Talk:From China to Canada

Canada: History Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

China

	China portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Tetsuden Kashima[edit]

http://depts.washington.edu/aes/faculty/tkashima.php

He's still at the school. I wonder how his name is written in Japanese. If that can be found it should be mentioned in all articles mentioning his name (unless he's notable for an article: then his Japanese name would only be in that article) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia E. Roy[edit]

Patricia E. Roy wrote a lot of detail about the book in her review, and I think some of what she said needs to be noted:

On p. 151 of her review she wrote that the footnotes" are marred by some careless errors" and one example she wrote is that the book stated that a source had an "M.S. thesis" from Cariboo College which in fact (at the time) did not give out degrees.
On p. 150: Roy stated the authors "back off from historiographical controversy" and that while they document anti-Chinese sentiment in Whites (her wording: "document much of the white antagonism towards the Chinese") the authors "prudently sit on the fence on the question of whether economic forces or negative stereotypes had the greater influence on creating hostility. (p. 269)"
- In the next paragraph on the same page Roy stated "An essential part of the history of the Chinese in Canada is their often unhappy relationship with the larger white community and their severe and long-standing legal disabilities."

It may help, then, to cross-check or double check what the footnotes say. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should note that - the unhappy relationship with the larger white (and other) community is a central part of the current polity and per NPOV you should be researching and reporting honestly what the other side of the relationship says and thinks; you pointedly ignore all that, as do the POV/biased ethno-stump sources you so clearly prefer. You have done nothing towards that, only attacked me for pointing out the mounting POV of the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia article; that not being the only of its many failings; instead of address those matters, perhaps by using the many sources you haven't even begun to look at, you might learn something about BC past and present; instead of seeing things through only one side of a one-way mirror; your sources almost without exception make sweeping negative generalizations about "whites" (when the events or issues in question actually have to do with more than just "whites"). Roy is one of many major BC historians you should read, beyond those many other books I've told you about and you rant about page-citing rather than make any effort to go and learn from before continuing your monomaniacal avalanche of biased and often a-factual academic sources; Roy points out the minefield of addressing that matter, and you should heed that instead of continuing to look for negative-about-whites content for your various pet projects in Canadian history, about which you know abysmally little and clearly do not have a clear grasp on. By all means, read footnotes, but remember to read the whole book and not just the footnotes and cites, same with Howay & Scholefield, George Woodcock, the Akriggs, Orsmby and many others, in addition to the local histories, some of which are online but obvious are not of interest to you at all.Skookum1 (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]