Talk:Chinese immigration to Sydney

thanks!
okey dokey - give this a go - this is a CC 'Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia' licence from here, with grateful thanks to the Dictionary of Sydney, and Shirley Fitzgerald - the author of this article. Thanks for releasing this wonderful work! Privatemusings (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality
This article is full of unsourced conjecture, diverges substantially from its stated topic and is comparatively unstructured. It needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.99.80 (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Orderinchaos 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging
After reading it (and there is alot of good material in there), my feeling is for a directed merge of relevant material to The Rocks, New South Wales (which should have all the old chinatown material), to Chinatown, Sydney, and, Haymarket, New South Wales (which should have all the new chinatown material), and Chinese Australian (should that article be renamed?), and some census-type material to Sydney. Most of the destination articles are in pretty rudimentary shape, sadly, but it will make the processing of information easier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some of the material here may indeed be a good fit for the suggested articles - but I also feel an article specifically about chinese immigration to Sydney is possible, and that the material works here too ;-) - I think the wiki processes will help clarify (over time) where best to fit some of this stuff, and I hope there's no rush to a decision? - my plan is to work on this article here, and re-visit the possibilities of merging etc. with this article in better shape :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the 'citation needed' tags
I have a hunch that the ref.s given (particularly the book 'Red Tape Gold Scissors' - which I also gather is certainly a reliable source in this area) cover many of the 'citation needed' tags - but I'm going to grab a copy (obviously!) before removing them - I think we'll be able to knock most of them over, and remove material not supported by a source... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ps. because I added the 10 'missing ref.s' - I also removed the thing at the top which said 'ref.s were needed' or somesuch... Privatemusings (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight problem - you do realise that text was written by the author of this essay? So we'd then be using the author's words to substantiate... the author's words. It is rather circular. Orderinchaos 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that relates to whether or not the author's work can be considered a reliable source - if you think this through, I hope you'd agree that if the author of an reliable source work uncontroversially considered useful, and heavily cited, showed up to any given wiki article, that wouldn't require editors to remove all cites, no? - I'm going to ask about this general principle over at the reliable sources noticeboard, and hopefully we'll make progress :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially the problem with doing it this way is that you end up with APOV instead of NPOV. NPOV actually says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Focussing overly on one, even if multiply sourced, is not NPOV. Orderinchaos 21:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * APOV = ? - maybe 'author's point of view'? This would seem to me to be a very useful and valid direction to improve the article (further detailed study of more available sources to ensure true neutrality) - some reading has been suggested below, which I'll pursue anon - however I do think this article in its current state is ready for mainspace, where such improvement can begin! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues at Afd
It would be helpful if all the issues raised at the AFd were addressed - although some have been already - and specifically the chinese were in australia early issue needs a good balanced set of refs with support and criticism of such a hypothesis - in relation to the problems with WP:UNDUE SatuSuro 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thoughts on my reword most welcome - I've left the slightly weaselly 'likely' in there, and removed the apparently more contentious 'maybe further back' (I don't find this particularly controversial, but hey ho....) - note that the article text refers to scholar's having different thoughts on this matter too.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC) if I keep beavering away, can I persuade a flip to 'keep', sat? :-)

disappearing lead
it's gone...! Hopefully substantial concerns are about to be outlined below - the lead was improving in my view, and I'm not sure removing it wholesale, as the chap who nominated the article for deletion, is really good form.... it'll all come out in the wash though... Privatemusings (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead was getting more and more obtuse, and delving more into fringe sociohistorical theory (and still without any suitable sources), hence why it was removed. As a Wikipedia editor and admin I am obliged to remove stuff which is in clear and obvious breach of WP policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:SYN (a key and often overlooked part of WP:OR) and WP:V. Orderinchaos 07:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Flinders and Marco Polo
I'm minded to return this interesting, sourced info - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm minded to oppose it. It has no relation whatsoever to the subject of the article, and is being used to build a WP:SYN narrative which supports a fringe (non-mainstream) argument that there was pre-colonial trade between China and Australia. Orderinchaos 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Review
I have just gone through the article in some depth and have reviewed section by section.

Overall

 * 1) Pro-Chinese POV
 * 2) Hyperbolic/unencyclopaedic language
 * 3) A near absence of sourcing of any kind
 * 4) Some parts do not substantially relate to the headline topic of "Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia", extending and ranging into social commentary.
 * 5) Lack of clarity as to whether it is "immigration by those in what is now the People's Republic of China" or "immigration by all of Chinese ethnicity including Overseas Chinese". It sometimes sounds like it's talking about the latter, but in other sections narrowly (almost myopically) focuses on the former, particularly with regard to politics at home.
 * 6) Section headings need to be brought into conformance with MOS
 * 7) Not sufficiently broad view on subject; does not take into account other views or opinions, or non-Sydney POVs. What about *other* immigrants, especially southern and eastern European who actually form a higher % of the population?
 * 8) A continuous, subtle bias against Australians and the Australian authorities of the time. A one sentence summary of one storyline would be "Those dumb, duplicitous Australians were out to get the Chinese but in spite of everything, their grassroots structure caused them to thrive in spite of the odds, even teach the Aussies more than a few things, and now are growing because of their hard work, community-building and canniness over the last two centuries". I'd venture this is a bold and unsubstantiated argument and ignores almost all other aspects of the history, politics and culture of Sydney.
 * 9) The implication is that the Chinese had a huge influence on the history, growth and economy of the city - information is needed on the Chinese contribution as opposed to overall growth in order that a correct picture can be presented.

Sections

 * Fear, disease and restriction


 * 1) Any evidence of disease amongst Chinese population? This section implies there isn't but presents no competing POV.
 * 2) Extensive referencing needed for anti-Chinese measures, and evidence that they are anti-Chinese.
 * 3) Tone down language ("once fortunes were made..." "...all were caught in the net..." "...this most shunned of diseases..."


 * Staying and going


 * 1) Language again. "To the uninformed..." is unencyclopaedic. Repeated use of "fortune" sounds almost racist/condescending towards Chinese.
 * 2) Cause - effect re Chinese New Year not cited or established, either past or present
 * 3) Large parts are simply opinions reflecting on the unstated intentions or motivations of either the Chinese or the authorities.


 * Chinatown in the Rocks


 * 1) Probably the least problematic section overall - should go to The Rocks, New South Wales - but does need referencing. Part of it is quite contentious opinion, again reflecting on intention/motivation and value judgements rather than facts.


 * Haymarket Chinatown


 * 1) Again may be useful for Haymarket, New South Wales. Again makes a lot of value judgements, though.


 * Clan, village and temple


 * 1) Needs a new headline.
 * 2) Major POV/weasel issues.


 * Political divisions
 * 1) Headline is POV
 * 2) Section on politics has no refs and doesn't contain a suitably wide view of the subject. Are we saying *all* Chinese immigrants to Sydney were from mainland China? There was a high number of overseas Chinese coming to Australia, especially from places like Malaya and Singapore which were under British control. Therefore the emphasis on the discussion over China here needs to be put in context with how many Chinese (ethnicity) were born in China vs born elsewhere.
 * 3) Also stresses a link between Sydney and the Chinese right which is contentious and not substantiated by references - also doesn't hold with the fact that except for specific identifiable minorities (eg Singaporean business immigrants), strongly Chinese areas are also strongly Labor areas.


 * Business success
 * 1) Headline is POV
 * 2) See general comments


 * Community life and politics
 * 1) See comments re Political divisions
 * 2) Speculation on understanding and motivations of intelligence agencies and community. The part about Chinese organisations and social interaction is pasted in the middle of a paragraph in which it doesn't seem to belong.


 * Japan, World War II and the People's Republic
 * 1) Much of this section is dubious or contested, loaded with weasel words, assertions, value judgements and several textbook examples of blatant synthesis. (i.e. 2 because 1, just because 2 is true and 1 is true does not make the link true).
 * 2) Claim that Australia favoured Japan in trade and ignored Japan's designs. "Australia belatedly got the message" etc. No refs provided to substantiate this. Overall a very anti-Australian tone to the section - it suggests they're dumb, uncultured and shifty.
 * 3) "Many of Sydney's Chinese"... what percentage compared to percentages of other groups, percentage of whole population, etc?
 * 4) The heading needs changing as almost none of it is about the People's Republic.


 * The end of White Australia
 * 1) The hyperbole gets bolder and louder in parts of this section. Additionally one of the very, very few refs provided in this article is contradicted/dismissed by the text which uses it!
 * 2) Last para contradicts earlier sections which suggested some early Chinese immigrants had been naturalised.


 * Prosperity and suburbanisation
 * 1) Again, POV headline
 * 2) Rattles off a list of suburbs they allegedly moved to with no evidence or refs. Very few of these areas have active Chinese communities today - Kensington/Kingsford for example is a predominantly Indonesian area.
 * 3) Many bold assertions made with no evidence ("grows annually", "enhanced the locality", "everyone enjoyed visiting Chinatown" etc)
 * 4) Facts and figures section at the end unreferenced, nor is the method by which population growth is being estimated. i.e. Is it absolute numbers, or is it percentage growth of absolute numbers, or is it growth of percentages? Each of these would have a vastly different meaning, especially without context of the wider census figures about the overall population.

Summary
Overall, there are many, many issues that need resolving. Should these issues not be resolved and the article is not deleted, it will probably need to be stubbed and rewritten in a manner compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Orderinchaos 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, and appreciation for a no doubt sincere effort in producing the above review, I find it flawed on a critical number of levels, and disagree with many of its conclusions (there are also some useful points though) - I think it vastly (to the point of being both clumsy and a bit rude, in my view) overstates problems which actually have sensible solutions in terms of sourcing, re-writing, or otherwise resolving.


 * I'm heading 'off wiki' for a while later today (christmas and new year) but am happy to respond further upon return - I'm hoping to grab the book 'Shirley Fitzgerald, Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008' over the holiday period, and give it a read - it certainly needs to go back as a ref. (maybe urgently?), and is likely a good, reliable source for many of the contested statements / claims clumsily detailed above. The issue of whether or not we can use a reliable source authored by the same person as the (properly licensed) text from which this article was created is an interesting one, worthy of further discussion, but it's wholly unacceptable to presume that we shouldn't or can't use such a source (if you think about it for a moment, you can see the spirals of problems such a position create ;-)


 * To leave on a positive note - I have great faith that the wiki process will work wonderfully in collaboratively building this article up to a high standard, and hope that we can all slow down and think about each problem sufficiently as it comes up, in order to build something of real quality :-) Merry Chrimbo one and all :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the book - essentially the essay is the author's point of view, and using the author's own book for sources for their claims is circular - have already indicated this. An understanding of WP:V is "strong claims require strong sources", and there's a lot of strong claims here. In essence, using the book as a source for the article would end up with the article basically representing one academic's viewpoint rather than a wider / mainstream view of the subject. I have had a look on APA-FT and can only find two journal articles which might be helpful, and neither of them touch on the great majority of the claims presently tagged. I don't think the wiki process can achieve much in this case as the problems are in part structural and it's not clear from the above that the person who added the claims is taking any responsibility for them, instead expecting the community to do his work for him. Orderinchaos 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that some of your statements towards me in past days are verging on WP:NPA, and I'm not the only person to have observed this. Kindly stop it. Orderinchaos 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really know what you're referring to! - perhaps you mean part of the chat SatuSuro and I had here? (I think she / he felt that I was being a bit rude by writing something in 'small' letters, though I disagreed, and explained why I felt I was behaving reasonably / usefully) - it'd be helpful rather than 'noting' something which is really just an assertion which I can't really understand, if you could just mention (feel free to diff. and all that if you'd prefer as well) what you feel attacked over - I can't see it at the mo... Privatemusings (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

mongolian octupus use
was the term Mongolian a mistake or used ironically? Otherwise it should perhaps be in an article about anti-Mongolians, there should be one as there is quite a bit of prejudice against them as drunk raping barbarians and the like (particularly Chinese)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

nature of sources
my interpretation of the nature of the sources referred to in this article follows;


 * Shirley Fitzgerald, Red Tape Gold Scissors: the Story of Sydney's Chinese, 2nd edition, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2008 - good quality published secondary source
 * Frank Farrell, Themes in Australian Historiography, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 1990 - - good secondary source
 * Matthew Flinders, Journal of HMS Investigator, 1802-03, vol 2, p.384 - primary source (used appropriately in my opinion)
 * Historical Records of Australia, vol 2, pp 746-7 - most likely primary source
 * W Doyle, Research Papers, John Shying, 1815-1992, State Library of NSW, Mitchell Library manuscript 5857 - primary source
 * Janice Wood, 'Chinese Residency in the Haymarket and Surry Hills 1880 to 1902', BA Hons thesis, University of Sydney, 1994 - secondary source
 * CF Yong, The New Gold Mountain, Raphael Arts, Richmond South Australia, 1977 - secondary source
 * CF Yong, The New Gold Mountain, Raphael Arts, Richmond South Australia, 1977, pp 56–58 - same
 * Albert Leong, interview with Shirley Fitzgerald, June 1, 1995 - interview with author of reliable sec. source - so on the edge - need to check if it's poss. to verify
 * Albert Cumines, interview with Doris Yau-Chong Jones, 1993, for Australian Chinese Cultural Association, Sydney - interview (as above)
 * Australian Archives (NSW), Security Service Investigation Branch files, 1940-44, C320C9 - primary source
 * Arthur Gar Lock Chang, interview with Shirley Fitzgerald, 1995, held in State Library of NSW - per interviews above
 * Rich 200, Business Review Weekly, 22 May 1995 - sec. source

So my tally is 5 secondary sources, 3 interviews which need checking up a bit on, and 4 primary sources - my first impression is that this is an interesting balance (and certainly acceptable to current wiki standards) Privatemusings (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Interviews can't be used as sources - they're listed in the definition of primary sources at WP:PRIMARY. 2. Do any of the secondary sources address any of the genuinely contentious points, and if so, are they viewable in such a way that any Australian editor can verify them? Because looking at the footnote pattern in the original article, almost none of it was footnoted, meaning it did not for the most part use these sources. A good source for an incidental point is good for that point only. 3. Given the original essay was advancing a strong (non-mainstream) point of view, you need to find sources which offer alternative (particularly mainstream) points of view to counter/balance it. That can only be done with proper library research, perhaps at a university library. I can already tell you a search of academic journals won't be too helpful - I only saw two articles, and only one of them was available as full-text download. Orderinchaos 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * heh... but these aren't solely interviews with chinese immigrants, or discussing first hand evidence (a good rule of thumb is if 'they were there' it's a primary source) - another interesting way of looking at it is to consider whether or not a published transcript of the interview might be considered a reliable source - established / credentialed author speaking on the radio for example might well yield some useful sourceable stuff in my view. More on the contentious points stuff anon.......Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:PRIMARY distinguish between types of interviews? They're still a primary source. Another issue I noticed - there are no page numbers cited for the book - it's 247 pages, and it'd be impossible to check claims made in their present form. Orderinchaos 09:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear you may be mistook! (I find this confuddling too on occasion) - an interview with an 'expert' (ie. someone we agree is credentialed to author a reliable source) in which they discuss, for example, some content from their previous work, say 5th Century Pottery in Wales, is not a primary source, whereas an interview with the potter is both rather unlikely, and sadly, if extant, a primary source - does that make sense? Privatemusings (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ps. I'll look around for whether or not absent page numbers mean the source is reliable or not - hopefully we can work something out there too.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your first point - an interview is an interview is an interview. I have at my disposal interviews with key political figures, including former ministers and premiers, about all sorts of stuff that is clearly within their expertise via the State Library of WA. These things run literally into 3 and 4 volumes, they're huge, and potentially quite useful. One can listen to them on tape or read the transcripts. Yet I've never cited any of them because they are primary sources - I've used the information contained therein to look up secondary sources and then cited claims to the secondary sources.
 * Re your second point - I wasn't saying it made it unreliable - I was asking you to get them! :) In order that facts can be checked, the citations need to be to a level where someone can. "Read a 247 page book" is not transparent. "Read this page or the text in x footnote on this page" is transparent.
 * Basically, you should do proper research from reliable sources, even if that takes a bit of time to do. I'm not saying something to you I wouldn't do myself for a topic in which I have interest in completing - I've honestly lost count of the number of hours I've spent in SLWA, various uni libraries, and even interstate libraries during trips gathering key material for WP articles (many of which are not yet written). Orderinchaos 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

< proper research will definitely improve this article! - see below for some extra reading I've got on my plate too.... I think we're making good wiki-progress :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misfocused lead
The first lead paragraph should be about Chinese in Sydney, not about possible Chinese exploration. That might be appropriate in a History section. "Records of Chinese immigration to Sydney date back almost two hundred years" should be followed by a summary of the article and the topic's importance. I notice that the article at present doesn't deal with Sydney so much as Australia. It also lacks statistics. You might take a look at The Chinese diaspora: space, place, mobility, and identity (2003) by Laurence J. C. Ma and Carolyn L. Cartier which has a great deal of data about Sydney. You also might take a look at 'Many inventions': the Chinese in the Rocks, Sydney 1890-1930 (1999) by Jane Lydon, and Chapter 11 "The Hong Kong Chinese in Sydney" in Reluctant exiles?: migration from Hong Kong and the new overseas Chinese (1994) by Ronald Skeldon. --Bejnar (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put those books on my reading list - thanks heaps! - I've also had a go at a new lead which works better, I think, and have moved the initial lead material into its own section. Thoughts / feedback most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

mainspace
we're back! - I'm pleased with the gnome-type work that's improved this article to date, and am enjoying working on it. Having reviewed some similar articles, and just in general terms, I really feel that this article is doing pretty well in terms of sourcing, notability etc. etc. etc. now - so I've been 'bold' and popped it back into mainspace... may the improvement continue! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For someone who's been here for over two years (granted that you spent part of it banned by ArbCom) I'm genuinely surprised how ignorant of the rules you appear to be. The only reason I hadn't mentioned the necessary step of going to DRV to reclaim an AfD'd article for mainspace is that I'd assumed you wouldn't be crazy enough to try avoiding it. Orderinchaos 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, I've been around for more than two years! (is this where I mention 'wpnpa' and use of the word 'ignorant', by the way? ;-) - I don't consider this a recreation of deleted material which would require a deletion review, largely because of the profitable discussions in various places, and content development work. I feel that original deletion rationale quite clearly no longer applies - I'm not even sure if you disagree with that! - but it's cool to head to another page if you'd prefer to get some more eyes on this one before the article is allowed to be in mainspace. I'll go check if you've opened a review, and if not, drop one in.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

mainspace take two :-)
okey dokey, so following comments over at the deletion review, the idea that starting from scratch is probably the best way forward seems to have legs. I've done so - only using a bit of the previous material, adding the state records as a source, and I see orderinchaos has also helped out with some tweaking. Once again, my feeling is that this article is now a good fit for mainspace - I've dropped a note into to one deletion reviewer for their thoughts on the matter too, and we'll see how it goes.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you consulted any of the sources apart from the NSW Records one? It lists four in the bibliography but doesn't indicate how they're related or why they're important, or which bits are important. Orderinchaos 06:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * just the SF stuff - do you think it would be better to leave the others out? - maybe a section called 'further reading' might be useful' - I'm copying the biblio. under that heading below for my own ease of ref. I'd planned on moving this back to mainspace but have been a bit tied up with work - I'll get on that soonish... Privatemusings (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

is this ok as an article?
please review and see if you agree with me that this article is in fact ready for mainspace? It's a previously deleted, and deletion reviewed article, where in both instances as complete re-start was recommended as the best way forward. That's what this is, and it'd be great to get it into mainspace :-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just note that a rewrite of a reduced form of what is already there without the use or consultation of additional reliable sources is not a "complete re-start". Additionally, new concerns about the scope have been raised in that the title doesn't make any sense. Merging what is relevant to Chinese Australian is probably the best possible outcome. Orderinchaos 13:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the title 'doesn't make any sense' - if you're genuinely having trouble understanding what it means, the long form is that it's an article about the immigration (moving from one country to another) of Chinese people to Australia, and specifically Sydney. It's been raised a couple of times that you don't immigrate to a city, so perhaps the best interpretation of your comments would be that you think it's a good idea to drop the 'sydney' bit from the title? I can see the merit of that.
 * Re 'without the use or consultation of additional reliable sources' - I think you need to check the article perhaps, because you've missed the use and consultation of an additional reliable source (state records - very interesting!) - however, regardless of that, my interpretation of 'complete re-start' is when you start an article again from scratch (as return to the start of the process!) - I don't consider it sensible to discard sources confirmed as reliable (and which I further consider to be interesting, and relevant!) - it would seem silly to ignore the census data, and the work of Dr. F simply because a previous draft which you considered flawed also used them - it would be a good idea to put forward an argument as to why the current article is or isn't any good on its merits alone, rather than focussing on it's ancestry.
 * To sum up the current discussion, I think we have consensus that this is a notable subject (per the deletion discussions, no? - although you may still wish to assert otherwise?) - it's very clearly reliably sourced (this is the key point I think you may be disagreeing with?) - so I think a move to mainspace, without the 'sydney' bit in the title probably, would be a good idea :-) thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it is ready for launching for a few reasons.

Firstly: the article does not tell me anything about Chinese immigration to Sydney - it tells me how many people there are, what might have led them here in 1828 and some random comment about the 1950s. In short there is no theme. What would a visitor learn from this topic?

Secondly: the title is problematic, both "immigration" and "emigration" actually refer to subjective not objective phenomena... one immigrates into Australia, one emigrates out of China. So the title should either be "immigration into" or the neutral "migration to".

Thirdly: they did not migrate to Sydney, they migrated to New South Wales before 1901 and Australia after federation when the federal government took the immigration portfolio off the states. A quick check of wikipedia shows that there are only a few other similar articles, ALL of which are country level (Puerto Rico, New Zealand, US). Just because someone lands in a port does not mean they are migrating to that port, it may simply be a point of entry and this was particularly the case before flying became a major travel method, or it may even be they will transfer to another ship much as people going to the mainland US are not "migrating to Los Angeles" just because they use LAX.

Fourthly: I took the liberty of looking at the history of the article and earlier versions were an absolute mess making claims that could not at all hold up and making judgements about the Australians. This violates the Neutral Point of View rule as articles must be objective to the topic. The tone of the piece is magazine rather than academic. As the editor who made this article says they will and I quote "incorporate... nice and slowly" the problematic content, I can seriously only see problems ahead with that approach. Some of the sources listed above are interviews.

Concluding: I do not think this assists Wikipedia's reputation and could well harm it. I do not mean to blow my own trumpet but I did my honours in social psychology focusing on ethnic communities and second-generation integration and so I do speak as something of an expert in the area. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is "anyone can/should edit" and 5 is "only someone with specialist knowledge should edit", I think this topic is about a 3-4 simply because of the major issues it generates - it spans cultural studies, history, sociology and possibly law. The sources in these areas are often subjective, often limited, and one needs to be able to identify fallacies or weaknesses. It's not a matter of "just quote this source, just quote that source" - would you credit an article on Indigenous Australians to the scholarship of Keith Windschuttle? A non-academic editor may well be fooled by well worded and convincingly crafted but less suitable sources that an academic would implicitly know to reject. That this work started from such a biased source which for the most part does not cite its own scholarship is concerning; that the main editor has said they wish to slowly reintroduce the contested material is moreso.

I would ask Privatemusings, what is your own background for editing this article? Do you have qualifications in a relevant area, do you have a broad understanding of the discipline of ethnic and cultural studies in an Australian context, and are you willing to genuinely take responsibility for the content of this article? I don't mean sitting behind a computer editing, I mean going to the cultural institutions and libraries - state, university, specialist - of Sydney and more than likely talking to academics in the field to find what sources they would recommend for a general overview as well. Source work is key to the social sciences disciplines. 220.235.180.111 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed there was a comment after my last one. "use and consultation of an additional reliable source (state records - very interesting!)" I saw that too, I note that it is a "summary page" in effect, the records staff wrote it themselves as an index page. This is very common practice in archives but sometimes the headnotes are wrong, I've personally offered about 10 corrections (which were all gratefully accepted) to headnotes by the State Records in my state. 220.235.180.111 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What depresses me in all this argy-bargy is the lack of much happening at either of two parent articles, Chinese Australian or Chinatown,_Sydney. Ditto at The Rocks, New South Wales, all of which had the potential to be embellished nicely, and all should be before an article like this comes into existence. The IP above me makes some good points too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the comments from the IP editor above are very valuable too. My initial game plan was the exact reverse of Cas' - in that I feel it's easier and preferable to work this article up into a degree of quality, before then working relavent material into the more general articles referred to - not to criticise the approach of working on the general articles first, then specialising, but it's not the way I would prefer to develop the subject in this context, and I don't really agree that they all should be embellished nicely before an article like this can exist - I see no problem with having a great specialised article first, then working up. I'm not sure if you (cas, or indeed anyone) is asserting that the approach to developing such an article is in any way mandated by wiki policy - but if so, then I don't currently understand that reasoning - it seems to me that practice and policy are more flexible in that regard?
 * To address the IP post in general terms - I actually kind of support the idea that certain subjects really shouldn't be edited by anybody, though for various reasons the idea of credentialed editing, or in any way restricting the editing within certain subject areas, just isn't reflected in current policy or practice on this project. I think it's a shame though, and a little ironic, that you've described the work of Dr. Shirley Fitzgerald as 'such a biased source' - though I think you've hit the nail on the head to say 'The tone of the piece is [was] magazine rather than academic' - I think therein lies a good way forward (working on the tone of the piece). I also totally appreciate that sensitivity is a good thing, mind, and to directly answer one question, I most certainly am 'willing to genuinely take responsibility for the content of this article' (at least the diff.s with my username!). You also asked directly 'what would a reader learn from this article' - I think that's always worth keeping at the forefront of one's mind, and the answer right now is that they'll learn a little verifiable, relavent information concerning chinese immigration to australia, and be pointed at some reliable sources - it's a start :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

pleased :-)
I'm checking up on some old friends, and I'm pleased to note that this article is cruising along at a couple of hundred views per month (see here) - hooray! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese immigration to Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205035345/http://rspas.anu.edu.au/cscsd/ChinesePacificAbastracts.pdf to http://www.rspas.anu.edu.au/cscsd/ChinesePacificAbastracts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio check
Dawnseeker2000 22:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)