Talk:American-born Chinese

Why is this an article?
This article just gives a definition. How is it notable? If it is notable, should we make more American-born articles?71.251.46.27 (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with this. Short of diplomatic exceptions, the vast majority of Americans are American born. The term is also misleading and a misnomer as well, because in many cases it refers to Americans who are not Chinese. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow mate you know absolutely fuck all about chinese people do you? When people say they are American born chinese, they mean that they are americans who are ethnically Han Chinese, often shortened to just "Chinese" as they make up 90% of China's population. In another thread you suggested that "First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang." Who the fuck are the "White chinese" and "Black chinese" exactly? Does all of your knowledge of East Asia come from Anime? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Americans are ethnically American. The average Asian American, with the exception of first generation immigrants, speaks American English as a native tongue, lives an American life, and knows little about Chinese cultural specifics and habits.


 * In China there are millions of Black/African Chinese in places like Guangdong, and millions of White Chinese across the country as well. You are being extraordinarily racist by erasing these people. Also, I need not remind you that personal attacks and abusive language are against guidelines. Such hostile behavior is a dereliction of duty. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no "ethnic" americans, unless you count Native Americans. The africans who live in guangdong probably don't identify as chinese, just as persian merchants in ancient china didn't. "Han Chinese" IS an ethnicity. go read the article on ethnic group fully, and then come back to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Every American raised in America is ethnically American, when American is being used as shorthand to refer to the "United States of America". Millions of Black Chinese in Guangdong and many other places in China are Chinese citizens. "Chinese" is indeed an ethnicity, however Americans who generally do not know anything about China, Chinese cultural norms, Chinese popculture, and cannot speak the language, do not qualify. Go read the article on ethnic group fully, and then come back to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how we feel labels for social groups / ethnicities should work, Wikipedia follows a descriptivist approach and reflects how reliable sources generally describe things. Someone can both identify with being an American national and being of Chinese descent, which does not make it contradictory or a misnomer. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there Wikipedia guideline I can read on descriptivism? Also, even by that interpretation, there are sources that describe it as a misnomer because strictly speaking, it is. I also question whether the article is even necessary, as we do not have articles on "American-born British" and "American-born German", which would both be misnomers respectively, even though the ethnic groups they refer to are significantly larger. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the difference is, American-born Chinese is a recognised, widely used term. Neither of the terms you mention are. You clearly want Wikipedia to bend to your pedantry, which isn't going to happen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, and most editors who have posted on the talk page are in agreement. You clearly want Wikipedia to bend to your pedantry, which isn't going to happen. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is discussed on WP:NEUTRAL, more specifically WP:IMPARTIAL: – Thjarkur (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating a misnomer as not a misnomer isn't impartiality though, it is bias. If we should stick strictly to the facts, then the term should be described as what it is. Mentioning what it is in plain language, does not have to interfere with describing how it's used. Since it can be logically proven that it is indeed a misnomer, what is your objection to this? Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think this article should be removed, you can request for a deletion. The previous deletion request was in 2009. Consensus here may have changed in the meantime... Or not. Good luck. robertsky (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)