Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:15, 4 January 2015

Canada: British Columbia Unassessed

This 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. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Vancouver Unassessed

This 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.

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-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.

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:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles
• This was back in 2007: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Americans_in_New_York_City

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)

Since Talk:Vancouver/Archive_3#Hongcouver_and_Vansterdam_newtext (2006) was previously discussed I'm going to ping every editor involved in this discussion. @Saxifrage:@JimWae:@Cromwellt:{@Ds13: I looked for any citations to sources in the 2006 discussion, but I was unsuccessful. I want to find sources that discuss Victor Yukmun Wong, Jenny Kwan etc. demanding this apology. That way a section can be built up on the term and what it means. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DO YOU GET IT that it's offensive and not used or respectedly locally. It does NOT belong in the lede. GET IT??!!! I was around when it was controversial, and there's plenty out there once you start looking. NB CanWest Global, by order of its new owner Izzy Asper in 1993, destroyed all its archives, so print sources from those times are difficult to get at, short of hard copies in City Archives or 'fiches in university library special collections. The same is true of the driving license scandal of the post-influx; hard to find on the internet, and digital copies of papers from those times do not exist. There's so much in the way of sources that are needed but not available online for things like this it's not funny; SUCCESS may have a file on "Hongcouver" somewhere; whether on line or not hard to say. But you demanding proof from a witness of the times when you've barely scratched the surface with your pastiche of sources-of-your-choosing remains insulting and patronizing and utterly AGF. I'm not the one talking through my hat; sources or not, YOU are... you need to do more research and stop with the SYNTH/OR campaign to piece together this and that and come up with the conclusions you're determined to reinforce; this RM is a waste of time, as is your blockade to prevent your POV fork of what is really one topic, not two, and your similar "show me sources or I'll file an RM" threat (yes, threat) on the German one are anything but collaborative and cooperative. You are covering old ground in your "new" articles, and have yet to offer antyhing here not already covered in the Vancouver, Chinatown, Golden Village and History of Chinese immigration articles....none of which, no doubt, you even looked at before starting the next installment of your one-man catalogue of "ethnic groups by city" articles.Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping away, it's just another case in point of you looking for backup as you have done re the RM; I'd ping User:Franamax but he's dead; User:Bobanny and other long-time Vancouver editors have now mostly left Misplaced Pages because they're tired o the bureaucratic inanity and th stonewalling by those who do not intend to cooperate except on their own terms/agendas, touting guidelines but not following them. You clearly intend to inflame this discussion, rather than to listen to COMMONSENSE......Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• From Jim Wae's comments:

• "Without some explanation, these names are not informative to readers, and serve only as a source of titillation and/or irritation to readers and editors"
• "Hongcouver was the name used when a large number of immigrants from Hong Kong started arriving around the time Hong Kong was reverting to Chinese rule. The name was often used resentfully to reference the new-comers" I might add "who often had sufficient wealth to sustain the increased demand for housing that resulted, and real estate prices quickly inflated"" or something along those lines

note the was not is - the term is passe in Vancouver, if not in the int'l media or the South China Morning Post's use of it for their Vancouver coverage

Victor Yukmon Wong of SUCCESS (the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society, a major Vancouver-Chinese business and cultural association) had lots to say about it and was ardently against it; his columns from those time are in the media's digital trashbin, but I may yet find soething online. But here I am, spending wiki-time proving what is obvious to a local to someone who doesn't care what locals have to say about it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• and from Ds13

"So this can be treated encyclopedically: in context as a minor nickname, with references to its notable users and to the controversy. Factual and neutral."

• you're welcome to write either Jenny Kwan or Victor Yukmun Wong or SUCCESS and see what they have to say about it; they were who led the charges against it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

are you getting the message? No, because you're determined not to.Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are saying they said it. It is up to you to prove it.

• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - You are arguing that "Hongcouver" was criticized by these politicians, so it is your responsibility to gather evidence.

Now... I'm not lazy. I used Google and Google Books to find published evidence of these politicians saying these things, and I cannot find published evidence. It would not be sufficient to get a personal e-mail from them. We need published correspondence. In the age of the internet I am surprised that I haven't found any news stories or articles on this incident.

Unfortunately Jim Wae did not include sources in his comments either. See, Skookum, back in 2006 Misplaced Pages was still a young place. Perhaps not every editor had absorbed the idea that we need to rely on published sources. It's now 2014... 8 years later. Now we have to present reliable source evidence. Also keep in mind the scope.

• The scope of this page is supposed to be the Chinese community in Greater Vancouver and not broadly the City of Vancouver. The term "Hongcouver" is commonly used around the world, and therefore it should be mentioned at minimum in the article. The way to determine whether it is to be used in the lead is based on reliable published sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And here, for a cite (which I can't view just now because the Vancouver Sun has a ten-views-per-month limit) and also for existing wiki-content on this term:

• Nicknames_of_Vancouver#Demographics, where its xenophobic nature/usage is observed

But far be it from you to respect existing Misplaced Pages content before writing you own.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There was insufficient development of the term there at Nicknames_of_Vancouver#Demographics. I started a section all about the history of "Hongcouver" here, and this is why it's good for articles like these to exist. You can more fully explore subjects that cannot be explored in a general encyclopedia article. The reference does mention that "Hongcouver" had been perceived as a derogatory usage. You can get around the article limit by inserting the URL into http://webcitation.org and getting an archive. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I just ran a search for "Hongcouver" on independent media in the city theTyee.ca, vancouverobserver.com, straight.com and on SUCCESS' own site; other than mention of the SCMP blog on a Vancouver Observer item, and its incorrect inclusion as an "affectionate term" (which it is not) on a list of city nicknames, and one mention in a comment on another article, referring only to its use post-influx, there are "no results" for local usage.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In regards to the search I was asking specifically for Kwan and Wong in regards to the specific NatGeo incident. That would be a good thing to add here if it can be verified. If somebody describes it as "affectionate" then we should find who did so and why (which people? Do Hong Kongers think it is affectionate?). There are people who say it is derogatory but I want to fully explore who uses it in what way. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So I have three Canadian sources saying it is derogatory and one Canadian source saying it is affectionate. Whether to include the Wood source (the one that says it is affectionate) depends on:

• Do other sources say it is affectionate?
• Overall, do the sources from any country overwhelmingly say it is offensive?

If condition one is false and condition two is true, Wood may be removed for being too much of a "minority viewpoint". WhisperToMe (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Many sources say it's offensive, some say it's satirical, some say it's both... WhisperToMe (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's offensive, period, in British Columbia and disliked by both Chinese Canadians and by non-Chinese Canadians. It does not belong in the lede, and what a Hong Kong blogger uses for his blog title is not admissible as RS.Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Whatever else needs to be settled about this article, it is clear that there is no consensus to move it as proposed. bd2412 T 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 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)

Your lack of knowledge of BC history is abysmal as is your ability to be logical; what sources do you have that state clearly that "the history of Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver is separate from the history of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia as a whole"? If you know more BC history, including the history of Chinese immigration/settlement in BC you'd never be making the wild claims/challenges that you have been. The idea that Greater Vancouver ethnic history should or can be separated from that of the province as a whole is rubbish, you don't have the experience or readings to dispute it, you only have SYNTH arguments based on your own cursory readings of titles and the sources you've found so far, and your demand for sources from me is tiresome; you haven't read enough BC history, of the Chinese or anyone, to make such an egregious claim/argument. In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia will get you started, as will a reading of the articles linked in {{Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia}}. Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 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)

It often happens that "outsiders" and "insiders" have clashing sensibilities. The point is: The South China Morning Post is a respected international paper. Misplaced Pages is not only for people in Vancouver. It is for a worldwide audience. Therefore the fact that the SCMP dedicates coverage to the ethnic Chinese in Vancouver in particular cannot be discounted. Remember: This article is not just for people in Vancouver. It is for people all over the world. Sources may not only come from popular Vancouver publications. They may come from all over the world. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I found Talk:Vancouver/Archive_3 back from 2006. It did not come with a source so it is not helpful to me. I need to be able to verify this. On top of that, even if the SCMP uses "Hongcouver" the real significance comes from the fact that they cover this particular topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I am confused, why did you create the article at Chinese Canadians in British Columbia less than a week ago in the first place, instead of at Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver. 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 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Move_request:_Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia_to_Chinese_Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver). 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.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Labattblueboy: - It was not created there. See edit history. It was originally at Chinese in Vancouver. Skookum1 moved it to Chinese in Greater Vancouver. Then just now he moved it to Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • commentI advised that it should be "in BC" rather than "Chinese in Vancouver", his original title, and it was me who expanded t hat by BOLD to "Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver" as his chosen title implies "Chinese citizens in Vancouver"; in this case he had not yet BOLDly created a separate provincial title as he had, to prevent me from moving what he's started as "Asian Indians in Vancouver", which I'd moved to Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and in doing so mentioned that "in British Columbia" was the more relevant and useful context; before I had time to do that, he created what is effectively a POV-fork title to thwart any such move, and has since engaged in endless and obstinate argument and "walls of text" to derail that discussion, which does have one "merge" vote so far (if you look close). I moved this article this morning to prevent another repeat of a BOLD creation of another POV fork and another prolonged and uselessly stonewalled merge discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Take it to arbitration. We can not determine what the best title for this article should be until we settle the debate over what the scope of the article is supposed to be: whether the article should be focused narrowly on Vancouver or more broadly on BC in general. I am concerned that the debate between WhisperToMe and Skookum1 is now leaking over onto multiple pages... the intransigence by both of them is becoming disruptive. That needs to stop. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an issue over WP:summary style. By default and initially, there is one topic with comprehensive coverage at the broadest level. Am I correct in assuming that there are or have been at least some Chinese Canadians in British Columbia but outside of Greater Vancouver? We need an article to cover them. Right in the lead I see "Some 30-40 men were employed as shipwrights at Nootka Sound"; is Nootka Sound inside Greater Vancouver? I see a photo captioned "Chinese labourers working on the Canadian Pacific Railway mile sections of the Canadian Pacific Railway from the Pacific to Craigellachie in the Eagle Pass"; that doesn't seem to be in Greater Vancouver. Now if the coverage of Greater Vancouver here at some point makes this article too long, then the details about that can then be split to a new detailed article titled Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver. I hope the editors can work this out. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply Those passages were added by me, imported from History of Chinese immigration in British Columbia which is the "national article" that was previously where it was deemed that "Chinese history in BC" belongs (I did argue, or call for, a separate BC article long ago); I did that after the title-move in order to start covering what WMT doesn't want to acknowledge; the Chinese history in BC began before Vancouver was founded or named, and that until an outmigration of Chinese from the Interior and North after WWII to the Lower Mainland, Chinese residents and businesses were common and in some areas and towns even dominant; that CCNC and academic folks nowadays only want to chatter about Vancouver is incidental but is a reason why mainstream RS are not the only reliable sources; there's tons of local history that WMT doesn't even want to start looking for as he's got his blinkers on about "ethnicity per city". List of historical Chinatowns in British Columbia will get you started, and Chinatown, Victoria is a reminder that Chinese history and the Chinese presence in British Columbia predates and far exceeds any limitations invoked by someone "who doesn't know the territory"; a "split" is UNDUE because a lot of what's in WMT's Vancouver/Greater Vancouver (he even begrudged the region-name over the city-name when I moved it) is overwritten and a WP:NOT matter; a collection of trivia cribbed t ogether from any RS he finds, a lot of it quite un-notable. If he'd put 1/4 as much energy towards researching "chinese in BC" before starting his pet "ethnicity by city" format, he'd have seen his error and presumption...I haven't had time to improve/expand the "provincial content" - or to trim the huge amounts of dross, or give context and balance to the bulk of randomly-cribbed together "Vancouver" junk that is out of all proportion to what is in Chinese Canadians and History of Chinese immigration to Canada and various other articles; note also while there is Chinatown, Toronto covering not just Spadina Avenue but Chinese in the GTA, there is no Chinese in Toronto article or Chinese in the Greater Toronto Area....nor should there be.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CBC segment on "Monster Homes"

http://www.cbc.ca/asianheritage/media/monsterhomes.ram

This was the "Monster Homes" segment from CBC. Unfortunately I checked the Wayback Machine and found... nothing available. It was not archived. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese in Coquitlam and Burnaby

I was able to archive the entire Douglas Todd here: Mapping our ethnicity Part 2: China comes to Richmond.

The source sentence: "Ethnic Chinese are also focused in south Vancouver around Granville and 49th, in central Burnaby around Kensington and Halifax streets and in pockets of northern Coquitlam."

Comments from Skookum:

• "Halifax and Kensington? Is there even a mini-mall there being worth called a "community"? So weird to see this tiny set of shops mentioned, but not Metrotown et al."
• "re cite needed, would have to be census data for the particular neighbourhood, not a columnist's single line; have a look at googlemaps and use streetview; nothing distinctly Chinese about this location"

I left the "comments" inside the article. Citing census data can be done for individual numbers. On whether to argue whether there is a "Chinese community" or not based on census data can be problematic, since articles are supposed to be primarily based on secondary sources and not interpretations of primary source data.... unless it's clear that there are no Chinese people in those areas (then the journalist got it completely wrong). It's good to get the census data closest to 2011 anyway because it can reinforce Todd's findings.

There are areas where ethnic Chinese live where there are few or no businesses catering to "ethnic populations." One source I used for Chinese community in Paris is that there is a Chinese population in Marne-la-Vallée but there are few ethnic businesses there. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re "There are areas where ethnic Chinese live where there are few or no businesses catering to "ethnic populations," as always you don't have a clue what you're talking about or where your talking about a cite for Paris is pure OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and entirely irrelevant to the British Columbia context at hand. There are "areas where Chinese live where there are few or no businesses catering to "ethnic populations" is poppycock when you realize, which you don't, that retail and services cater to ethnic populations in the whole region (the Lower Mainland); you also confuse census data with the notion of "community", which is a complete gaffe and just more typical OR/SYNTH from you. The Chinese population is widely dispersed in the region, and while some particular Chinese-oriented retail agglomerations exist, Chinese-oriented and Chinese-owned businesses are everywhere in the region; it's not like an immediate area (Kensington & Sperling) that has no commercial presence at all is a "Chinese community" or that Chinese people who live there aren't within striking range of Chinese-dominant retail at Metrotown ... or the little now-Chinese-retail dominated strip mall at Broadway and Holdom (that's nearby but not in the little census patch you're maundering about). But why waste time t elling you things that get in the way of your theories spun from your readings of sources you find when you don't give a s**t what someone from the place has to tell you about why you're wrong without screaming "original research" (which is what you are doing, endlessly, by selectively interpreting RS to reach conclusions that are wrong).Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Excerpts

"the first Chinese school was in, I believe, Victoria; this section needs proper depth, not some excerpts cribbed together"

If there are no broader sources found, there's no choice but to have these excerpts. The proper depth will only come if/when the proper sources are found. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"if there are no broader sources found" would start being found if you were reading/ researching things other than ethnic-agenda research papers and started reading general histories of BC and its cities and towns like I have my whole life. Victoria having the first Chinese school is part of that city's and that Chinatown's history, and can be found (most likely) in books on the history of the city, not narrow-field academic works like the kind you are building/synthing this and other articles from. A major source for Chinese history in BC is J. Morton's "In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia", publ. 1974, which I've cited on various pages and quite likely told you about before; among so many other things I referred you to but you were too busy forumshopping about what you say is original research on my part; histories of Victoria's, Nanaimo's, Penticton's, Mission's and other Chinatowns seem to be ignored by your stable of academics; not surprising because of the urban bias of modern academia, and the way a lot (most) of these academic analysts either don't know about or disdain the local historical literature that's out there....and available in local libraries and bookshops; which are unavailable to you in Texas, unless you have deep pockets and are ready to order a few books to educate yourself with instead of pontificating/sniding about "if there are no broader sources found" as if there weren't any. The proper depth from an editor will only come when that editor is ready to listen to others about where sources can be found, and what issues in local history (Chinese or otherwise) should be known about before cribbing together "found excerpts" into what so far is mostly a "meaningless collection of trivia". Find some histories of Victoria, look up the page out there somewhere on Victoria's Chinese community/Chinatown. The proper depth will only come from proper depth, period. And you have been incredibly shallow, and arrogant, in your dismissals of my input. The proper sources are in print you just haven't been listening as to where to look for them. And you "don't know the territory" so are out of your depth even knowing where to begin, but are dismissive of someone from the territory who also knows what's in print in BC about a host of subjects; and who isn't limited by academic/ideological agenda to just writing about the Chinese in one urban area only, often written by people who have no knowledge of the history of BC beyond that of the Chinese; that gaffes abound in them is a problem of the academic culture.....the lack of proper depth here is your own; you haven't even begun to read BC history and bibliographies to be able to make such a statement as you did above; the broader sources exist, you just don't want to read them or to pretend that it's someone ELSE's fault that you don't know what is a well-known bit of BC Chinese history. A relatively simple one, in fact.....which if you'd read histories of B C and Victoria that weren't ethnic-blinkers-on studies like those you have used, you'd know that already.Skookum1 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you know by heart what these books say? Until the text is located in the general history book (you can do this with Google Books in many cases), we don't know what the general history book says about the subject, not until the scans/Google Books pages can be located. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Another thing: I actually would not mind writing about the lesser known/smaller Chinese communities in BC. Just because I write about the one in Vancouver does not prevent me or anyone else from doing so in any of the other cities. Summarizing information from the smaller ones here would be a good thing, and if the information in any one of them becomes too big, it can be made into its own article too. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC) @Moonriddengirl: WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia has no preview on Google Books, sadly. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough sources to prove standalone notability of Vancouver Chinese and do an article split?

Since the Notability noticeboard is down, I think this is the best place to post it.

The article Chinese Canadians in British Columbia had originally been at Chinese in Vancouver (later moved to Chinese in Greater Vancouver) and I created it for the intention of being at this title with the city of Vancouver being its specific scope. The Wikipedian above changed the title and focus unilaterally (and the Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Requested_move I filed immediately afterwards failed).

I believe that Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver has as much merit in being a standalone topic (separate from Chinese Canadians in British Columbia) as Irish in New York City, and I believe that the following books and articles should be enough to prove this.

Books:

• 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 J. Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980. McGill-Queen's Press, November 4, 1991. ISBN 0773562974, 9780773562974.

Newspaper/magazine articles:

• Young, Ian. "How mainland Chinese immigrants are transforming Vancouver." South China Morning Post. Sunday April 14, 2013. Print title: "The maple leaf mainlanders"
• Cernetig, Miro. "Chinese Vancouver: A decade of change" (Archive). Vancouver Sun. Saturday June 30, 2007. Retrieved on October 27, 2014.
• Li, Wanyee. "Finger pointing in Richmond Chinese signage debate not constructive" (Archive). Vancouver Observer. March 26, 2013. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.
• Todd, Douglas. "Douglas Todd: Metro Vancouver’s Chinese Christians wrestle with morality of homosexuality." Vancouver Sun. June 28, 2013.
• Young, Ian. "School transgender policy angers Vancouver’s Chinese Christians." South China Morning Post. Wednesday 21 May 2014. Updated Friday 23 May 2014. Print title: "School transgender policy row."
• Seyd, Jane. "Chinese signs questioned in West Vancouver" (Archive). The Vancouver Sun. July 14, 2014.
• FlorCruz, Michelle. "Vancouver Anti-Chinese-Language Movement Focused On Chinese Language Signs, Advertisements" (Archive). International Business Times. July 17, 2014.
• Ghosh, Palash. "Vancouver’s Skyrocketing Housing Prices: Are Mainland Chinese Investors To Blame?" (Archive). International Business Times. December 17, 2013.
• Ogura, Tamiko. "Vancouver from the 1907 Anti-Asian Riots to Hongcouver: A Century of Change Through Students’ Eyes" (Archive). Schema Magazine. June 19, 2007.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Note: Vancouver and Richmond are two cities in the same metropolitan area.

Isn't it general practice to write the content first and if the article becomes too large, to split off into a sub-article? Is there any information in any of those referenced works that can't be included in this article for some reason? Surely there could be enough content for a Chinese Canadians in Vancouver article, but a) what will the split do to this article and b) if we split before the content is written, maybe we end up with two mediocre articles that could be merged. That's my two cents. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on adding information at the moment. I think a good way of determining whether the surviving article should stand on its own legs is the number of books/articles specifically about the subject. In regards to the overall topic of "Chinese in British Columbia" there is at least one book. There are also books and articles about the Victoria, British Columbia Chinese community, so it's certainly possible to make a fully fledged article about the Chinese in British Columbia. Perhaps a good way of illustrating what can happen to this article is to start segregating Vancouver-specific content into its own sections so a "velvet divorce" can happen easily.

There may be some details about Vancouver city/school district politics that are considered insignificant/unimportant details when talking about the province as a whole: for example the Vancouver Christian Chinese anti-LGBT activism. I want a place to cover these aspects in detail without worrying that somebody may exclude them out of undue weight, and that is why I would like to have a separate article for the Chinese in Vancouver.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, "it's certainly possible to make a fully fledged article about the Chinese in British Columbia" is what I've been telling you all along and THAT is why this article's name was (rightly) changed by me. The province-wide subject is if anything more important and notable than the city-focussed subject; your ignorance of the province-wide history, and even of basic geography, has been your problem from the start; "A fully fledged article about the Chinese in British Columbia" is more than possible, and this is it. But you have shown no signs of working up the full provincial context or even display interest in it and ignore the Chinatown and Golden Village articles as already-extant, and continue to research only Vancouver-related titles/papers to advance your agenda of splitting your "ethnicity by city" title off so it fits your "global series". You have been pretentious, peremptory and patronizing...and stubborn as hell about this title-change, likewise your behaviour re your "Asian Indians in Vancouver" title being changed. A fully fledged article on "Chinese in BC" is what you should be cooperating with; not trying to overturn and split.Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, while (as usual) I don't agree with Skookum's tone and personal attacks in this discussion, I do (as usual) agree with his actual points. I don't believe that there are details about Vancouver school district politics that are, as you say, "insignificant/unimportant details when talking about the province as a whole". If the BC article becomes too big, then less important details can be split to a Vancouver article, but until such time, leave them here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am more than happy to expand the article. @Themightyquill:, what size readable prose to do you think should be "time to split?" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

RE "tone and personal attacks", that's as true in both directions, but I won't take the time to list off the diffs of the snide tone and dismissive attitude which has pervaded weeks (months?) of his warring and disputatious sidelining of talkpages with his self-justification and masses of cites; what you are seeing is something like the 40th discussion of this kind, and the frustration arising from that. As you know, I "know my shit" and am a good resource person for sources and stories that, while I may not have the page citation for, I know well and am not "making it up". Being disrespected on a regular basis takes its toll in both directions, but I'm not the one agenda-thumping over and over again to establish his chosen are of specialties as a magnum opus of BC history....by somebody who's never been there, and whose only interest is ethnic history and that only from an urban viewpoint. The article like the Indo-Canadians one(s) is a jumble of bald facts with little context. I've said it all before, and you know I'm right, and also that consensus has spoken already only a month ago. Of course my tone is not going to be "welcoming and friendly" after long weeks of this stuff.Skookum1 (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: I suppose when there is enough content that splitting does not result in a) two redundant articles or b) one strong article and one weak article. There are currently multiple sections tagged for expansion, which suggests to me there is plenty of room for expansion still. It's your choice, of course, but honestly, I imagine we'd all be better off investing your time creating articles any of the institutions or people mentioned in this article that don't have articles at all yet, rather than working hard to create a separate article with more or less the same information. The Asian Exclusion League, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, the Chinese Benevolent Association Building, and the Victoria Chinese Public School are probably all worthy of their own articles. The anonymous Chinese alderman of Vancouver in 1985 and the unnamed first recording of Cantonese opera in Vancouver? Surely, there must be more than four notable Chinese people from BC. TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: A strong article about BC Chinese in general would be supported by the general history that has been covered in multiple reliable sources. A strong article about Vancouver Chinese in particular would be supported by recent city-focused history such as: the Hong Kong Chinese in the early-to-mid-1990s, the Chinese Mainland housing controversy, the "Chinese signs" controversy in Richmond and other places, etc. There is room for both kinds of articles which would not be redundant.

I made the choice to erite about the Chinese in Vancouver in particular back in October 15. This choice was interfered with. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:, I'm sure you are right that there is potential room for both articles. I tried to make that clear. But that doesn't mean the content of this article is currently enough to create two strong articles. I would argue that it isn't. In the mean time, I don't see any problem with including the topics you mentioned in this article. If you were to move all that content to a different article without adding to this current article, I think this article would be left weak. Does that make sense? I'm not arguing about possibilities for the future, I'm arguing about now. So if your choice to to create a Vancouver-only article back in October was "interfered with" (please consider WP:OWN, btw), then I agree with that "interference." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Yes, I do understand your point of view. It's fine to want a strong "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" article and I understand why that is desirable. I think the solution is to do research on the general history and/or the provincial history (particularly representation of Chinese in the provincial government and actions of the provincial government) so that "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" would have strong legs to stand on even when/if the very Vancouver specific stuff (things having to to do with the city government, suburban city governments, local politics, excess information on Vancouver-area geography statistics and culture) is excised. Do you want me to do research into that too?

I am aware the article does not belong to me per se. If there was a process where there was an agreement that it would be better to merge, with the consensus needed in order to get a merge rather than the other way around, I would have felt better about the whole thing.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea. @Themightyquill:, are there certain things about the BC in Chinese that you feel are currently missing from the article? I can research them and see if I can find them. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert to tell you what to research. I imagine you and Skookum both know more than I do. There are already sections marked in this article for expansion, so those would be logical places to start. It's too bad you and Skookum have been bashing heads - you're both apparently enthusiastic editors. Instead of fighting over organization, you could have been working together to add content from the many books you've both listed. I think we can all agree that the history and current situation of ethnic-Chinese (Canadian citizens or otherwise) in BC (Vancouver and elsewhere) is pretty unique within Canada and so it's worth making this article strong. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very unique phenomenon and I would like to see more and more information about it. To address the above points I've added a few more people to the list of people section (now it's more than four). In regards to individual organizations/places (such as the school) it is possible they too can be spun out, but that depends on how much coverage they get and how many sources describe the organization/place. Even when they are spun out they can still be some text about it here. Anyway based on what I know the thing that I think is the most missing is information about the overall distribution of ethnic Chinese in the province as a whole today. Once I get that info I can make a demographic list of how many ethnic Chinese are in each important city in the province. The Language and Commerce sections also need to be beefed up (I can see if I can find info on the mega-malls in the Vancouver region). WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Velvet divorce" = WP:POV fork

I've pointed out before that "Chinese Vancouver" is already covered by TWO articles, Chinatown, Vancouver, and Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia); you are re-creating the wheel, just as you did when you bulldozed ahead on making a city-specific fork off History of Chinese immigration to Canada. Your "velvet divorce" is nothing more than you trying to overturn the title change by POV forking - to fulfill you stated agenda of creating a series of "ethnicity by city" articles. THAT is your real reason for your desire for a "velvet divorce" - you obsession with your WP:OWN series of titles. "In regards to the overall topic of "Chinese in British Columbia" there is at least one book. " displays to me your complete ignorance of the literature that is out there, and also your ongoing r esistance to my advice that you look around general histories of BC, and also local histories, for all the detail your searches for Chinese-in-Vancouver don't have. Chinese history in British Columbia is not focussed on Vancouver, it did not begin in Vancouver, any attempt to talk about Chinese society in Vancouver must necessarily include an understanding of the history of Chinese in the province as a whole. The sloppy habit in some quarters of academia and journalism saying "Vancouver" when they mean "Greater Vancouver"/Lower Mainland is part of your problem, among many; and you play wordgames with those titles, as if they were cites that mandated a separation of topic, i.e. POV fork. But they do not. That you are continuing this campaign of yours to empire-build about "ethnicities by city" across what looks to be seven different places now is a repeat of your earlier BLUDGEONing and FORUMSHOPPING. You have continued on this article on your Vancouver-only thing without seeking to expand the wider British Columbia content that's out there, and ignored my advice on how to find it, instead you have fielded another series of rationalizations to try to argue AGAIN for your desired POV split.

@Themightyquill: this is an ongoing campaign of his; he's stymied merge discussions with his "walls of cites", and began by rejecting input from a highly informed local editor, dismissing me as original research and taking his hassle to the OR board, and other places besides, and he still shows no sign of having researched "more than he doesn't want to know". He says "I'm working on adding information at the moment." - adding more information indiscriminately, without knowledge of the broader geographic and social context.....a pastiche of trivia, really, is what is here, not a cogent account; same as the bald, pat style seen on Indo-Canadians in British Columbia, and the title "Chinese in Vancouver", which I see he's put forward again, has a big bad problem, "Vancouver" is inaccurate; unless all content re Chinese in Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam and the North Shore is excluded....he's argued that, to him, and to the sources he fields, "Vancouver" is used for the metropolis; but that's not the case in Misplaced Pages. And re that content he doesn't answer to the REALITY that Chinatown, Vancouver already exists, and covers more than historic Chinatown i.e. it covers t he Chinese community in Vancouver, as does the Golden Village article and then there's the Metrotown article. Re-inventing the wheel to the point of WP:OVERKILL. That all these parameter-demands are being made by someone who's never been to Vancouver, doesn't know BC history other than the ethno-focussed readings he's been amassing, and plunking down one item after another without any sense of context, just building his Vancouver-cites so he could make this attempt yet again to POV-fork this title back to where he wanted it for his global series on ethnicity-by-city.

Instead of trying to find yet more "Chinese=Vancouver" sources, and spending all day lobbying to undo the needed title change here, he should be trying to read wider histories of BC and realize that there's lots yet he doesn't have a clue about so far. How many articles on Chinese-in-BC does Misplaced Pages need? Does it need an article that's nothing more than clutter comprised of excerpts/trivia from the selected readings he's focussed on, and nothing else? Does it need week after week of someone who doesn't know a subject arguing for control of it and dismissing input from someone more than knowledge about the place, and the subject? Does it need someone OWNing a series of articles like he is trying to do? And normally, Quill, it's not just creating the article first that's normal practice, it's researching the subject before beginning; but he was only interested in "Vancouver" and didn't even know what that means in BC terms, or in Misplaced Pages norms either.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Previous RM is not even cold yet

So, The RM closed in November and this agenda to overturn it is being fielded once again even though the customary 3 months or more has not elapsed. With all the same "walls of cites" and more, yet he's not been looking for anything else than his own selected ethno-tub-thump materials. He failed with his ANI/OR against me, he failed with that RM, and yet persists with his single-minded campaign to empire-build his "Vancouver Chinese" article, separate from existing parallel articles, and continues to ignore al the other readings I have recommended he research, including all the general history context of Chinese-in-BC-at-large; he just doesn't want to know, and only wants to talk about "Vancouver". Disgruntled by his failed RM, it's not even been a month and he's at it again.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

annoyingly POV edit comment

This edit comment "Let's read https://books.google.com/books?id=TaKCUVe_92EC&pg=PA194-https://books.google.com/books?id=TaKCUVe_92EC&pg=PA195 From context you can see it's the Whites that had campaigned against the Chinese (is there evidence First Nations felt the same?))" is both patronizing and racist....and yes, there is evidence that First Nation felt the same; Chief Hunter Jack drove Chinese miners away from Marshall Creek in the 1870s, and in the 1880s there was conflict over damage to salmon spawning beds during the Cayoosh Gold Rush. Natives, for the record, got paid more than whites for work, (cite: Frances Decker Pemberton: History of a settlement) as they worked harder; the same is true of Kanakas and often also blacks.....the use of "whites" as apposite to "Chinese" is misleading but common in biased sources (which are more than numerous). "From context" you can see a lot of things, including the bias prevalent in modern-era publicatoins against "whites".Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"let's read other sources" like Marshall, Morton, the Akriggs and other things that aren't in the purview of ethnic-studies "research" (propaganda). "Let's actually learn BC history before we write about it" it is my ongoing comment to the ethno-pandering here. Repeating the biases and mistakes and distortions of so-called "reliable sources" is not NPOV, it is perpetrating lies and falsehoods.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That link is Berton, and it's a crappy source in many ways; there's lots more on the building of the railway out there, including the Morton book I keep on mentioning; Berton is known for many historical errors and conflations.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

1. "yes, there is evidence that First Nation felt the same; Chief Hunter Jack drove Chinese miners away from Marshall Creek in the 1870s, and in the 1880s there was conflict over damage to salmon spawning beds during the Cayoosh Gold Rush. " -- The solution is to go on Google Books and get the page numbers of a book that says that, and the book must tie this into general anti-Chinese sentiment (as in Chief Hunter Jack must be used as an example of anti-Chinese sentmiment). It must make a statement explicitly saying "The First Nations/Natives also had anti-Chinese sentiment".

2. As for the salary of Natives - in order to include this, the source must tie this into "anti-Chinese sentiment" (It must show that this is relevant to the discussion of the Chinese). - A cite "(cite: Frances Decker Pemberton: History of a settlement)" without a page number does not contribute anything.

3. To all readers of this talk page: any "that source is crappy" comments without any evidence presented proving its a crappy source are incredibly unhelpful. If the source is "crappy" the book reviews/reliable sources will say that it's very problematic (example: Hmong: History of a People). For example, if "Berton is known for many historical errors and conflations" then the book reviews will say that like with Hmong: History of a People.

4. I find it unhelpful to rattle off "this and this happened" without an effort from your end to find alternate sources on Google Books so I can read more about it. Morton's book is not the only one out there about the Chinese and to argue "the Natives had anti-Chinese sentiment too" it is the person making the claim who has the responsibility of proving this claim.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chief Hunter Jack" Chinese on Google Books = zero text results (I see a mention of A History of British Columbia: Selected Readings with no preview).

I must emphasize: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (I didn't add the bolding!)

Yee: p. 10. "In the Cayoosh region, whites shot two Chinese in a dispute over a claim." (that is the only result so far from a Google Books search for "Cayoosh Gold Rush Chinese")

If the anti-First Nations sentiment towards Chinese appears in newspaper articles printed in the Morton book, perhaps there may be other sources for these newspaper articles? Even so, these may be treated as "primary" sources, and it is the secondary sources that truly determine "weight". If the Morton book has analysis of First Nations-based anti-Chinese sentiment, that would be a secondary source.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, the page number challenge you are throwing up is hostile and picayune; some pages use those same cites without page-challenges like you are obsessing over and being confrontational about, as if I'm making thing up. Details of native-Chinese interactions can be found in lots of major general histories but not, and pointedly not be design, in the raft of sino-biased modern works that gloss over this, or point to native-Chinese marriages; and in local histories like the Edwards book. "Verifiability" is there, as I do not make things up but for the last week my XHD where I have digital copies of her book and certain others is not showing up in Windows Explorer, so I can't satisfy your 'impatient demands as would be otherwise possible. As for Morton, you know full well I am in Asia and do not have access to a Canadian library; I sold that book when I left Canada in fact. My bad for not publishing a review on its years ago or you'd find yourself having to quote ME in the reviews that you have so carefully presented to try to discredit the book. Ormsby, the Akriggs, Hauka, Howay, Scholefield, M.S. Wade, Barman, Bowering aren't fully cited like the academic nazi crowd criticizes Morton for. One thing he has, once you take the time to find and read it instead of just finding catty reviews, is details of each and ever shipload coming and going, and I don't see any of that in the sino-focussed cites you have provided, rather I see a lot of glosses, cited glosses from other vague and biased sources with don't have a lot of actual details, just politicized generalizations. Page-numbered opinion vs non-footnoted immigration/shipping data without line-cites.....well, in 1974, the line-cite obsession of the "new history" crowd didn't exist yet. Demanding the past conform to the standards of the present (moral or stylistic, whichever) is not proper historiography;but all too typical of the biases and anality of the modern history "establishment"; there is value in any source, whether modern cite-methods were used. There's little in his book on native-Chinese matters...though there is the story of Camp 23 or Camp 32, something like that, near Lytton, where an attempted firing of a Chinese worker wound up seeing a mob kill a crew foreman; it's also in his book where the story of the starving 2000 at Spences Bridge is recounted, who were rescued by Vancouver citizens (among whom some may have been Chinese, but the money came from teh stodgily Anglo-British West Side of Vancouver) because their Chinese employer had abandoned them. Do I have a page cite? No. Am I making it up? No. Is is in that book? Yes. So isntead of being a picky cite-demander, who don't you have patience and stop being so AGF against me about anything I add or change; I know BC history, YOU DON'T.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre Berton's many books don't have citations, either, y'know.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations require page numbers because readers need to be able to verify the content. I take a lot of time hunting down page numbers on Google Books and saving snippets (even manipulating Google Books to show as much of the book as possible if it's in Snippet form) because I want to prove to my readers that my content comes from these sources and that it's an accurate reflection of them.

Books for general audiences typically don't have footnotes so the reviews won't criticize them for that. Reviews from "academic" journals acknowledge when the book isn't intended to be scholarly or when it's not "as scholarly" (I included such statements in the article Saltwater City: An Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver). Books typically are asked for citations when they are supposed to be scholarly or academic. Hmong: History of a People is criticized for lacking footnotes because it's supposed to be scholarly research.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

POV b.s. reinserted, I see

Re this edit, and WTM's edit comment "Non-Chinese pointed out that ethnic Chinese were not contributing anything to the area while they were taking resources from it." is making it sound like it was truth. Check the source's sentences", and the removal of the Morton book citation at the same time, it was the fact. Using "felt" and "believed" about "whites" indicates that their "perceptions" were not real; but Chinese worked for 1/3 what others worked for and that is a fact. Read Morton, and don't presume to get me to wallow in the same ethno-biased tub thumping that you are induldign with this article, and in your selection of biased/ethno-focussed publications. They're wrong but ascribe to the "tell a lie often enough and people will come to believe it" method of history-writing. READ MORTON - you have student status and can get it on interlibrary loan easier than I can. The source you are citing is using POV language and false claims. Like so many (such as the common myth that a Chinese died for every foot of teh Fraser Canyon, or that they were "forced" to open laundries and restaurants).Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If the sources present something as a "perception" or a "feeling" then the article should describe it as such. Using your own logic to say it is a fact is adding a Misplaced Pages:POV (Point of view). And so the sources all call them that...

• Lim, Imogene L. "Pacific Entry, Pacific Century: Chinatowns and Chinese Canadian History" (Chapter 2). In: Lee, Josephine D., Imogene L. Lim, and Yuko Matsukawa (editors). Re/collecting Early Asian America: Essays in Cultural History. Temple University Press. ISBN 1439901201, 9781439901205. Start: 15. CITED: p. 17. "Yet the image of thousands of Chinese seeking fortunes in the gold rush continues to dominate people's imaginations to this day. For this reason, Chinese were viewed as contributing little to the local economy while taking from the land." (I added the bolding)
• "ARCHIVED - The Early Chinese Canadians 1858-1947." Government of Canada. - "Anti-Chinese agitators saw that Chinese immigrants came here without families and lived simply. Therefore, they said, Chinese men did not need as much money as whites did to live on and to raise a family. They argued that the Chinese could work for lower wages and would take jobs away from white workers."

The modern scholarship characterizes them as an opinion and not fact.

• WP:POV in fact says... "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

I don't yell "POV edit!" because loading replies with policy/guideline acronyms without explaining them is very unhelpful and disruptive (because then you have go and disprove all the "POV/NOR/POV forks" nonsense) - I actually refer to the policy itself and what it says and explain why.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know what WP:POV, WP:NOR and WP:POV fork mean, that's a poor comment on your knowledge of wikipedia guidelines (even more than your plastering notifications for your issues on multiple boards and jamming them with walls of cites and your OR interpretations of them. You have added opinionated material "in Misplaced Pages voice" unquestioningly, as if their tone and language were fact, and not biased generalizations against "Whites", which they all too often are. And have a look at the quote from Digital Collections you just provided, which was not how their mention was worded in t he article... nothing about "felt" or "believed", which are subtextual statements from POV authors seeking to discredit their positions, which were factual. If you'd take the time to order In the Sea of Sterile Mountains on interlibrary loan or buy a copy from Amazon, you'd have a fairer view of things than the ethno-history articles you have been citing provide and come to understand that these matters were real, not something deluded non-Chinese concocted to mask their legal points; again, if you read Morton instead of only negative reviews about him bny those who don't like what he says, you might understand a bit more than you do.Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"The modern scholarship characterizes them as an opinion and not fact." Aside from your needless use of "the" at the start of that sentence (improper use of the definite article is rife in your writing, by the way), a lot of modern scholarship is more opinion than fact, and opinionated language is regularly used. When it is opinionated, it should be presented through a wiki-lens and not added as if it were complete fact as you have been constantly doing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I submitted this to Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements and I think the best thing will be to sit back and wait for the feedback. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Historiography and South China Morning Post

I want the following historiography included:

• Works about the Chinese community in Vancouver include Wing Chung Ng's ''The Chinese in Vancouver 1945-80: The Pursuit of Identity and Power'' and Paul Yee, ''Saltwater City: An Illustrated History of the Chinese in Vancouver''. Patricia E. Roy, the author of ''The Triumph of Citizenship: The Japanese and Chinese in Canada, 1941-67'', wrote that Yee's book is more popular compared to Ng's book. ''The Chinese in Vancouver, 1945-80'' discusses the post-] intra-Chinese politics in Vancouver. This book uses sources in both English and Chinese. In addition, several Chinese resident in Vancouver contributed articles to a book edited by Edgar Wickberg, ''From China to Canada: A History of the Chinese Communities in Canada''.<ref>Roy, Patricia E. ''The Triumph of Citizenship: The Japanese and Chinese in Canada, 1941-67''. ], November 1, 2011. ISBN 0774840757, 9780774840750. p. .</ref>

The article is not all a historiography but it's not fair to exclude this. Authors doing research on a topic can and do compare sources and how valuable they are.

I also want this external link included:

• "The Hongcouver" - Index of articles at the South China Morning Post

The South China Morning Post is a respected newspaper and there is a whole series of articles just about the relationship between the Chinese and Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "Vancouver" to refer to the metropolitan area

There are sources that, when they say Vancouver, they are in fact meaning the metropolitan area.

Sin Yih Teo's masters degree thesis (written at the University of British Columbia) says:

• " Unless otherwise indicated, Vancouver from here on refers to "Greater Vancouver", equivalent to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and very similar to the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)." (page 30).

The introductory sentence of Chapter 3 says "The present chapter shifts my discussion to the empirical context of recent migration from the People's Republic of China (PRC) to Vancouver, British Columbia.

When real people refer to Chicago, Houston, Toronto, etc. in many cases they're not referring to the city proper, but the metropolitan area. It assumed from context that you know when they're talking about the metro area versus the city proper. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Who cares about geographically-vague and outright wrong sources; in Misplaced Pages "Vancouver" means the City of Vancouver and nothing else. This has been gone over exhaustively in various discussions at CANTALK and on the WPBritish Columbia and WPVancouver pages over time; using "Vancouver" to mean Surrey is like using "New Jersey" to mean Manhattan; that you want to challenge this speaks to your inexperience with name-conventions in Misplaced Pages and also with British Columbia as a whole. What "can be assumed from context" is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages titling/usage conventions/realities; repeating geographic vagueness is not encylopedic, rather it is entrenching and reinforcing ignorance.Skookum1 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actual human beings use Vancouver to loosely mean either Vancouver or the metropolis, and so will sources, and in many instances it won't matter if you say "immigration to Vancouver" or "immigration to Greater Vancouver" as people understand it's really the same thing. If there is a need to distinguish between the two (as in it's critical to say the city limits are involved, or criticial to say that it certainly is the metropolitan area) that can be done easily: "Greater Vancouver" or whatever in those cases, and "Vancouver city limits" or "City of Vancouver" in the other. That can be examined in a case-by-case basis.

Since Misplaced Pages regularly uses sources that do that, we do "care" about them. The attitude above will not change that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria CBA and the Sino-Japanese War

Shibao Guo, in his PhD thesis, says p. 47: "Originally established in 1884 in Victoria to organize Chinese support for the war against the Japanese," and he is talking about the Victoria CBA.

It is there had been tensions between China and Japan before initial start of the war, but the initial start of the war was 1894. The next citation on the Guo page is Wickberg p. 90 so maybe Wickberg's book can clarify the matter?

It is true that one should get as "direct" with the sources as one can (if, say, a PhD thesis cites another source, consult that source and see what it says). WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1884 is a long time before 1894; such specious claims are common but it doesn't mean their speciousness should be repeated; it makes no sense at all, unless you are maintaining the CBA was planning a war with Japan that far in advance; strikes me as odd that the CBA would be working alongside the Qing Dynasty government; the earlier Benevolent Associations such as Barkervilles, were formed to fight the Qing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pre-war hostilities can brew for ten years and there had been previous military conflicts with European powers. If the Japanese were having military skirmishes prior to the official start of the war, it may make sense. This CBA acted as a de facto consulate so I wouldn't be surprised that it had ties to the Qing government. It is possible that Shibao Guo just made a mistake. If you don't see this reason in other sources about the CBA, it can be left out. If it appears in other sources, the matter can be clarified. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

On sourcing

I notice recent edits drastically changing text, with edit summaries indicating they are based off of the Wikipedian's beliefs about the sources and professed knowledge of the subject. I feel that is damaging the integrity of the text, which is supposed to be based on what the sources say! Misplaced Pages is a secondary source, so the text must reflect what the sources say. It seems like the editing is going off on a personal/gut feeling that Yee is wrong and Morton is right rather than actually cross-checking what the content says.

Re: Morton

By all means Morton would be a great source for this article. Even though I found criticisms of Morton's methodology/analysis in the book reviews talking about it, there were only some minor questions about a few historical facts indicated in Worden's book review.

• Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to rely on many sources and not only one, so the idea to use various sources. Another thing: I don't think the concept "selection of biased/ethno-focussed publications. They're wrong but ascribe to the "tell a lie often enough and people will come to believe it" method of history-writing." has any validity. How do you know they are biased? How do you know they are wrong? Since these sources are WP:RS and I haven't seen any evidence saying the whole field is faulty, I'm going to continue to use these sources and expect they will be used.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to analyze each of the recent edits. One by one, I will point out what the source text says and I will say whether the edit was justified or not justified.

As stated in the analysis, Misplaced Pages content must be directly supported by the source, and material/changes should not be made if the sources don't support it.

The Wikipedian has stated the idea that calling Canadians of European origin "white" is racist, or POV/incorrect. Currently this is a "minority viewpoint" among the Canadian people (the common term is "White" in Canadian society) and the sources themselves also use "White." This is not the same thing as, say, an old American source referring to "negros" while modern encyclopedia articles citing the old sources call the same people "African-Americans." - The effect of this is that multiple sources (especially in Edit #16) are grossly distorted. The sources only say that "Whites" had a problem with ethnic Chinese and they only point to "White supremacy" and White calls to action and these sources explicitly say that "whites" had these attitudes and anxieties (Wilmot p. 136: "it is evident from the nature of his source material that Dr. Morton did not set out to write a book about the Chinese in British Columbia, but only about white reactions to them." and this is about In the Sea of Sterile Mountains, the book the Wikipedian is championing). They do not mention First Nations or Blacks.

User:Jimbo Wales said "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." (from WP:NPOV) - The belief that the usage of "Whites" in this manner is racist is held by a very small minority of people, and so it should not be considered when editing Misplaced Pages.

Even though the Wikipedian has expressed his opinion that Yee and other "ethno-history" books are of low quality, no evidence has been presented to prove that the particular facts expressed in the books are wrong, so therefore Yee is an RS and the content needs to reflect what the book says. If there is material that contradicts Yee and is in other sources, this material needs to be presented before editing the parts of the article attributed to Yee. If there is a source conflict, (that happens) you should get the sources out together and compare them.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe thinking that I missed something, I attempted to search for "black Anti-Chinese British Columbia" to see if there were any sources talking about anti-Chinese sentiment among blacks. Instead I found:

• Hogg, Robert. Men and Manliness on the Frontier: Queensland and British Columbia in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Genders and Sexualities in History). Palgrave Macmillan, December 24, 2012. ISBN 0230250173, 9780230250178. p. 147.
• "In the white imagination, Chinese men were barely human, let alone manly." and "Gilbert Sproat, whose interests were not confined to the Aht, penned views that were representative of white anti-Chinese sentiment in British Columbia, and typical of the contradictions in white views which saw the Chinese as simultaneously inferior and superior."

Please consider that the scholarship today "is" focused on anti-Chinese sentiment in White people and it uses the word "White people" and the majority considers "White people" to be acceptable in this manner in this discussion. You see that in all of the sources I found. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources. I am actually not in the United States but I will be soon. I do not know how easily I can arrange for a loan for that book, but in the meantime please bear with me and just accept that this article should reflect the scholarship.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine it you were looking at more sources than the ethno-history ones you are dweeling on and confining yourself to, and if those secondary sources weren't misrepresenting other secondary sources or ignoring huge amounts of information that's out there in primary and secondary sources alike. I have a life-crisis right now so won't be around for a few days, but had other replies about rthe POV nature of your cites and the WRONG things theyu often say (apparently they dont' read primary sources, other than looking for nasty bits to point out how evil whites are and how sufferingt the chinese were etc. How do I know they're biased? I'm from BC and know the scope of its history and have watched this trend in academia unfold in recent decades. Narrow-minded and ethno-elitist and hostile to "white" British Columbia and full of untruths and rank generalizations about "whites" that are every bit as bad as anything said about chiense or natives; every bit as bad, but a mirror isn't in their toolkit.

About primary sources, found tings like this to show you, which it seems doesn't "fit" with the agenda of your group of cites; Kwong Lee & Co. is still around, I think. The description of the Lillooet District (by which meant the Lillooet Land District) contains lines which don't mesh with the image of life in BC that your "historians" (social scientists not genuine historiograpers IMO despite their fascination with footnotes as if something was fiction if it doesn't have any. instruction creep within academic ideologies; This the only separate Chiense Directory I've seen so far; generally they're in the main merchant/residents lists as you'll find on the Lillooet pages and others here. I have to get on about saving my life so will leave you to educate yourself and start looking at items on the BC pages here for both local and general histories that you have never read, nor, it seems, have any of your sources, except perhaps when looking for something to bitch about or accuse with. I read all kinds of those ethnohistories in the early '00s, for a 4th level HIST course at SFU; half the course curriculum about the Chinese; of the 40 students in the class, not one was Chinese; and of the Indo-Canadians and other non-"Europeans" in the class, the invective tone of those works and how what they said didn't match what we knew, was a common observation. Also it was a demonstration of the lack of interest from Chinese on campus, citizen or foreign student, which given about 60% of SFU is Chinese of one kind or another, is a statement all on its own.Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used in limited circumstances, but articles are supposed to largely rely on secondary sources. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Original research says this explicitly. Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources has the following to say: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." - For instance, if I see a single news article about a First Nations attack on ethnic Chinese, I can say that this attack occurred, but I can't say that anti-Chinese sentiment was widespread among First Nations unless the article explicitly says this. The NOR page says primary sources should be used "with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

In regards to the pages you posted: It says in Lilloet "The town or village consists chiefly of one broad street, having stores belonging to whites and Chinese intermingled." (p. 313) - This wouldn't disprove a secondary source saying that, in BC, as a whole most Chinese lived separately from Whites during this era. As for this document it says there were several Chinese who were traders, farmers, packers, and/or boatmen in Cariboo but that's the only information I have from this document.

I have made attempts to find a secondary source on Google Books which says "First Nations instituted anti-Chinese policies" or "anti-Chinese sentiment was widespread in the First Nations" but I was unable to so. It is true that Misplaced Pages articles must be based on a variety of sources. So far the only sources (books and the Canadian government website) about anti-Chinese sentiment in the 1800s in BC I have found discuss specifically sentiments found in White people. In regards to Nos Racines, I will register an account and look around. If I find a secondary source that has this information I will let you know.

The important part is finding a source that "proves what you know." If you know something but it's not in a published secondary source, it can't be "proven" it can't be admitted. I admit it's very frustrating, but I have to abide by this: WP:V: " content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

One important thing: If you do get a copy of In the Sea of Sterile Mountains (or if I get a copy of In the Sea of Sterile Mountains once I return to the United States) it would be a good thing to have a few pages (the ones being cited) scanned and sent to the other party. Don't scan too many, and don't publish them on a public website. I suggest scanning the specific pages you cite. However if the pages themselves contain public domain content, that should be uploaded to the Commons (the book publisher may protect the book writing, but it may not enact a copyright over already published public domain material).

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop lecturing me.

Stop lecturing me about guidelines. About how to deal with copyrighted material. About how to deal with the Commons (I'm boycotting donating to it because of the copyright b.s. with the monkey selfie). I am not your classmate. Nor your inferior. I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2005 and have "mapped" BC history and geography probably more than any other editor, I have been reading the history of my province for most of my now-very long life. And unlike you and your sources, without an ethnically-narrow mind or intent of inquiry; I sought to understand the native legacy, found out what I could on Chinese, Japanese and the legacy of other groups such as the Doukhobours. Unlike your particular school of academic thought, I do not confine my studies to my own group or seek to portray in a negative light and refuse to believe that other sources other than blood godalmighty academia might have useful information; not laid out in POV form, with a thesis laid out and then a selective hunt to bolster it; thirty years ago historiography used to work the other way, doncha know (and that's from an SFU professor about it, about how it's changed). The full history should be here, not just that of one soapboxing side; they don't even know their own history - or rather the moderns who have no gold rush or railway roots like to write about it critically of everything the white man did, but rarely delve into the history of the actual communities or the individuals lives; only talking in groups, and suppositions and allegations that are presented as fact; when quite often they are at extreme variance with. Or which omit "the other side" (just as you are doing).

It's a bore, especially that last bit, and incredibly rude given your tone to all I say or do. I've been told not to refer to our age difference, but point-blank you're being highly uncivil to an experienced editor whoh's work on a wide range of BC history and town and society articles, and more, and in fact was the one who mnade sure Chinatown content was included on BC's small towns. The garbage that was on the page originally was aped from US history, CCNC did the same, and doesn't apply in BC; Governor Douglas not a few times lectured American mines and others that the Chinese had equal rights; only in some cases were they driven away from a claim, and in some cases they jumped them. In Victoria in one of the BC Chronicles in that link's index tree you'll find out that a crowd of Chinese hanged and burned one of their own in Victoria in a certain year; at Camp 23 near Lytton a Chinese crew massacred a white foreman; in other places they were an integrated part of the social landscape, whehtehr or not there was an area called Chinatown; you'll also find out about the Kwoks of Hat Creek, who were successful ranchers and "good cowboys" and storeowners in Cache Creek and Lillooet; all those families f the Interior, there, the Cariboo, wherever else, and moved either back to China or to Vancouver after the war; I have always wanted to trace their records, the Chinese records institution in Vancouver never replies, even though they're government funded and publicly searchable. There are stories of wealth and great engineering works and more; your sources must not know about this when one of them says that they were wary of going to new digs because of fear of white miners; but they knew that the whites had no good skills and that would be a rich claim and so waited for them to do their initial failed diggings; there are records (geographic locations) of every placer site on the Fraser (that's on a linkable site, I don't have time right now to look for it; and it's a known quantity who owned which claim, and thee distinct Chinese style of mining is highly visible. And they were among the first to stake out some areas, as re t he Cayoosh Gold Rush; a lot of those guys were ex-railway workers; the attrition rate to the goldfields was so high is one reason more shiploads or workers came in...it wasn't fatalities as popular myth has it so loudly and repetitively. And there all claims were filed before anyone knew what was up, even though it was right by the town (Lillooet), and nobody else could dig; there the Indians really didn't like it, and it's in local histories how Indians chased Chinese away from the streambeds as yes indeedy that's damaging to the fish.

Violence was out there, and Hunter Jack is a special case, a known individual, and a high profile one too, who considered himself Hyas Tyee of the Bridge River Valley, as conferred on him by Admiral Seymour from the top of a mountain during a big game hunt; I'll repeat again, BC history is bout individuals; it's about people like the Kwoks Wo Hing and Ah Kee as much as it is about their neighbours Dan Hurley and Artie Phair and Grand Chief Jimmy Scotchman and Frank Gott; it's not about groups there, or in a lot of places in BC, despite the false paint daubed over BC history by the prejudices of the "ethnic, class and gender" school of "new history". So that's why they don't even look or try to learn about these cases; theuy don't fit the myth they are so ardetnly building, and don't even know major projects and successes of the Chinese in the Interior.

In the canneries, natives, Chinese, Japanese, "whites" with Chinook Jargon as the working language; usually with a Japanese boss, partly because they were a bit part of ownership/entrepreneurship in the fishing industry before WWII; in those cases there was nil violence, it wasn't a community run according to people's groups, it was a workforce community of people who happened to have different backgrounds the paradigms of the present are academic myth, a confabulation of citations; let's put it this way; there's forty years of readings I've had you haven't, you should respect waht I hve to say more instead of throwing page-cites on it as if I had been dishonest. Talk about WP:AGF sheesh. I'm pointing you in areas you could resarch (That "First Nations insituted policies against Chinese" bogus nonsense-rehash of what I had said; that's not what's in there but I'll leave t hat to you to discover yourself. I've given you enough valuable time on ly to be insulted and had guideline-mangling thrown at me in response.

I know what I'm talking about, and putting words in my mouth "First Nations instituted anti-Chinese policies is your version of what I said, and illustrates a common them among po-mo ethno-scholars, discussing history in terms of groups instead of as individuals. I was talking about Hunter Jack, not First Nations (by saying 'instituted" and "policies" it's clear you clearly don't know much about indigenous history in BC; but that's true of the Chinese politicos who like to pose with them to jointly condemn governments/white people. There's lots out there good and bad in the sources, older secondary ones and sadly only some newer ones; the selectivism of the doctrinal morals-driven "groups" analysis along racial lines is revanchist on the one hand, and incapable of understanding that the paradigms imposed by distant academia did not apply n the frontier; that bit about them leaving the Interior for fear of mounting Anti-Asian tension I'v never heard, unless that had to do with the mounting Civil War in China at the same time; just as some o the tension in Vancouver at the time of the anti-Oriental

riots in 1907 wasn't unconnected to he presence of a lot of Boxers who were part the Nationalist movement-in-exile; and tensions over the Boxer Rebellions were still in recent memory; it's not like there's only the Chinese side to this story, but t hat's all you're looking for so that's all you're finding.

I have to get busy and spent too much time on this. Stop lecturing me as you did above; if you demand page cites for things I just said I'm gonna freak, as us old fogeys like to say; it's beyond belief.

Bo Yang said this re you-know-who "if you disagree with them, they will go write a hundred-page essay, complete with footnotes, explaining why are you wrong, and demand that you read it". Sound familiar? I'll let you find the title of that book for yourself, you should read it sometime.

Go and learn and write, and stop obsessing on anal interpretations of guidelines; if a book is in the references and was added without page cites in the way-back-when, you hectoring for them when you've never read the books, and are only doing so to challenge the things I have to say; that's abuse of guidelines, more than one.

and respect your elders...you might learn something if you shut up and listen and go look for the sources yourself instead of challenging my honesty and knowledge of the field as if I was some kind of bad guy; and as if you were a wiki-cop out on a campaign to purge wikipedia of anything that's not in your canon of sources for your "ethnic politics theme" (that's exactly what this page is, or you have sought to make it so, IMO); the books are cited, others have been pointed to, demanding page-cites for talkpage statements - your distortions of what I said - is rubbish. Start reading about ethnic history in BC where you[ll find more history of individuals and also some group issues from former times unknown or looked-away-frmo by your precious cite-fussy authors; modern historiographical method sucks, you're just not well-read enough to understand by how much.

Every thing above I just wrote about it in Misplaced Pages on various articles; sometimes even with page cites. you just don't even know what is out there, in Misplaced Pages, or on bookshelves beyond your particular section of the Library of Congress numbers; open you mind, open your readings, and realize that not all old white people are bad or stupid or dishonest; but that's how you've been treating me, over and over and over. I have to go; as noted I'm in life-crisis but still found myself here trying to educate somebody committed to not understanding me. What a waste of time, lecturing me about this or that that you have not lived long enough, or read enough, to begin to know what you are talking about re Chinese history in BC; which necessarily also is the history of other groups all intermingled, Skookum1 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Demands for verifiability are not an unimportant, trivial detail. The demand for verifiability is a basic cornerstone of Misplaced Pages practice. Even though the policy asks for citing of details "likely to be challenged" in reality it extends to a lot of content (no, you don't need to cite "Paris is the capital of France"). Right now there is a content dispute. I am asking for cites because I want verifiability and proof of what you are saying. As stated elsewhere, I have no responsibility to look up proof for your statements: the responsibility lies with the person making the claims. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"I want verifiability and proof what you're saying" is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Misplaced Pages content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally very flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas). Did you even look at other articles before starting your ethnicity-by-city article? Pretty sure you didn't. How many other articles should I list that aren't ethno-theme articles that have Chinese Canadian content? Too many to do a full list, but off the top of my head look at Ma Murray, Cayoosh Gold Rush, Omineca Gold Rush, where nobody has been as obsessively/anally demanding, imperiously, page cites. As I pointed out about the historical items above, they're either in sites mentioned (the City Directories one for example) or already cited on other articles and nobody has behaved anything like you about all this.

Go read Bo Yang and take a humility pill and stop being so AGF towards me. You know nothing, as a certain TV heroine is known for saying; you are parroting biases in modern academia that very often are completely a-factual or so distorted and POV in nature as to be op-ed, not genuine historical enquiry; they are ethnic politics tracts. You want verifiability? READ THE BOOKS I'VE MENTIONED and stop being such a pretentious jack**s. Treating me like I am dishonest because you don't like the things I'm saying, or because your narrow field of sources is so out of it they don't cover things like what I'm bringing up, is your problem. Stop making it mine.

Instead of lecturing me and being so pompous and suspicious of me, you should be grateful to learn from me, and should follow the lead I gave you about various research topics towards actual books; or translations of books, as noted, much in need of doing, as most Chiense Canadians (and Chinese) are ignorant of history other than their own. Same applies to Chinse Texans, too, it seems....Skookum1 (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1 (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That "proof of what you're saying" hogwash is so AGF and NPA in its tone of accusation towards me of dishonesty it's noxious.Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Never argue with someone committed to understanding you" is a saying going around lately, and man is it ever true; but here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Yeep14 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Unassessed Canada-related articles
• Unknown-importance Canada-related articles
• Unassessed British Columbia articles
• Unknown-importance British Columbia articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Unassessed Vancouver articles
• Unknown-importance Vancouver articles
• WikiProject Vancouver articles
• Unassessed China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles