![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
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 Satu Suro 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I'm minded to return this interesting, sourced info - thoughts? Privatemusings ( talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just gone through the article in some depth and have reviewed section by section.
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)
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)
my interpretation of the nature of the sources referred to in this article follows;
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)
< 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)
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)
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)
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)
per the above - here's the original biblio. section for ease of ref.;
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 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'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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This article or section may have been
copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of
Wikipedia's copyright policy. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
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 Satu Suro 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I'm minded to return this interesting, sourced info - thoughts? Privatemusings ( talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just gone through the article in some depth and have reviewed section by section.
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)
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)
my interpretation of the nature of the sources referred to in this article follows;
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)
< 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)
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)
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)
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)
per the above - here's the original biblio. section for ease of ref.;
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 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'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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This article or section may have been
copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of
Wikipedia's copyright policy. |