This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Willmott p. 33 states that Rising China (Hua-xing or Wah-Hing) was the company that purchased the third Chinatown from the guys raising the rents. Lai p. 77 however states that Rising China (Wah-Hing) was formed in the 1920s after another company, Land Yick Land Company, was going bankrupt. The Nanaimo Chinatowns Project Intro page says that Lun Yick was formed to purchase the Chinatown from the guys raising the rents. Lai and the project are newer and it's two out of three, so I think those two are correct on that issue instead of Willmott.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reliance on those same sites without any inclusion of the descriptions and cites on Nanaimo#Chinatowns continues the segregation of this style of content from existing Wikipedia content; the Vancouver Island University and the Nanaimo Chinatowns Project pages should be regarded as superior as sources to the obscure specialist Wilmott and Lai is not authorititative; the Nanaimo Chinatowns Project and VIU sites are contemporary and have been composed by work by actual Nanaiamoites, and more than two academics, and should be the primary source. Not just plopped into "External links".
Ongoing replication of what's on existing Wikipedia content without any inclusion of that content and sources used to build them is POV-forking and negligent and as in the other cases around, contains biased accounts without reference to broader sources on BC history or even to locally-written sites such as those just mentioned.Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Being a local doesn't automatically make the person's source a superior source. One still needs to consider the publication and editorial control of the said publication. Willmott's work may be dated but I know he was one of the people who reviewed Morton so he had been around.
2. I checked the citations at Nanaimo#Chinatowns. The citation style is woefully insufficient. Its only cited sources are a YouTube home movie (it's self-published and completely unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia); at the sentence, which is cited to the intro of Nanaimo Chinatowns at MALA which is a good source, and the VIU page which is also a good source. Only the MALA page actually supports the last sentence.
The final two sources could be used to cite the paragraph, but citations need to be placed so people know which information comes from which source.
I have the right to independently build the narrative from sources I find elsewhere.
"Ongoing replication of what's on existing Wikipedia content without any inclusion of that content and sources used to build them is POV-forking and negligent and as in the other cases around, contains biased accounts without reference to broader sources on BC history or even to locally-written sites such as those just mentioned." - WP:POV fork means "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." - Where is the difference in the point of view??
Those locals include academics and veterans of the Chinese community in Nanaimo. STOP being so arrogant and dismissive towards local sources
You do NOT have the "right"to build narratives independent of other Wikipedia articles. You should know better after eight years on Wikipedia; your lack of GF collaboration in spirit and method is shocking.
And re "difference of point of view" if you haven't cottoned on to the existence of other points of view and other sources that's either wilfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant, period. Quibbling over the wording of a guideline about not reduplicating content is just "more of the same".
Either you are ready to collaborate with other Wikipedians who have already contributed much on this subject, and I don't mean just me, is asinine and arrogant. How you can be so hostile to local websites, never mind a local Wikipedia well-versed on this subject and more, is really quite bizarre. What I am hearing from you here and have seen in your behaviour and attitudes for months now fits very well with WP:NOTHERE.
Re that guideline, perhaps you should be writing your compositions for publication and getting them peer-reviewed before pretending to authority on a subject which you have already stated in your answer to Shawn in Montreal as random-in-search-of-understanding and note use Wikipedia as a whiteboard for your own personal research/thesis-drafting. Unlike you I always make a practice of integrating content and referring to extant Wikipedia content and welcoming constructive input and useful information supplied; that is being a "responsible Wikipedian", assembling random bits without context and without reference to other Wiki content is NOT being a "responsible Wikipedian".
It is true that "It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." as per WP:OVERKILL but the way I cite is this: ""In addition, as per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support" (my emphasis). I follow this in the articles I write. I either cite at the end of the paragraph, or at the end of a group of sentences that come from the same source/section/page number.
"STOP being so arrogant and dismissive towards local sources" - This isn't what's happening here. I never said they're always bad. I just said they aren't always the best source. In this case, the two local sources and Lai together agree. It's a matter of determining how many people say A versus how many say B. If so many people say A it's likely B is wrong.
They're much better sources and more contemporary than your preferred ones; that they are local in origin is a very shallow and superficial reason to downplay them (especially when many of them can't even get geographical terms right). And the "two local sources" use Lai as a source along with many others; of course they agree. But they also contain more than you have offered up, and do so with less cultural invective than you are so fond of emphasizing in all your contributions.Skookum1 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you assert, but how is it that the bibliography of sources for the Nanaimo Chinatowns Project includes her work? Maybe they had some kind of prescience about it and knew about it before it was published? As with so much you say, your "logic"just isn't. Your attempt to claim that only your choice of sources is valid is RUBBISH - and against guidelines and policy and yet more demonstration of your ongoing claim to WP:OWN this material and write it independently of all other existing Wikipedia content on the same subject(s). Rubbish and posturing....Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it all too well; stop patronizing me by instructing me to agree with you; when you have never agreed with anything I say. Your command of logic is even worse than your writing style; your insistence on only sources that you approve of is pure poppycock.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
