force's very best elite pilots, doing a job that went far beyond simply executing loops and rolls, and this small team deserves coverage in this encyclopedia on the page that is about them. Future generations should have information about the men themselves.
For these many good reasons, I do not accept that we should keep shrinking the words in this section and minimizing the information on this page. If we have referencable information on this team of pilots during their time with the Hawks, it should absolutely be captured on this page. That is what this page is for. Commonjazz (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dempsey's book is self-published, in that he published it himself when he couldn't find an actual publisher to publish it. That is a mere statement of fact. I have a copy of his book, which coincidentally he delivered to my house personally. He wrote the book as part of a campaign to try to prevent the Snowbirds, of which he had been the team leader, from being axed by defence cuts, by trying to put them in historical perspective. The book is well researched but has a very strong "pro-military aerobatics team" POV. For the Wikipedia consensus on the use of Dempsey's book, including its status as self-published, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_109#A_Tradition_of_Excellence. Incidentally I am a retired air force pilot, I was in the Cold War, I was a peacekeeper, so you don't need to lecture me about what that time was all about. Despite your assertions above, the Golden Hawks team's abrupt termination was not mourned by the "entire Air Force" and they didn't win the Cold War single-handedly. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not is is clear from this discussion that no one else here agrees with you that this article should contain detailed biographies of team members, as we have a WP:Consensus established not to include this text. Now we can either create a consensus on what to include or just leave it out altogether. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a response to my points. I keep making the points, and instead receive opinion in response.
Yes Demspey's book is self-published, I did not dispute this. Of course, no other route was possible, in Canada, and this level of research would not have been possible in a scholarly work. The consensus, including many official reviews of the book collected on the concensus page, makes the point it is a valuable reference. And besides, I am not referring to any of his opiniions for example about keeping the Snowbirds - only the facts. Include the facts about the team. The book contains reprints of many of the documentaiton showing how the ending of the team was mourned. These are facts. There is no good reason to minimimize the importance of this national team.
I did not come even close to claiming this team "won the cold war single-handedly" - now there is a genuine superlative. I described, accurately, the importance this elite team of pilots had to their country, and why they were doing what they did. It is all true. If you have reason to believe the Cold War was not as serious as stated, or that these pilots were not playing the role I described, then please provide some facts. Although I must add that I have not previously run across anyone that has minimized the roles of fighter pilots in the Cold War, or these elite teams of men. If you were keeping POV or opinion off the page I would understand it, but you are not - you are stating that this page should have minimal facts about the pilots that were the actual team.
I have provided multiple points that deserve more of a response than "I personally don't believe this team of pilots are important enough to be documented in Wikipedia". That is: (1) This page is about the team, and should have factual information about the team. (2) The notability is covered by the wide media coverage at the time, the many individual media interviews they gave, an NFB short on the team, Demseys and other books, etc. (3) This was not an institution like the Snowbirds with many pilots over time, but rather Canada's first jet aerobatic team of a small group of men quickly disbanded for political reasons - there were not that many of them. (4) We should be capturing relevant factual information for all time in Wikipedia, not minimizing the content to newspaper column length.
We had a consensus which reduced my entry to a fraction of my original contribution, but to which I had nevertheless agreed. Until Milborne objected to even that, and now we have been trying to find the lowest common denominator with no objections, instead of consensus. And the objections have ignored my points, and instead have all too Canadian for me - too much information about the actual individuals. Well it seems to me that this is the encyclopedia, and this is the page, to capture the factual information where we have it, on all members of this small team. We will be around but a short time, and most of these men are now gone. We should put the facts on this page now for many generations to come about the actual pilots that made up this team. Does this not make sense? Commonjazz (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's summarize, the original submission was a precis on a number of Golden Hawks pilots and their career histories (titled: "biographies") and elicited a response from a number of editors. The main concerns were that the new section did not fit as being notable, and if some of the individuals were notable on their own, they could appear in separate biographical articles. The admonition to begin a talk page discussion on the article talk page where the development of the subject is found, led to this discourse where a number of editors have indicated their observations, which in brief, included addressing the issues of relevance, notablity, use of verified and authoritative references, tendentious editing as well as WP:Weight. Other comments about the use of consensus can be directed to more appropriate forums as this is one of the "lynchpins" of the Wikipedia project, that diverse views are recognized and that collaborative and cooperative work is only possible through achieving consensus. (One note is that consensus is not vote-counting, instead, it is the acceptance of the agreed-upon decision by all.) FWiW, the latest edit proposal appears to have garnered support, but I am awaiting other comments, suggestions and ideas. Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Support Bzuk latest suggested text. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also support Bzuk's last proposal. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still didn't respond to any of my points.
In summary, I believe you are preventing the recording of relevant factual, referencable information in this encyclopedia. Although an Air Force pilot and others with familiarity with Aviation, because you were not there, as I was, you simply don't understand this time in history, how tough it was, and the role or importance of this team to the country at the time. I have provided good justification for this position, and regret my annoyance with the Canadian propensity for minimizing the role of their history and particularly the men that made it has caused you to dig in without acknowledging my points or helping build this encyclopedia where it would benefit from more information. Those of us that can properly describe the context as I have are disappearing fast. This minimization of content does a disservice to the team, on the one page in Wikpedia that is supposed to be about them, and to future historians and researchers. You have subtracted value, not added it.
But one does what one can. Please add in the photograph I originally posted when you make the bare bones contribution. Commonjazz (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does Wikipedia consensus building require any other editor to respond to your points. You made a proposal for the page and it has not been supported. Your "I am an expert and you are not" above is getting pretty close to a personal attack. Wikipedia articles reflect consensus, not deference to self-declared experts. I suggest you refactor your words above before you get blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to miss my entire point, and the intimidation is uncalled for. Very simply, there are good reasons for including information about the pilots on this page, and I have provided them. Everything I have said about the times, the national importance, the notability, the smallness of the team, the regretted termination, etc. is true and referencable. A constructive discussion would have argued with these points, instead of blindly trying to minimize contributions.
I believe it was my annoyance with just another example of what I see as minimization of Canadian history and the people that made it that got your back up, and that I regret. Commonjazz (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Check the article, since so much was already established, I thought the best course was to supplement the "back" history, rather than create a new section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that way. I retitled the section "History". - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add back the picture of the team. I assume that pictures of the actual Hawks are not out of place. Commonjazz (talk)

I can appreciate that User:Commonjazz (User talk:Commonjazz) is seeking replies to their points raised. While no editor is obliged to be helpful it can, err... be helpful to do so. It seems to me that several of those points appear on the face of it to justify additional content. But due to the heat generated to date, these points need verifiable references before they can be accepted by others. Doing this is a chore, but a necessary one. For example, is there a reference to the reliability of and/or respect for Dempsey's book, or a reference to the team as a "national treasure" or similar, and so on? Some of those old newspaper articles might need digging out. HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC) - [edited] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support for adding content. As stated above, I'm afraid my annoyance with minimization of Canadian history came through, creating a reaction, and regret that.
I appreciate that some editors feel a sense of ownership of this page. However, I suggest that this went too far here.
The Dempsey book was extensively discussed here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_109#A_Tradition_of_Excellence, with towards the end many referenced third party reviews provided.
I'm personally tired for the moment of trying to make this page better against these prevailing winds. If anyone ever sees any value in my points, summarized below again for convenience, please say so, and perhaps one day we can add some information about the men themselves that made up this team.
(1) This page is about the team, and should have factual information about the team. (2) The notability is covered by the wide media coverage at the time, the many individual media interviews they gave, an NFB short on the team, Demseys and other books, etc. (3) This was not an institution like the Snowbirds with many pilots over time, but rather Canada's first jet aerobatic team of a small group of men quickly disbanded - there were not that many of them. (4) We should be capturing relevant factual information for all time in Wikipedia, not minimizing the content to newspaper column length. Commonjazz (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has this discourse steered "off course" into a "tempest in a teapot" syndrome (sorry for mangling so many metaphors)? Introducing details about individual pilots' careers that did not relate to their role as a Golden Hawk was the original issue. Whenever creating a biographical article or introducing personal details, there is also the necessity to establish notability as the Wiki project is an encyclopedia with the onus to concentrate on essential details. There was already a background history in the article that emphasized the team's beginnings and the significant pilots that were involved. As to claims that Canadian aviation history is being minimized is simply a "straw man" argument, as can be easily disproved by the quantity and quality of articles that are already devoted to this topic. As to the further claims of ownership, my retort would be "water off a duck's back". A concerted effort was made to achieve consensus but as earlier stated, it requires commitment and the ability to work with others. FWiW, I have added the clarifying statements to the talk page headers, FYI. Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that providing information on a pilot's career not related to their time on the Hawks is fair ground for disagreement. That was resolved early. We don't need to return it now.
I maintain that providing information on a pilot's career, related to their time on the Hawks, is value add.
As I have said, history is made by men. This page should have more information about these pilots for the 4 reasons I provided in summary above, with detailed background explanation provided in my earlier comments. Commonjazz (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is already a page on Fern Villeneuve, the original team lead of the Golden Hawks, and other biographical articles may be forthcoming. FWiW, you may wish to contribute to his article by posting your team photo there. Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I have also created a new page on the second lead, Jim McCombe who recently passed away. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Very nice, I will let the family know. I can add some pages on others, and trust they will not be challenged. If there is a link from this page to those pages, that does the job I wanted of capturing the information for a Canadian and world-wide audience in years to come when the book references have long since moldered away. Commonjazz (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden Hawks. 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: 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) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Hawks. 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: 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) 09:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in tributes and surviors[edit]

theres one in brockville,bellville, barrie and one in CWH in hamilton all in Golden Hawks colors..

do some research!!

Darrenvox (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references then these can be added, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Hawks&oldid=1202351356"