Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:42, 26 October 2014 editWhisperToMe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users662,778 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 05:18, 27 October 2014 edit undoSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →Requested move: reply to Hongcouver point; it doesn't belong in the lede and is considered offensive; teh South China Morning Post needs to "get with it"Next edit →
Line 54: Line 54:
::{{comment}} {{ping|User:Skookum1}} From ] you knew that I had intended for the topic to remain at "Greater Vancouver". You were aware we were debating the Indo-Canadian topic at the same time. You chose to move the Chinese topic anyway knowing I would object to it, knowing I did not agree with it. When I chose to start ] as a separate article that was in accordance with a bibliography of sources titled "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" It was in accordance with reliable sources which ''treat the subject as a separate topic''. Do you have any reliable sources that say explicitly " the history of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia overlaps with that of Vancouver in considerable amount"? (the source must explicitly make this claim, no ]) ] (]) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC) ::{{comment}} {{ping|User:Skookum1}} From ] you knew that I had intended for the topic to remain at "Greater Vancouver". You were aware we were debating the Indo-Canadian topic at the same time. You chose to move the Chinese topic anyway knowing I would object to it, knowing I did not agree with it. When I chose to start ] as a separate article that was in accordance with a bibliography of sources titled "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" It was in accordance with reliable sources which ''treat the subject as a separate topic''. Do you have any reliable sources that say explicitly " the history of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia overlaps with that of Vancouver in considerable amount"? (the source must explicitly make this claim, no ]) ] (]) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I also want to make this clear. The creation of an article on ] ''does not'' interfere in your desire to have an article on ]. The latter in fact ''can include some general information'' on people in Vancouver as long as there is no undue weight. In this instance, forcing a merge interferes in my desire to have an article on ], especially when ''countless articles and sources refer only, and strictly to, the Chinese population in Vancouver in particular'', especially considering ''the ] '' ] (]) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC) :::I also want to make this clear. The creation of an article on ] ''does not'' interfere in your desire to have an article on ]. The latter in fact ''can include some general information'' on people in Vancouver as long as there is no undue weight. In this instance, forcing a merge interferes in my desire to have an article on ], especially when ''countless articles and sources refer only, and strictly to, the Chinese population in Vancouver in particular'', especially considering ''the ] '' ] (]) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::What I said holds true; the international media still tout this term as if it were relevant and legitimate, it is ''not'' used or respected locally; in fact the ''National Geographic'' had to apologize, at SUCCESS' demands, for using it as the title of their article on the "influx"; if you weren't so ignorant about this topic you've commandeered, you'd already know that. It ''does NOT'' belong in the lede, and like all else has been covered in the Chinatown and Vancouver articles and discussions about its use/disuse/disfavour have taken place before. The ''South China Morning Post'' is not a Vancouver paper, it doesn't even really have a readership in Vancouver compared to e.g. the ''World Journal''. It's a classic example of intl media tub-thumping a cliche that's considered insensitive and not slightly offensive in Vancouver itself; but far be it from you to bother respecting local sensitivities or to show ANY awareness of the local contexts of the stuff you now presume to dictate about.] (]) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I am confused, why did you create the article at ] less than a week ago in the first place, instead of at ]. I am not entirely on Skookum1's bandwagon but things are certainly far too fluid to suggest a name change at this point. The request itself does leave out the fact that this is contentions and being discussed in a number of different forums concurrently as noted by the nine different talk pages cited at ]). I am going to argue that the article stay put until it reaches some stability. This isn't a current event topic so it's not like it's a fluid item that will at all change how users search for the material.--] (]) 07:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' I am confused, why did you create the article at ] less than a week ago in the first place, instead of at ]. I am not entirely on Skookum1's bandwagon but things are certainly far too fluid to suggest a name change at this point. The request itself does leave out the fact that this is contentions and being discussed in a number of different forums concurrently as noted by the nine different talk pages cited at ]). I am going to argue that the article stay put until it reaches some stability. This isn't a current event topic so it's not like it's a fluid item that will at all change how users search for the material.--] (]) 07:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
**{{ping|User:Labattblueboy}} - It was not created there. . It was originally at ]. Skookum1 moved it to ]. Then just now he moved it to ]. ] (]) 11:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC) **{{ping|User:Labattblueboy}} - It was not created there. . It was originally at ]. Skookum1 moved it to ]. Then just now he moved it to ]. ] (]) 11:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:18, 27 October 2014

WikiProject iconCanada: British Columbia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
WikiProject iconVancouver Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Standalone topic

This article is noteworthy as a standalone topic.

what determines whether something is a suitable subject or not is WP:GNG. 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."

Sources:

  • Johnson, Graham E. "Hong Kong Immigration and the Chinese Community in Vancouver" (Chapter 7). In: Skeldon, Ronald. Reluctant Exiles?: Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese (Volume 5 of Hong Kong becoming China). M.E. Sharpe, January 1, 1994. ISBN 1563244314, 9781563244315. Start p. 120.
  • Ng, Wing Chung. The Chinese in Vancouver, 1945-80: The Pursuit of Identity and Power (Contemporary Chinese Studies Series). UBC Press, November 1, 2011. ISBN 0774841583, 9780774841580.
  • Yee, Paul. Saltwater City: Story of Vancouver's Chinese Community. D & M Publishers, Dec 1, 2009. ISBN 1926706250, 9781926706252.
  • Anderson, Kay. Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Volume 10 of McGill-Queen's Studies in Ethnic History, ISSN 0846-8869). McGill-Queen's University Press (MQUP), November 4, 1991. ISBN 0773508449, 9780773508446. - See profile at Google Books (it's not yet used, but it clearly exists, doesn't it?)

And I also found:

  • Ironside, Linda L. 1985. Chinese and Indo-Canadian Elites in Greater Vancouver: Their Views on Education. M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University.

Consider these AFDs:

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Richmond Review

From the Ray, Halseth, and Johnson source I see various citations to articles of The Richmond Review. They are about the 1990s controversy involving ethnic Chinese building houses in Richmond.

  • McCullough, Dave. "TV program presents sanitized view." The Richmond Review. March 19, 1994.
    • In citation#6 in Ray, Halseth, and Johnson it is referred to in regards to the publisher of The Richmond Review revealing that it does not publish all of the letters and phone calls of "extremist" views; this is true even though the paper was, in the words of Ray, Halseth, and Johnson, "often a soapbox for extremist views"
  • Yandle, Carlyn. "Racism in Richmond? Impossible!" (Editorial). The Richmond Review. February 9, 1994.
  • "Respect for Asians must be earned" (Letter to the Editor). The Richmond Review. August 23, 1995. p. 9.
  • "Council must tackle the mega-house question." The Richmond Review. October 7, 1992.
  • "Local Hong Kong arrivals met with mixed reactions." The Richmond Review. June 25, 1989.
  • "Amendment may curb mega-houses." The Richmond Review. October 7, 1992.

There is also a citation for:

  • City of Richmond, Minutes, Committee of the Whole. November 2, 1992.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hongcouver"

this was an inline comment I was making that got long, so placing it here: all kinds of interpretations as to why the name emerged but it is in discredit by Chinese business and community associations, and also used distastefully and begrudgingly by non-Chinese as a grim joke; some claims were out there that it was because of the resemblance of Van to HK, others say that it was Chinese kids making a brag in the wake of the influx, as a taunt ; it is not a nickname for the city and the int'l media should grow up about using it so casually, it is an unwelcome term with spurious origins, used as media refrain, it was coined offensively, used offensively, and remains offensive. If "you" knew the background to this subject you've chosen to write, you'd have read around the Talk:Vancouver and Talk:Chinatown, Vancouver and other existing pages before using it the way you have here; it is not a useful term, not in common use (other than by foreign reporters looking for catchy terms), and its origins are not becauase there were lots of Chinese (there always were, long before the influx).Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post does use "Hongcouver" as a tag for articles related to the Chinese in Vancouver (notice that it does not refer to "Chinese in British Columbia" - it only refers to Vancouver). So, do you have any references that discuss the origins of "Hongcouver"? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Found this: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=011b7438-172c-4126-ba42-2c85828bd6ce WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Chinese Canadians in British Columbia be renamed and moved to Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Chinese Canadians in British Columbia → Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver – "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" is an off topic title. This is clearly only about the Greater Vancouver region and not about the province as a whole. All of the sources used by this article discuss the Vancouver region only and no content in this article, at the time it was moved, discusses Chinese ethnics in other cities. There is enough material in reliable sources to discuss ethnic Chinese in the Greater Vancouver region. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • STRONG OPPOSE This nomination is specious and hostile, and somewhat hypocritical, given the nom's own BOLD creation of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia to prevent my moving Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver to it, and his stonewalling and OR/SYNTH justifications of the necessary merge of those two articles have been endless and patronizing, considering he has never been to BC and is writing only from articles he has chosen as sources. I have as much right to BOLD moves to correct problems as anyone. He does not have the background in BC history to make the claim that "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" is off-topic. His comment that This is clearly only about the Greater Vancouver region and not about the province as a whole. is ONLY his own personal belief that the two can and must be separate; that the article until my additions contained only Greater Vancouver content was of his own devising, due to his perception of WP:OWNership of the title/article. My original position that his "Chinese in Vancouver" title was needlessly redundant of the main History of Chinese immigration to Canada article...but if there's going to be a separate article from that main national one, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Specific Greater Vancouver Chinese content has already been well-covered in the Vancouver's Chinatown and Golden Village and there was never a need for a further article on these topics; the overall subject of the history of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia overlaps with that of Vancouver in considerable amount; pretending that they should and must be separate is an outsider's perception, made by someone who has yet to read enough about BC, or Vancouver, to ever have begun an article bound by his own personal prejudices/interpretations and limited knowledge of exactly what's out there in the way of sources and history. Again, for all intents and purposes, his desire to limit the topic to Greater Vancouver can only ultimately replicate and needlessly parallel what is already in the Chinatown and Golden Village article, and to some extent, in Metrotown, and also in Vancouver Anti-Oriental Riots, and the Head Tax articles. I submit again that the claim the "in BC" title is "off-topic" is entirely spurious and OR, and extremely specious, given his lack of familiarity with the material.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: @Skookum1: From Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Standalone_topic you knew that I had intended for the topic to remain at "Greater Vancouver". You were aware we were debating the Indo-Canadian topic at the same time. You chose to move the Chinese topic anyway knowing I would object to it, knowing I did not agree with it. When I chose to start Indo-Canadians in British Columbia as a separate article that was in accordance with a bibliography of sources titled "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" It was in accordance with reliable sources which treat the subject as a separate topic. Do you have any reliable sources that say explicitly " the history of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia overlaps with that of Vancouver in considerable amount"? (the source must explicitly make this claim, no Misplaced Pages:Original research) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I also want to make this clear. The creation of an article on Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver does not interfere in your desire to have an article on Indo-Canadians in British Columbia. The latter in fact can include some general information on people in Vancouver as long as there is no undue weight. In this instance, forcing a merge interferes in my desire to have an article on Chinese in Greater Vancouver, especially when countless articles and sources refer only, and strictly to, the Chinese population in Vancouver in particular, especially considering the South China Morning Post has its own article collection on this subject! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What I said holds true; the international media still tout this term as if it were relevant and legitimate, it is not used or respected locally; in fact the National Geographic had to apologize, at SUCCESS' demands, for using it as the title of their article on the "influx"; if you weren't so ignorant about this topic you've commandeered, you'd already know that. It does NOT belong in the lede, and like all else has been covered in the Chinatown and Vancouver articles and discussions about its use/disuse/disfavour have taken place before. The South China Morning Post is not a Vancouver paper, it doesn't even really have a readership in Vancouver compared to e.g. the World Journal. It's a classic example of intl media tub-thumping a cliche that's considered insensitive and not slightly offensive in Vancouver itself; but far be it from you to bother respecting local sensitivities or to show ANY awareness of the local contexts of the stuff you now presume to dictate about.Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories: