Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia/Archive 1

Standalone topic
This article is noteworthy as a standalone topic.

what determines whether something is a suitable subject or not is WP:GNG. It says:
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

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

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

Consider these AFDs: WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California
 * Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles
 * This was back in 2007: Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Americans_in_New_York_City

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: WhisperToMe (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * City of Richmond, Minutes, Committee of the Whole. November 2, 1992.

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)

"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 (2006) was previously discussed I'm going to ping every editor involved in this discussion. {{{ping|User: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 Wikipedia 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.
 * 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." - 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 Wikipedia 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: But far be it from you to respect existing Wikipedia content before writing you own.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicknames_of_Vancouver, where its xenophobic nature/usage is observed
 * There was insufficient development of the term there at Nicknames_of_Vancouver. 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: 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)
 * Do other sources say it is affectionate?
 * Overall, do the sources from any country overwhelmingly say it is offensive?


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * From Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia 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 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. Wikipedia 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). 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)
 * - 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.

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) 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)

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-World War II 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.

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

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)