Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:47, 21 December 2009

Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR/WP:V - Is simply an essay which has been downloaded from a website, with no sources (especially given it puts quite a controversial assertion that there was interaction between the Chinese and Aboriginals in the Sydney region). Lotto originating from China is also quite amusing - one wonders if they started it in all the European countries too. Orderinchaos 09:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note - notwithstanding the fact that the article had a single ref. at time of launch, per discussion below, it's now blessed with eleven of 'em :-) - perhaps this rationale no longer applies? Privatemusings (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY. Just the same as we can't use Hansard to write political articles, in exactly the same way we can't use private interviews (which cannot be scrutinised or interrogated) to make assertions about general phenomena. Orderinchaos 05:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see below - they're not primary sources. Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interview with..." is generally a pretty good indication that it's a primary source. Orderinchaos 06:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - some are, but I got the impression from you below ("it seems all the sources are primary sources") that you thought they were all primary sources - presumably you don't have a problem with flinders as a ref. for flinders though? Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to "big claims require big sources". Some of the claims being made were in the fantastically wild category, and large sections of the essay simply cannot be sourced as it is trying to measure the unmeasurable, assess the personal, etc. Orderinchaos 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 09:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) there is no hang on or indicators in edit summaries that any reliable sources will be added later or (2) no sign of acknowledgement that the claims in the lead paragraph are contentious and/ or very controversial. Satu Suro 09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The whole thing is sourced to the Dictionary of Sydney. While the sourcing needs to be improved and inline cites to more reliable sources added, I don't think that merits deletion. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 11:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one-source POV essay advancing concepts which are not accepted in mainstream sociological discourse in Australia is still a one-source POV essay. WP:SOAP comes to mind, as does WP:WEIGHT which relates to minority viewpoints. Orderinchaos 11:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit concerned with the referencing here and it looks a bit copyvio-ish to me. Whoever has copied it over has copy and pasted the original footnote numbers but they haven't brought with it the actual references being cited, so the sources the original author cited are not being credited or referenced, which is unacceptable and needs to be rectified. I also agree with Orderinchaos that this is an essay (albeit an interesting one), rather than an encyclopedia article, and it reads more like a chapter of a history textbook to me. It's a shame because it's interesting and I would rather see it moved to another project that is more suitable and which allows OR and is less restrictive in terms of WP:V and WP:RS but I don't think it complies with WP policy and it is written in a non-encyclopedic tone (no doubt because it wasn't written as an encyclopedia article) and therefore really isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Sarah 12:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it should be emphasised it is suitable for a non-WP purpose. But I've just had a more careful look, my guess is it would take a week's work to get this into any kind of WP shape. Parts of it are almost promotional of the Chinese community, something it's not WP's job to do. Orderinchaos 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure there is an article on "Chinese people in Australia" where some of this information (with proper cites) could be added. Anyway people immigrate to nations not to cities. Borock (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio of [1]. Article tagged. — æk ^Talk 18:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Silly me - checked the article history; first edit summary says that the content is CC-licensed by original creator. (Is there any way to verify that?) However, on the merits of the article, merge to Chinese_in_Australia and Sydney. — æk ^Talk 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(groan) - yeah, a wholesale addition of text like this leaves me with an uneasy feeling, even though it technically falls within the limits or practice as defined by copyright/licencing above. I note that Chinese Australian is only 26kb, which suggests both articles could easily be merged. Alternative is to slap ^{[citation needed]} tags all over the article and for it to get assessed and referenced piecemeal fairly quickly. Sydney does have a significant population of chinese origin, so I'd think an article is feasible as such. Anyway, I think the most collaborative approach is sourcing as a high priority. I'd think seriously about a 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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not a BLP, referencing can take it's time. Viridae ^Talk 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a *lot* of time. Have you actually read it? Referencing is far from its only issue - the entire thing has been written from a strong pro-Chinese POV and excludes all other viewpoints, so those would need to be actively sought and brought in to get anything like NPOV. Orderinchaos 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think the subject is notable, however, the strong pro-Chinese POV ruins the article, while it's basically completely unsourced. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 01:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is disturbing about this article is the lack of any attempt to verify that there are reliable references - I have not seen anything of recent that makes allowances experienced editors to load unreferenced essays on to wikipedia without due diligence to WP:RS or WP:CITE - Encyclopedic content must be verifiable is on the edit page for every editor to see ( the cc aspect of this article is a total red herring) - furthermore http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/chinese on the original page there are highlighted numbers - which one must assume were links to references - currently they do not work - which means that if a downloader of such an item sees that the links (some of the the numbers are in the current wikipedia page) are not operating - and makes no comment - might that not put the onus on the afd process to request the downloader to either do something about WP:RS or request the reference links at the site it has been lifted from be utilised or at least scrutinised? Satu Suro 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers on the Dictionary of Sydney article are footnotes and if you hover the mouse over them for a second, you see the references being cited. Whoever cut and paste the article here didn't go through and note and record all the references, so all we have here is the copied footnote numbers but no corresponding record of references the author used, which in itself is obviously very problematic and really makes it a copyright violation. Sarah 09:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does it? hope that's fixed now? (see below) Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it does - the original sources used for any article have to be given credit. It's basic academic standards in the real world, not just policy here on Wikipedia. Yes, that's fixed it as far as the copied footnotes go but I'm not sure how the general sourcing problems can be fixed to bring it in line with policy without wholesale slashing. I appreciate wanting to import content from Dictionary of Sydney as they are our natural friends but we can't make exceptions and turn a blind eye for groups we like while enforcing policy for everyone else. Sarah 05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 'basic academic standards' stuff I totally agree with - but you kind of asserted a copyright violation, no? Does leaving out some references really render it a copyright violation? - and if so, why? (genuine question, I'd like to learn more about this stuff :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While three other people did raise questions about copyright, I didn't - it has CC on it, there's no question as to the fact we're *allowed* to use it. The question is then whether we *should*, and this brings in the WP policies and guidelines which decide content on here. I have never argued that "leaving out some references renders it a copyright violation" - I have however argued that leaving out some references makes it an unreferenced POV essay which makes us look bad. Orderinchaos 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - thanks to whomever pointed out above that the footnotes on the dic. of syd. site require you to hover your mouse - I was under the same impression of SatuSuro that they were broken, but have happily grabbed them now. The article was sourced to a single source (so the stated deletion rationale is, and was incorrect, unfortunately) - but it's much better now to have a lot more references. I think whomever pointed out that this article would take about a week to work into shape is probably a bit optimistic - I think it's a bit more long term, but luckily this is a wiki, and there's no deadline, right :-) - will take discussion of possible merges etc. to the talk page - but I should say that I was at least in part inspired by this rather fabulous featured article - I think an article at this address is possible, there are heaps of sources for it, and it's off to an unusual start, but I look forward to whipping it into shape over time. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Privatemusings. Needs more inline cites from the refs, & links, & the lead would be better elsewhere, but all this is achievable. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cull the obvious OR & FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has begun (the culling) - I wonder if you might take another look to see if you'd agree with me that an article about this specific subject is, in fact, sustainable and desirable? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to have an article on this subject it will need a complete rewrite - what is here is unacceptable from a WP point of view. Especially as it seems all the sources are primary sources and hence the point of view being pushed is not one that is endorsed by a consensus of academic literature on the subject. Orderinchaos 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ref.s Farrell, Fitzgerald, Wood and Yong are primary sources (took 1 minute to confirm that, and there may be others) - and the rewriting has begun (come and help!). I disagree that the article pushes a particular point of view outrageously hard, but that's more a matter for the talk page I guess - you've stretched from saying 'no sources' to 'primary sources' - I really hope that if you take a look at the quality, reliable sourcing this article now has, you might be persuaded to flip to 'keep' :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It pushes several points consistently, and hard -

That Chinese immigration has pre-colonial roots in alleged contact with the Australian mainland. This is a fringe theory not accepted by the majority of mainstream scholars in the area.
That immigrants from China maintained close links with China post-immigration. This one might fly, but needs a hell of a lot more sourcing.
That Australian customs have roots in Chinese culture. This is, like the first, a fringe theory - I did some research here in WA on the instigation of lotteries and it is very much of English origin.
That Sydney was a gravitating centre of Chinese culture in Australia - an assertion made with no sources whatsoever.
That the government and people of Australia engaged in something of a systematic campaign against the Chinese. (Like the second one, this may well be true, but needs sourcing)
That the Chinese community in Australia gravitates to the right, rather than the left - this is openly contentious as Chinese areas of Australian cities have always supported Labor, with the exception of certain minorities who are not Chinese in origin but merely Chinese in ethnicity (and the question is, which is being discussed here, as the article dwells overly heavily on mainland Chinese immigration?)

There's just some points to consider. Orderinchaos 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some looking up - the publisher for Yong is a small-league publisher, but the point it looks to establish is not a terribly controversial one. Wood is an unpublished thesis. Orderinchaos 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'small league' is a bit pejorative, and a thesis isn't a primary source - the matters you refer to above are excellent points to discuss and improve the article - but this is an afd! Hopefully you can change to 'keep' and take your points to talk? Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it should be kept, so why would I change my view? And an unpublished thesis is indeed a primary source. I'm well aware of this as I was using one for source info regarding WA politics but was using it more as a base to draw information from which I could then verify elsewhere. In response to an earlier point you made which I somehow missed, it was not a "stretch of my argument" but a change in the circumstances - you provided no sources at all when you added this information (an essay is not a source!) and then when heavily pestered and questioned on here about it, added a few sources most of which were pretty weak ones and several of which were unambiguously primary sources. WP:V is very clear about this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". This applies at present to over 90% of the article, and if by some fluke it is kept, I will be removing every challenged assertion, weasel word and POV statement that is not linked to a WP:RS compliant source. Orderinchaos 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you know, I've never heard of a thesis being viewed as a primary source - usually primary sources are documents like flinders' diary (when used as a source for what flinders was up to) - are you sure your interpretation is correct? Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)it's an odd wiki from time to time, so I'm sure there's a good chance you are![reply]

Check WP:PRIMARY - its there Satu Suro 07:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) retract now - that is humourless PA [reply]

Thing is, the material came from a website that is devoted to Sydney, and thus is written for precisely that readership (i.e. Sydney-based), which unfortunately does not automatically make it notable for a worldwide view. As such it really cuts a swathe across the topic with material which would be better placed in several parent articles at the moment, though feasibly could be a topic as the subject is expanded. I feel unhappy that the page exists while the parent (both suburb and Australian chinese) articles are so underdeveloped. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it was written specifically for a sydney readership as much as it was about a sydney subject - but I'll give this more thought. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, especially when it makes reference to alleged interstate migration to Sydney without, for example, looking at what was going on in Melbourne, Ballarat or Broome at the time. (If you do some research into it you'll find the White Australia Policy almost stopped at Broome's town limits, there was and is a thriving Chinese community there.) Orderinchaos 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 :::::::::I'm not sure that it was written specifically for a sydney readership as much as it was about a sydney subject - but I'll give this more thought. cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::::::Indeed, especially when it makes reference to alleged interstate migration to Sydney without, for example, looking at what was going on in Melbourne, Ballarat or Broome at the time. (If you do some research into it you'll find the White Australia Policy almost stopped at Broome's town limits, there was and is a thriving Chinese community there.) [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
+==Read more==
+You can read more by going to anomtalk.com except with "n" instead of "m".