Jump to content

Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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:

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)

Yeah no doubt; David Lam isn't on here, Ray Leung and a series of other people that the "scholars" avoid for some reason; there's scads of notable Chinese in the history of the Interior (see e.g. Omineca Gold Rush and comments on Talk:Lillooet about individuals there, for starters; I directed WTM to the in the Sea of Sterile Mountains for a list of the wealthy Chinese who were 8 out of 10 or 18 out of 20 on the first tax rolls of Victoria, after the Governor and James Dunsmuir. Neither those articles or our "friend" here knows much about BC's past and don't want to know, IMO. But they do want to pass judgement on it, for sure.Skookum1 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2015 (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)
Your "choice" was a POV fork re Chinatown, Vancouver and the Golden Village article and you didn't even have terminology or geography right; you have an agenda, other than your obvious ethno-political one, which is "ethnicity by city" article worldwide..... and you post trivia and undue and masses of bibliographical materials you have never read, reject any questioning of your "choice" and don't know enough about BC's history or geography to commandeer it and boss around as hyou have tried to do the Wikipedian most involved in that content and most knowledgeable of Wikipedians in that area and board-war about his knowledge being "original research" and reject everything he has tried to tell you about5, with niggling demands for page-cites and stpuid edit-war and synth claims asserting POV language and content. It is you who have "interfered with" BC history and your content/style is at odds with dozens of related articles that contain stuff you demand cites about which are alreayd in Wikipedia. What a crock....but I know what's up and who you are.... you're just giong to pretend that you have been a victim when it's YOU wwho have been the info-aggessor and AGFing me from the start.... I corrected your bad choice of title and geo-parameters. Vancouver's chinese history is inseparable from that of the rest of the province; you have been loading Vancouver cites and sound-bite type trivia/undue so as to "weigh" the article with fluff to try to get it re-split the way that fits YOUR agenda, and you don't even know the city's history or the province's or Canada's to become the Little Dictator you are behaving as; you dispute trivalities about sources and issues you don't want admitted to your empire of half-truths, and insist I go buy books that you dispute anything I say about them when you haven't even glanced at the mass of cites I compiled ...and have the temerity t o say that if I don't have the books in hand that I'm not capable of contributing (i.e. so should go away and leave YOUR project to write on your own; yet haven't read or acknowledgex the linked/ sources I gave YOU to read.....i've said this all before, more than once, but seeing you point the finger at me for "interfering" with YOUR bad choice and your artificial geo-parameter is jhust so much more pretentious hypocrisy and yet more of your AGF towards me. You could learn a lot from me "since this means so much to you" but you deride me and make waffley posturings of earnest innocence.... you don't have the books you demand I go re-buy after owning and reading them for thirty years and yourself don't read cites I do giev you, only ignore them and ttack me AGAIN. You are an info-warrior not interested in collaboration of listening to others. You are not a saint...anything but, rather the opposite, and talking softly and posturing innocence while carrying a pitchfork to skewer any information in the way of your POV and your global campaign of wiki-conquest. Whatever, you're a CFWT and are only escalating your campaign to dominate this subject along certain political lines......and to reject anyone or any informatino that's in the way of that, or you. What a oh-never-mind it's bedtime..... you have homework to do remember? See section 15 and its subsetion and start reading and working with what's in those links before you add anymore obscure academic/POV claptrap here in barrages of tidbits as you have been doing since your latest onslaught to dominate this article began 48 hours and a bit ago.... do your homework, read wht I've provided you and stop pontificating about POV forking this article and beintg "interfered with"......yeah right... you need interfering with, and don't have the books in hand, it is you who are not equipped to contribute here, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Skookum, why are you responding to something WhisperToMe wrote a month ago? WTM has added some good content to this page over the past few days. At least give credit where it is due, even if you follow it up with your criticisms. Sure, maybe there is still a motive behind it of wanting to split the article, but that's okay if it produces two good articles, no? I can see that you aren't getting the respect you feel you deserve, and honestly, I wish WhisperToMe would ask your opinion rather than mine, but please try not to take it so personally. Ignoring someone's advice isn't a personal attack. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2015 (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)
@Themightyquill: Hi! I've been doing an expansion drive. I found an interesting journal article on the ethnic Chinese not in Vancouver nor Victoria (the two bigger settlements) in the 1960s, and I've used that to add demographic information on various Chinese communities. I've tried to add stuff to make sure this article can stand on its own two feet. According to the DYK check application the readable prose size is now 58472 characters. What is the next step that you think I should take? Am I missing any aspects or am I making progress? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @WhisperToMe: - Thanks for your contributions. The info on Nanaimo was pretty interesting. As I said, I'm really no expert on this topic, so I'm not the person you should be asking for advice, though I can understand why it might be hard to work with Skookum when he's so angry. Since I don't know the subject matter all that well, I can't tell you what you are missing. I can see that the notes section is pretty ugly (check out WP:LAYOUT). The Further Reading section could also be cleaned up as well. Usually these things contain lists of mongoraphs, rather than say, primary documents like reports, but the Manual of Style WP:Further doesn't give much in the way of guidelines for that section. As for further content, maybe @Skookum: would be kind enough to provide a list of areas for expansion, preferably in bullet form and definitely not in epic wall of text form, in a new section below? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Angry? Ha, "hard to work with" hardeharharhar. Quill, he's hard to work with; he assaults anything I say with silly arguments and demands things that aren't required, I'll be back with the list of items you asked for below; they're all over this page, buried amidst his diatribes against them, and his assault on my honesty and experience with the subject, and where sources are that he so arduously is trying to find justification for excluding; many of which are on other wikipages and are unopposed by such ridiculous and anal-obsessive demands he has been making here; I'm angry at seeing my province's historyh, my history, made into a POV diatribe-thesis by someone who has an obvious ethno-POV agenda, treats me like shit and patronizes me and talks down to me, won't read or use the many sources I compiled from online sources while he goes on accusing me of being not capable of contributing because I don't have books in my hand that I owned for years and know very well what's in them. You should try ot understand why I'm angry with him, not wheedle up to him and say I'm hard to work with when I'm being so angry. His behaviour towards me and the issues I raise is WHY, do you get it yet?Skookum1 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hahaha I've provided LOTS of those, and he disputes their existence and/or my honesty by going on the rampage about page-cites or he'll delete mention of them, even from this talkpage. All the stuff he doesn't want in the article are "areas/topics in need of expansion", but only according to his particular frame of reference. One-sided and shallow generalizations and no effort to find the other side of the event that his preference for heavily biased one-sided accounts, with no mention of follow-up, building generalizations about "whites" so very common ni modern academia; the incident in Hope, for example, with Americans driving Chinese back, was followed up by government action on the incident, and throughout colonial-era history the governor and his officials dressed down Americans for such activities and asserted that Chinese and Natives and blacks and others (BC's new mining population was an extremely ethnically diverse) had equal rights to mine and stake, and were not to be harassed; but to read the diatribe he uses as a source, there is no mention of that. Whatsoever. That is only one example of countless biased accounts on the page as authored/contrived by him, and he continues to fight and fight and fight against inclusion of information that conflicts with that agenda.
  • What's in need of expansion is fairness and NPOV; that he has shown himself to be extremely hostile to, and barrages this page and mount demands on me to divert from acknowledging that there might be more out there (and there is, very much more) than the very narrow and biased storyline he is warring to maintain here.Skookum1 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of the events and sources you have asked me to provide here are already on many other Wikipedia articles, including Chinatowns in Canada and pages linked from there - which I wrote; but he never even looked at the range of Chinese-in-BC content before launching his Walls-of-Edits and one-sided-content construction of his virtual invasion of Canadian wikispacee a few months ago, when he knew zip about BC geography...and still doesn't. Chinatown, Vancouver was already there when he POV-forked Chinese in Vancouver, and he still resents me "intefering" with him by expanding the scope of the article to the whole of the province, and continues to campaign for a title that fits his "ethnicty by city" article-empire (see his userpage). The tone and not-disguised ethno-hatred that is throughout his contributions here, and his penchant for TRIVIA and UNDUE to pad "his" Vancouver content is a departure from normal standards and content in the rest of BC wiki-space.

Re the "interesting" information on Nanaimo, there's lots more sources out there than his selection; and were used to construct Chinatown, Nanaimo (the Chinatown section of the Nanaimo page, I just made that as a redirect), where there's information his sources don't have, and cites for pages on the subject of the fire and the community.

I've already mentioned tons of t hings on this page, taking the time to point-form them is just more busy-work. For the time that I do have, I'm going to add them, with the un-page-cited book sources; he will edit war and template-drop; he doesn't want them here; or he would have listened to me, and looked at the source-links I've already offered (the tip of a very large iceberg) instead of being so hostile towarrds me and board-warring and canvassing endlessly to try to find grounds t o shut me out, including calling my years of knowledge and readings as "original research" which is just more NPA/AGF b.s.....and "walls of text" is a sorry comment on the state of literacy in Wikipedia; IMO it should be deleted as an insult to people who DON'T think in point form as you have just told me to do here. This is not Coles Notes, this is an encyclopedia and long-form writing is not illegal nro is it a sign of mental deficiency; rather that latter applies to people who can't or won't read what they denounce as "walls of text".

As for what's missing, try reading the first few sections on this talkpage, that I think is where msot of the things I've already raise,d and which he has ignored or wished to dismiss, are; there may be some on the many side-dicussions he's launched, wherre I replied only to be not listened to while jhe continued prattling along expounding his SYNTH version that guidelines make mandatory; no guideline is mandatory, "tehre are no rules" remember? Skookum1 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Chinatown, Nanaimo and other similar content, as that is a general page about Nanaimo, it was not the place to expound on sociopolitical content and there are space limitations on such a page re UNDUE and more. Is there enough to warrant a full article? Not really, unless it's another ethno-POV essay like he's wanting this one to onlybe. Perhaps in History of Nanaimo, which isn't written yet and cannot be limited or weigheddown with "scholarly" POV walls-of-cites. Skookum1 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course I understand why you're angry (and yes, you are clearly angry). You've written an enormous amount of comments about the things you don't like about Whispertome. I get that, but I also know it's easier to learn from someone who isn't scolding you for being stupid/naive/arrogant. And you guys simply need to find a way to work together or this will go on forever, you'll both might end up getting banned for edit-warring and abusive behaviour, and worst of all, the articles won't improve.
I was momentarily happy to read you write that you would come back to my proposed of list of areas for expansion, but disappointed that you later shrugged it off as busy work. Clarity is not busy work. The list would serve not just Whispertome but anyone else that came along and wants to improve this and associated articles. Do you really believe *they* will read through your very long walls of text criticizing WTM (regardless of the validity of those criticisms), just to find the nuggets of great information buried within your rants? I'm certainly not going to. (e.g. In this latest section of comments, you have some interesting info and thoughts on Nanaimo. Move them to a new section, at least, so people will read it, rather than leaving them in amongst the rest.)
When I think of how much time you guys have spent arguing with each other, the time required to put together a list of areas for expansion hardly seems like a great waste of time. Surely, you will still have differences of opinion over lines over perspectives and POV, but those differences will always exist, not just with you two, but with anyone who comes along. Better to have more content and deal with the issues of perspective as the arise.
Personally, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this page. You are both more than capable of moving forward together, but I don't feel like either of you is trying to do so. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
If you had had the time to read through the page for the issues/events and sources I tried to inform him of but got counter-attacked for even mentioning, there's lots as mentioned; what I said about "busy work" was more about him and his demands than about your request; I've been meaning to compose a list without being on here so as to not get distracted by yet more weird objections and demands, but I've been struggling to survive (find food and hope promised rent support comes) and have other time obligations.
I'll add a few in your blank section for now; there's much more already mentioned on this page, some of which this may repeat; but the related topic of Chinese investment and influence in British Columbia, which isn't necessarily about Chinese Canadians but also Chinese from other places and current issues with Chinese economic imperialism in Canada re China-FIPA and more is mostly kept away from, though this is a bit hard to separate in the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sense. Some of these may not have source suggestinos for now; i have a radio show to prepare for in a two hours...and am lucky a friend bought me lunch, and my landlady whose husband is a colonel in the Cambodian army and not someone to cross or owe much money to, understands that the friend in North Vancouver who is sending rent money can't until Monday because of the inefficacies of Canada Post.

Areas/topics in need of expansion

  • As above, David Lam and Ray Leung and others, plus David Li of Concord Pacific aren't even mentioned nor is a certain well-known impresario whose name I can't recall just now; also related to Chinese if not Chinese-Canadian history in BC is the story of Tan Yu and Bill Vander Zalm (see Talk:Tan Yu) and David Li's father, Li Ka-shing re the sale of the Expo lands in the final years of Social Credit misrule. David Lam's call to the new immigrants from China to respect local values and customs and underrtake to understand other Canadians was very prominent and timely when it came down; I daresay "scholarly" sources give it a wide berth...

... oh yeah that impresario was David Y.H. Lui or is that H.Y.?; there's a major grocery wholesaler with a similar name David H.Y Louie there seems to b nothing in those 'scholarly sources' of the firtual lockdown on the produce industry in the coure of the 20th Century; or the intensely productive Chinese market gardens between SE Marine Drive and the Fraser which once supplied them. Re the arts there's also the role of chinese philanthropists and cultural benefactors, the flagship institution for which is teh Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at UBC; then ther's the government-funded new Chinese historical/research archiveds out at UBC, which I've never received any response from re sources they may have for the Chinese merchants and miners and ranchers in the Lillooet area; and the Asian Centre at UBC (where I used to be, briefly, assistant administrator and exec secretary to the director/chairman) and the College of Traditional Medicine which recently got shut down as questionable and without basis in science and with no results etc.

  • the post-influx drivers' licensing scandal in which 300,000+ drivers licenses were bought for a $3000 bribe, with 1k each going to the driving school, the translator and the licensing official...eventually about 120,000 cases were to be filed by police, but SUCCESS complained that it would be "racist to proceed with them"...because 98.5% of those about to be charged were Chinese....and "cultural differences" was brought up as a rationale for breaking the law; true story; eventually about 3,500 were proceeded with, I don't know the conviction rate
    • the problem with RS'ing that is that newspaper archives are not available for that period; only hard copies in libraries and archives are out there about it now; I've looked and looked on the internet and like a lot else that happened in the '80s and up to '93, if it's there, it's well buried; no doubt there's an academic paper out there with "scholarly" cites full of footnotes talking about it as another example of "white racism" and prejudice against Chinese though.
  • "monster houses" and how that term, which was about the size of the new style of houses which destroyed nice old houses with big yards and gardens and built up to as close to the edge of the lot as the law allowed, was criticized defensively as being "racist" as if the term meant that Chinese people were monsters.
  • in a similar vein, destruction of trees on park and other property for feng shui/ cultural purposes
  • complaints by Chinese condo-owners in Point Grey about a hospice in view from their suites and complaints that dying people nearby were bad for property value as being unlucky; that's relatively recent and should be easy to find in media; here is on media article on it, other articles were in TheTyee.ca and the mainstream papers, before the approval.
  • Campaigns for A chinese school board so that Chinese students would not have to be distracted by "lazy white kids with no work ethic"; concomitant with that an ongiong resistance to learning or wanting to learn English and maintaining Chinese-ness and the attitude about "bananas" (yellow on the outside and white on the inside) old-era assimilated Chinese, who themselves spoke out against the attachment to their cause for Head Tax redress by Chinese newcomers who hd no connection to that legacy yet grandstanded about it.
  • discrimination against non-Chinese in the new Chinese super-malls in Richmond, Aberdeen Centre and Yaohan Centre come to mind; security guards telling non-Chinese to leave, including other Asians (Filipinos and South Asians and others as well as European Canadians); that problem has been "solved" but there is still resistance by store owners abnout putting up English signs and prices and so on; there was a certain fringe party formed a few years ago for mainlanders/newcomers to advance Chinese interests, but it never got anywhere though its context and statements were highly controversial when they surfaced.
  • The Chinese parents' group that rallied to oppose anti-bullying programs in Burnaby schools as being "against their values" because LGBT kids were to be protected and talked about in those programs and those were not things they wanted their kids to hear about. A large outcry from the Lower Mainland's gay community, which has a huge Chinese contingent, was part of the response
  • issues and positions with offshore ownership of property in Vancouver abound, but in one publicized case and no doubt in others, an entire new condo block by teh Cambie Bridge was marketed only in Hong Kong, and only in Chinese, to prevent anyone else from even knowing about the sale;
  • things like the Chinese investment in the Northern Gateway and Lower Mainland Gateway Project and associated free trade zones and China-FIPA are not about Chinese Canadians but re the 'investment and influence' theme mentioned above. Similarly the worries expressed by locals about a Chinese company buying up Bradian in teh Bridge River Country
  • "astronaut" parents, latchkey kids and youth gangs and fancy cars...parents who "parked" teenage kids in Canada while going back to Asia to make money, leaving the kids with houses to themselgves and equipping them with fancy cars and credit cards; this was an is seen as a cause of the growth or youth gangs
  • The opium trade and the role of the triads, especially the Golden Lotus or "Lotus" in Vancouver's heroin trade and gang wars; opium is maybe mentioned once in the article, yet it as mainstay of Chinese trade in Vancouver and in merchandising in the goldfields and the railway era until banned by law, when Chinese merchants complained it was unfair to outlaw it ; there's still wild white poppy in the Fraser Canyon ,by the way, that was planted by Chinese farmers, miners and rancher (all the same thing at the time, more or less).
  • activism to demand more Chinese content and less "white" history in school curricula
  • the Vancouver Sun's election-season publication of Chinese-language content on its front page raised more than few eyebrows; it was me by the way who expanded the newspaper/media section here, as there was only one obscure paper mentioned in it at the time of creation and four major papers not even mentioned; but that's what you get when you build an article using only "narrow field" academic sources and have no direct knowledge of what you're undertaking an essay on
  • the 2007 massacre at the won ton place on Main Street (Cambie Street? - I was in Hali by then, and it's been seven years now, can't remember which) and similar high-profile crime; the intracies of the Vancouver crime world myself I prefer to stay away from, but it is a major issue locally; the role of the Red Scorpions (who were not Chinese) in drug-dealing and "enforcement" of the Lotus-controlled heroin and meth trade is an example of where the crime world, as with much of BC society, has no clear ethnic lines (not in the last 10-15 years anyway) and cannot be discussed in a bubble. "I don't want to go there" needless to say, 'tis a dicey thing to even mention....

That's it for now, I have some tracks to convert before my show; not meaning to dwell on the negative but the matters above are all well-known and sourceable...for those who look, which apparently "scholars" don't as they assemble there theses on "all that's wrong with whitey". There's lots of "positive" stories and events/issues yet to be mentioned, modern and frontier-era and in between but these are examples of who certain content seems to have been avoided or just not known about at all, that I haven't had a chance to raise in the course of the barraging here and condemnations elsewhere and my survival and connectivity issues here. I've made a point in contributions to Wikipedia of including Chinese history/Chinatowns on town page and mining -related articles and more; it's not likie I'm anti-Chinese but I just want to see fairness and completeness, not just what someone with a POV filter on will allow or not dispute with nitpickery about this or that.Skookum1 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind (personally, I would probably side with most academics in thinking a lot of that is pretty trivial) but I have to say I do appreciate the effort of making a list, your willingness to be clear and move forward. Thank you for that.
I think tensions over education is certainly a worthwhile topic to be explored. While I imagine you and WTM would have very different takes on the subject, maybe you could find a way to present both sides of that story, in a way that satisfies you both? The long-standing conflict over drugs and organized is worthy of inclusion as well. Emily Murphy and The Black Candle certainly deserve mention. And the many prominent successful Chinese British Columbians you listed should surely be included (and not just in list form at the bottom).
Also, if you do have other positive stories to add, I'm sure that would be helpful. Even if you aren't anti-Chinese, providing this list of modern-day complaints doesn't serve to paint you as neutral. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
they were added to provide counter-balance to the reams of anti-"white" commentary/opinion claims plastered into the article in SYNTH/POV format/purpose; to demonstrate that they have been avoided by ethno specialists; I grant that WTM does not read the daily newspapers or local magazines on a regular basis (as I have for 40 years and more) so might not have heard of them. I guess re "drugs and organized" that you meant organized crime; some of that maybe covered in criminology studies if the WP:specialist style fallacy currently dominating this article and this discussion page are all that will be tolerated, but there's tons of news copy about this, and much in historical papers too about the opium trade in early BC.

Re what's trivial per I would probably side with most academics in thinking a lot of that is pretty trivial - indeed they do, but it's because of their one-sided perspective; as with the attempt to railroad the extensive content and data and reportage of the "white" perspective in Morton's Sea of Sterile Mountains but to dismiss it because it's not footnoted and precisely because it presents the white perspective only and gives an account of their reasons why and much more than I've never seen in any academic work on the same topic's;

Wades The Cariboo Road and The Thompson Country aren't page-cited/footnoted works either but they're an invaluable source of facts and renditions of first-person accounts, same with Early Vancouver by Maj J S Skit Mathews, City Archivist, and many other works and sources for BC history that somehow those academics don't have in their readings, and certainly not in their sources - or they wouldn't make so many gaffes and/or distorted claims; but their interest is not fairness; the "new history" as they style themselves, is about "ethnicity, class and gender" (if you want a cite it's on the wall in the SFU History Dept and their curriculum statements) and not about general history or narratives or non-POV non-ethnic/gender/class-ideological tracts as too many of them are. That is commented on by Mike Kennedy, if you scan the page for him you'll find what he says about this kind of thing. But Howay and Scholefield's work has the same thing about the 90% of the Fraser being Chinese owned/operated that belies the bit from an academic SYNTH'd into a paragraph with other mis-rendered facts/opinions about [all] Chinese being afraid of whites and not wanting to claim until they moved on (curious that Chinese jumping claims is mentioned in some local histories, and major histories, but not by these modern "academics"; everyone jumped claims and smuggled gold out, though) and no mention at all of the extremely pro-multiethnic-society nature of Douglas' policies re mining and settlement - telling the Americans off - and Begbie's system of using juries drawn from the same groups, partly for reasons of fairness of trial; be they Chinese, Germans, Danes, Norwegians, Italians, Americans or Australians.

I meant to just comment on that bit about these seeming trivial; the academics don't cover these matters, other than in critiquing the "white" response, but the newspapers do and they are RS, too. To not have them on an article about Chinese/Chinese Canadians in BC would be very odd to the general readership actually from the place. What I see is bias, and a theme of it, and the above items are not trivial to far more people than the academics; they are notable stories in recent history, just as there were those in early times which were controversial; that you do, too, rather disappointments me in fact, I'd have thought you'd recognize they are the counter-balance to the largely invective content against "the other perspective" that is the hallmark of the "scholarly" and political POV sources being used, without any attempt of recognizing, and a resistance to allowing, stories and sources that give the "other side" - or which go into areas that academics do not want to tread. Or give credit to either.

  • Cultural conflict, bias and activism by Chinese against others or re homophobia schools in Burnaby schools or the hospice matter are very much non-trivial issues;
  • as is crime and the drug trade and violence arising from that; the "astronaut kids" story is part of that
  • perhaps on the other side of the Rockies, Northern Gateway may seem trivial but as with China-FIPA may not be as much of an issue as it necessarily is in BC but it's not trivial at all in terms of the density of qualifying companies in BC and the many resource and infrastructure and development projects and who gets hired and doesn't (Chinese-only hiring is an emerging issue too, as that's what China says it demands for some projects); I haven't seen any statements though there must be some from SUCCESS and from Chinese politicians and journalists and such in BC, there must be some though. Again, that's on the influence-and-investments themew, not about Chinese Canadians directly, other than those who work for any company that is more than 1% owned by a Chinese registered company (most of which are state-owned giants but includes various small independent businesses, many may have dual citizenship, the number of which is not in this article yet
  • I'm gonna ask you reconsider what you think is trivial or not; what I see on the other hand is trivial items stacked together to build a POV SYNTH essay, without any attempt at NPOV/balance, whether they are academic excerpts selected purely to build a case/establish a thesis i.e. in the source, or as so arranged to expound on that theme so as to conduct OR on the one-sided account of bias; the items above are no more negative or "the bad" than the mass of things already rendered which are biased in their own right; and that's a reflection of the sources and perhaps because of prevailing media paradigms about BC and its relationship with the Chinese; but all sources can be wrong, and media is inherently a distortion and a filter; that aside, what an academic sees as trivial per what the general readership, and more generally-minded editors such as myself, would not. NPOV means balance, fair, coverage of a topic. I'm not seeing that here, or in the "scholarly" sources; though historical scholarly sources provided have been ignored.
  • re TRIVIA there's often info-bits of an UNDUE nature in the article, likewise on the Indo-Canadians ones in similar vein. Those UNDUE bits seem intended to bolster the ongoing assertion that Vancouver should be a separate article i.e. padding to justify that. There's loads of information that should be there instead of much is what has been giving as more directory content, or outright trivia; and as you note there's a paucity of very notable figures, and that includes re Cantopop and more.Skookum1 (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That academics regard matters such as those mentioned as trivial is a demonstration of the their bias and that is exactly what I'm talking about re biased/POV sources and narratives; the rest of the narrative is laid out accordingly without any incorporation from NPOV narratives that aren't written as critiques/criticsms but as chronicles and general narratives; and there's lots in them that's not here, and not in (most of) those sources (some are present but only used for very selectively biased quotes/events re SYNTH-POV). Academics do not have priority over other sources. The interests of the general readership do have priority over the interests of specialists per TITLE.
  • Add in that those specialists, or the select group of them from the "modern school" of "new history" and from sources focussing only on the Chinese, and so the effect is that the tone and content being constructed here has been a divergence from the more general and NPOV tone and content of other pages that touch on teh same subject, and on the same events sometimes.Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Re other items on this page, I mentioned

  • Victor Yukmun Wong and the United Chinese Community Immigrant Services Society aka SUCCESS, perhaps the most prominent and influential Chinese business/community lobby in BC
  • Faye Leung (see Talk:Tan Yu (no relation to Ray Leung, who should have an article as Raymond Leung though he's rarely called that).
  • the dispute about Chief Hunter Jack is on this page in various places, I will not repeat here what I have already said; efforts to get someone in Lillooet to use their copies of the books I've mentioned for page-cites/chapter titles have no proceeded for what might politely be termed "time constraints"
  • the stuff from Mike Kennedy you'll find elsewhere on this page is relevant to the gold rush section's current POV/bad-RS claims; he's a "specialist" and a credible source as well as a credentialed one - and it' not just him, in Howay & Scholefield's British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present the same observation is made; that by the end of 1860, 90% of the claims along the Fraser were Chinese-owned and operated.
  • many gold rush-related pages either have or need Chinese-miner content; Ah Bau Creek near Quesnel has yet to be written but as with Germansen Landing re the Omineca Gold Rush there are individuals and bios and more that the specialist-filtered POVite sources either don't know about or avoid. Because of months of harassment my Wiki-energy and ongiong survival and connectivity difficulties have prevented me from writing the Cassiar Gold Rush article; Centreville, British Columbia was a Chinese-mostly settlement on Dease Lake and there were 300 Chinese in that goldfield in toto. Bullion, British Columbia and Keithley Creek, British Columbia and other places were success stories and remained dominantly Chinese for decades....none of this gets covered in social criticism about BC by sino-oriented "specialists" who maintain e.g. that the Chinese were afraid of whites and that they were used as slave labour etc.
  • more later, I have a life to lead and the time here is "damaging my life and putting a strain on my finances" and apparently I've been labelled as "continuing my behaviour" by posting these items.Skookum1 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Anthony Marr (I may have the first name wrong), a Chinese Vancouverite who led a campaign against CITES-banned animal products in Chinese stores and was blackballed for it and branded as a traitor to his race; this should be fairly easy to google; he's connected with the Western Canada Wilderness Commmittee and there were RS/media about this, and some of his own columns
  • Bill Chu - I'll come back with links/cites about him later

Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I will respond to these points

  • SUCCESS is already mentioned
  • Victor Yukmun Wong is mentioned here:
    Fuse Magazine - Volumes 22-23. Arton's Cultural Affairs Society and Pub., 1999. p. 33. (See search page which reveals the text): "Victor Yukman Wong from the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians spoke passionately about the migrants in ... Wong has been an active spokesperson on their behalf, often providing the only dissenting voice on news items slanted ..." - I could write about the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians and tie him into this. I can work with this one.
  • The Chief Hunter Jack dispute needs an exact RS with page numbers/any needed information so it can be verified. I have not been successful in getting an exact reference from Google Books.
  • Content related to Faye Leung and BC needs to be tied into the Chinese community in general
  • Mike Kennedy's stuff needs to be published or it cannot be "verifiable" and therefore can't be considered. Where is it published? Since the reference to British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present is of a specific fact, a page number is needed. Preferably get a page number from Google Books if possible.
  • Chinese miner content can be valuable. Make sure it is well-referenced and that the sources support the content.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • 1) yes you're welcome to talk to some actual Vancouver Chinese like Victor Yukmun Wong, and gee I'm an actual Vancouverites who's not Chinese and it's clear you don't want to talk (rationally) to me.
  • 2) yes duh re Faye Leung but what would YOU know about it?? Faye is viewed as an eccentric personality within the community, both the Chinese community and the larger community. See Talk:Tan Yu and Talk:Bill Vander Zalm about her and Talk:Fantasy Gardens. the larger context at the time was the new-era influx and with it interest by many in buying or starting a bank and major land investments; Tan Yu backed out of his bid to buy a banking license; but the publicly-owned Bank of British Columbia was sold to Hongkong Bank as t he first major Canadian bank to be owned from another country: colonialism. Maybe Victor Yukmun Wong can fill you in; I'll be writing Bill Chu myself as we share a common interest in the Fraser Canyon and mining history there.
  • 3) Other than the copy-pasted snippet of the email from Mike, Mike Kennedy's works on historical geography are published, that bit about 90% of claims from Hope to Quesnel isn't just in him, it's in Howay & Scholefield in one of the links from that very notable work that you haven 't deigned to look at while trying to get me blocked. Mike isn't just anybody; his mentor is Cole Harris and he's published in BC Studies (Kennedy I mean). you aren't.
  • 4) You keep on raising the Hunter Jack issue as if I'm making it up; I'm not, and it's in five books I have named; people I know have those books, getting them to take the time to pull them out and look up something because of arrogant demands from someone in Texas who doesn't want to believe the story is true isn't very high on their priority list, needless to say. That you can't just add a "page cite needed" and be patient for the page numbers to be provided some day but insist on ranting about this and threatening to delete it if I add it to teh article is BAD FAITH and impatience of the most petulant kind.
  • 5) Chinese miner content can not not be valuable; it is central to the early history of the colony/province and to the history of the Chinese as well as of the mining industry, historical and modern. Your "Make sure it is well-referenced and that the sources support the content." is yet more patronizing boss-man talk; your sources don't have the content that the sources I have do, that much is clear by what I've seen so far of them (including all the linked ones on this page that you have been ignoring). This comment of yours is just more arrogant yap from someone pretending that he is in charge of the article and of Wikipedia; you aren't.Skookum1 (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2015 (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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Monster houses

the inline comment when the not-relevant comparison of housing price indexes was added said "I'm looking for material on what people thought of the architecture" has already been given a whole section above by the same editor, and further comments on my recent talkpage additions in reply to TheMightyquill..... why not, duh, look at news media sources...of course it would help if you knew what they were (the weeklies that covered this a lot and which I've mentioned....but have been ignored by someone "still looking")...this is not an article about the Housing price impact of modern-era influx into Vancouver from Hong Kong, this is an article about "Chinsee Canadians in British Columbia"; not about Chinese realty investment and its impact on the city[s society and economy via the inflated housing market. That is a side issue and like a lot of "Vancouver content" here seems more intended to pad Vancouver content to justify that editor's long-standing desire to split this article into one more limited in range as his thinking so determinedly is; More garbage-y trivia has been added in dart-board form while 'still looking" proceeds and no attempt to make sense or acquire a due sense of proportion is being made; while information on sources about this goes unacknowledged and unexamined.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Re UNDUE commerce/airline/real estate pricing TRIVIA/off-topic removals

I won't be WP:BAITed into edit warring because of the reversion of my initial removal of the real estate pricing material, and expect my removal of the UNDUE dross about airline connections to China to be similarly reverted. Apparently my activities of late in taking the cleanup of repeated information and the mix of very bad English composition and grammar and idiom into natural English (per "plain English is preferred over etc" in policy/guidelines somewhere) and more will have to wait until the other editor still adding yet more random data that is entirely off-topic and just adding un-relevant material to the article in the same labouriously written bad English.

I will proceed with adding sources and comments about others and other wikipedia articles this needs to be integrated with that can take a lot of the excess detail here about individual Chinatowns and other matters; for other editors to use who see the value in actual history, not "anything to do with connections between China and BC" but about Chinese Canadians and their history and society; I've learned that any input I provide is either challenged or patronized with instructions as to how I should use the sources I provide, rather than thanked and appreciated and learned from. There is so much out there, in Wikipedia and online, that could enrich this article, as also the not-on-line sources I know of and are real, but isn't even being looked for while the article continues to grow with off-topic junk added on an admittedly random (though thematic basis).

This isn't Chinese investment and trade in British Columbia or Chinese investment and trade in Canada, though there's surely a need for that article and what is UNDUE here can go there readily enough. China-FIPA already has an article, as of course does YVR re airline connections; that material doesn't belong here.Skookum1 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The real estate prices and the Chinese people living in those giant houses can't be easily separated. The real estate issue is relevant to the recent Chinese settlers unless it's established that they do not occupy those houses. If they do occupy these houses, then they live in the community and are relevant. It will be almost impossible to separate Canadian citizens from Chinese citizens in the context of this article especially due to jus soli citizenship. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The airline industry has the term "Visiting friends and relatives" as a rationale for travel. That means people who live in one place visiting relatives and friends in another place. The ICAO says: "CIVIL AVIATION PERFORMS A VITAL SOCIO ECONOMIC NEED Visiting Friends and Relatives" on p. 9. -- Here are two more examples of VFR travel clearly tied to North American ethnic communities:
American Airlines Flight 587 was meaningful to New York City's Dominicans even before the fateful crash in 2001 (to the point where a song was written about it by Kinito Mendez). Air India Flight 182, devastated the Indo-Canadians in multiple Canadian cities? The plane was full of Canadian citizens doing VFR travel. If a flight from Vancouver to Beijing crashed into the ocean it would absolutely devastate the Chinese Canadians of Vancouver as many members of that community would be on board. What I will do is try to find additional sources that clearly tie the Chinese community of Vancouver to these flights.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Chinatown sources for Penticton and Vernon

Here are some source-links for Chinatown and Chinese history in Penticton and the Okangan Living Landscapes website, III. THE CHINESE: Early 1900s - 1930s, with further sources included, Penticton Heritage Strategy (City of Penticton-commisioned report), and Walking through Penticton's past, Steve Kidd, Penticton Western NewsJul 21, 2011 which references Chinatown and the extant Chinatown monument] which I have pictures of somewhere taken during a stay there in 2010-2011, and there are historical photos out there online somewhere.

And here is one source covering Vernon's Chinese history and Chinatown Honouring one of Vernon's last standing historical Chinatown buildings, Charlotte Helston, Kamloops InfoNews, 13 February 2015, which interestingly is only two days old.

Fascinating on how local coverage of Chinese history and society in BC is so much more fair and not in attack-mode as with the general drift of modern academia and its one-sided focus and generally critical attitude towards non-Chinese; and that goes also for local Chinese such as Herb Wong mentioned in the article who do not "take it out on gwailo" tone of so much "academic" writing by "specialists". They're not specialists in local history, it's clear, and they portray white hostility towards the Chinese, but actual BC community history sites and media coverage are very much different than that and render sympathetic community accounts; biased sources vs neutral and much more informative ones is the "choice".

Sympathetic accounts memorializing one-time Chinese communities and individual neighbours and various individuals are common historically also, despite the focus on mob invective and political electioneering stumping by the politicians/major media. The nosracines.ca source covering a marriage, funeral and a servant's family and his own bio material and more are a good example; as also the sources mentioned on Lillooet's history, which have chapters on the Chinese and I. Harris has articles on individuals and on the Kwoks of Hat Creek; there re histories of Yale out there that have quite a bit too; then there's more modern news articles like the one above and heritage report and the chapter from Living Landscapes on Okanagan history about Chinese history there, and others on Boston Bar and Barkerville and the Cariboo "Chinese towns" which were not Chinatowns by name, but predominantly Chinese towns....and they were many.

There's also lots of other coverage in various newspapers and magazines and local histories and museum/archives sites; there's a list of those, I can't be bothered to look it up for someone who could have found it easily long ago; I've provided enough unused material and links to material that gets ignored; I will add such resources later for the benefit of other editors who may come along in future who will be more appreciative of it, though re the archives/museums listings and news/zine sources if they are already versed in BC history in Wikipedia or out, they probably already know of them.Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt these sources will be acknowledged or used while more UNDUE material on airline connections and real estate prices is added in the usual "add trivia as you go and make sense of it later" methodology underway tonight. That's been touted above in a response to Shawn in Montreal as a "good way" to proceed with writing the article without context or deeper reading/understanding of the context of the added trivia (in all its needless complexity and over-citation) FIRST. Rather than listen to informed direction both on needed, relevant content and where to find sources about what or heed the lessons in English composition I'm getting used to being ignored and challenged; the writing is so bad I feel like I'm marking a paper at times, to be blunt, and as noted normally get paid for such corrective editing into the requisite normal English phrasing and idiom. The English composition and style and incomplete-sentence and and "bald" structure and pat statements and monotous monoform syntax n necessarily makes me aghast at fallen standards of English language instruction in universities nowadays . That goes for the POV/biased academicists as well. Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Done - all sources in use. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia/Archive_5&oldid=787043553"