Template:Did you know nominations/Nanyang (region)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No edits to address issues in ten days since review
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nanyang (region)
[edit]- ... that "Nanyang" is the Chinese term for the warmer and fertile countries south of China, to which large numbers of Chinese migrants fled due to Manchu oppression?
- Reviewed: Grey red-backed vole
5x expanded by Benlisquare (talk), POSC237 (talk). Nominated by Benlisquare (talk) at 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
-
New enough ( for 22 May) and long enough. QPQ OK. Hook short enough with 165 characters. I accept that offline citation #2 backs up the second clause (after the comma) of the hook. The external link for citation #12 is flagged for registration issue, but the link works fine for me. The remaining external links are OK. Issues 1-5 below are minor. HoweverI think this nomination should be closed on grounds of neutrality; see issue (6) below.--Storye book (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)- Issues:
(1) I take it that the first clause (before the comma) of the hook is referred to offline citation #1? If so, please repeat citation #1 next to that part of the header.(2) Please correct the following disambiguation links: "South Sea", "migration", "Bumiputera".(3) Regarding your use of the word, "concerning", please see the dictionary definition here. The word "concern" does not work in that form (I know it is often used that way verbally, but it is a clumsy and awkward usage). So please change it to an existing word, such as e.g. worrying, bothersome, disconcerting, distressing, disturbing, irritating, perplexing, perturbing, troublesome, troubling, unnerving, unsettling, vexing, worrying etc.(4) Please change "strived to acquaintance themselves" to "strove to acquaint themselves".(5) The word "sprout" is used incorrectly, but I am not sure what you mean there. - Neutrality. Issue (6). This article reads as if it is about China, even though the header says is not about China. The article talks only about the experience of Chinese people in an area neighbouring China, and the article is heavily weighed down with business propaganda respecting Chinese trade in the area. The article omits entirely the experience and trade details of the ethnic and indigenous peoples of the area, although those people are in the majority there. If we compare the WP article on Tibet which according to the Chinese government is part of China (if we can put aside controversy for the moment), the Tibet article is neutral because it shows the experience and trade of both ethnic peoples and the Chinese immigrants. Even the Chinese government does not think this Nanyang area is part of China, and the Nanyang article header says it is not actually in China, yet this article would have to be entirely re-written to achieve neutrality in the same way as the Tibet article has neutrality. I should add that I have visited China and discussed "Western China" (as Tibet is called there) in a Chinese university, and I am aware of how the Chinese government thinks and how educated Chinese people think about Tibet. Chinese people fully understand the situation of local ethnic groups and I am quite sure they would fully understand that this article is not neutral in the way that the Tibet article is neutral. So I am not just imposing a narrow Western view here. Please excuse my long explanation, but I wanted to be quite clear about this. I do not think that this article is appropriate for DYK on neutrality grounds.--Storye book (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Issues 1 to 5 have been addressed. Regarding issue 6 (neutrality), this article isn't about China, but rather the Chinese diaspora who left China for Southeast Asia. Here, I'm referring to the ethnic group, rather than the nation or country. If you percieve that the current state of the article is problematic, are you able to come up with any ideas as to how it can be improved? --benlisquareT•C•E 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the article is about the Chinese diaspora and not the geographical region, then the article is named wrongly and should be moved to e.g. "Chinese diaspora in Nanyang region" or similar. But the article would still have neutrality issues in my opinion. In the article, Chinese trade is discussed in a highly positive manner as if in a Chinese trade propaganda booklet, and would not be out of place in the information section of printed stuff handed out by a trade delegation. Because the article is mostly about trade, and you mention local progroms against the Chinese but no given explanation of this behaviour by the locals, it begs the question of whether the pogroms were a response to Chinese trade practices - and then another question of whether Chinese trade has always been seen as a positive aspect by everybody in Nanyang. Therefore re-naming the article might justify your concentration on Chinese peoples, but you would still have to balance neutrality about trade practices. The article contains a lot about the success of Chinese trade, but nothing about the relationship of Chinese trade with the trade or employment of local ethnic peoples, and nothing about the relationship of the Chinese diaspora with the local ethnic peoples, and nothing about cultural exchange (or lack of it?). I hope that helps? --Storye book (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving the minor issues 1-5; I have struck them out. The neutrality issue remains. --Storye book (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Nanyang" is not an article about Southeast Asia; it's an article about a Chinese geographical concept and worldview. Analogy: Daqin is not an article about the Roman Empire; it's the article about a certain Chinese literary and official conception of a Western land that is not exactly coterminous with the expanse of that empire. And just to show that this is not a Chinese-specific thing, Serica is not about China; it's about a Greco-Chinese conception of a "people in the land of the silk", which could be about China, but there's no need to discuss "indigenous" Chinese people as if it were an article on China. For another approach to this sort of article, Artsakh is the Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh but has different connotations and history than "Nagorno-Karabakh", the Russian word and common English descriptor for that country/region.
- I think you need to check your own biases. There's like 5 words about the discrimination against Chinese, only inserted to explain why some are reluctant to travel, and yet you want some sort of apologia for local racists and xenophobes? Also, Tibet being "according to the Chinese government... part of China"? You would think that we were talking about the Spratly Islands here, or even Crimea, and not some place that all recognized states and international organizations recognize (sometimes explicitly and affirmatively) as part of China. Let's not toe the Malay supremacist line either about Chinese not being "indigenous" to these countries: see Peranakan and associated articles; large-scale migration has occurred since the 15th century, and there have been generations of Nanyang-born Chinese. 192.12.88.132 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are talking about the subject of the article. I was reviewing the article, which appears to be written in a non-neutral manner, and therefore could be potentially inflammatory if it were to be linked on the front page. I have no intention of entering into an argument with you, and I confirm my comments above. --Storye book (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Calm down a bit, 192.12.*.*; let's take this slowly, it's nothing to get too worked over about. I'll try to come up with something to tweak the article with in coming days, we'll see how we go. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
