Talk:Asian (people)

Vandalism
i think someone has done a bit of vandalism. there is a picture of Bill Cosby in the section on census. there is also a mean little bit about Spencer Abraham. thanx.

what happened to the talk page here? Le Anh-Huy 00:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone forgot to move it. It's here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

here.

West Asia
I think Western Asians should be included here. They live in the Asian (sub)continent. South Asians generally look closer to West Asians so I don't see why Persians, Arabs, and Turks aren't included here. Zachorious 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, West Asians are Asian, but from the way this article looks, it seems like it's describing groups of people who actually identify themselves as "Asian," either in Western society or within the Asian continent. By the way, the Subcontinent is synonymous with South Asia, which does not usually include West Asians. By appearance west Asians may have more of a connection to South Asians, but for the majority of South Asians, the similarity ends there. Keep in mind, many West Asians could pass for Oriental as well. It's just a few West Asian countries, like Afghanistan (which is sometimes included as South Asia) where people may look south Asian, while in others, particularly in the Middle East, they pass more for Caucasian. This being an article about the inhabitants of Asia, west Asians could fit in. But I guess my point is it makes no sense including them if they themselves rarely evoke the term "Asian" in any society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:GdaMan (talk • contribs)


 * West Asians probably deserve a note, but in everyday usage they are rarely considered to be Asian and do not fit the stereotypical Asian appearance. Additionally, the culture, which essentially defines an ethnic group, is extremely different, such as the prominence of Islam in West Asia compared to its relatively small population (practically no-one other than some of India).  Perhaps adding a note such as "While technically part of the continent of Asia, Western Asian peoples and cultures are considered to be separate from the definition discussed here" and then link its page for interested readers. *shrug* Keakealani 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

True true. But then again, even a lot of East Asians don't even fit the so-called stereo-typical "look" for Asians. Myself, my Japanese and my Kazakh friends always get bugged at the airport. Le Anh-Huy 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * nods* completely understandable...like any ethnic group, there will always be people who don't fit, but Japanese people as a whole fit the definition better than, say, Saudi Arabian people as a whole. If you want to write up a small section about Western Asians, that's fine, but I think it may be best to keep it in a separate main article. Keakealani 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At present, this article classifies all the ethnic groups of both China and India as 'Asian'. If they all conform even vaguely to the same stereotypical notion of what an Asian looks like, I'd like to know what this stereotype is, because I can't see any distinctive common features. It seems to me rather that different countries attach different meanings to 'Asian': for example, the word tends to mean 'South Asian' in the UK and even excludes the Chinese for census purposes, while in the USA the word implies 'East Asian' in common parlance. While this article does conform to the current US Census definition of Asian, presenting this as the principal definition, before discussing local definitions, seems biased to me. Perhaps instead the article should start by saying there is no international consensus on the meaning of the word, even among English-speaking countries, but that its meaning is usually more restrictive than 'people from Asia'. How equivalent words are used in other languages, such as those spoken in Asia, is another matter again, but I suspect in many languages there is an adjective that simply means 'from/of Asia' rather than the more specific meanings of 'Asian'.Incompetent 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whaa? re: Asian in Canada
''Some people are left out because they are Asian. People usually say they are chinese even though they are maybe not.''

I'd feel bad removing these two sentences completely, but as it were it is not professional or encyclopedic and is mostly nonsense. Could someone possibly translate this into something more meaningful? Otherwise, consensus for deletion? Keakealani 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

muslims/arabs
are muslims or arabs considered to be asian in the uk?


 * That really would depend. Islam spans many ethnic groups, from Arabs to South Asians to East Asians and anyone in between.  In the case of the UK, Arabs probably would not be considered Asian; I haven't seen "Arab" listed anywhere on the UK census forms.  I am assuming, that like in the US, they are mostly assumed to be Caucasian. However, Pakistanis, who are overwhelmingly Muslim are most definitely considered Asian and are in fact listed specifically under Asian, along with Indian and Bangladeshi.  --GdaMan 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)GdaMan

Dharmic religion map
If the extent Dharmic relgion were used to define Asia as a place, then current common usage of the term "Asian" follows from origins in the original peoples of Asia.

Leaving aside how poorly this caption is written, does the map even belong as the first graphic in this article? --Lukobe 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea, and I don't think is should be. Do you know of a better map of Asia that could be used? If anyone has just a plain map I'm sure I could photoshop in a highlight of the region considered "Asian". -- Keakealani //Me/Pokeh// 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Section removal
I've removed the section "When is a person not Asian?" due to the fact that it is essentially redundant and isn't particularly well phrased anyway. If anyone has any objections or would like to fix it, here it is: ==When is a person not Asian?== Despite the fact that these people are technically 'Asians' by geographical location, they have generally not been labeled as such in parts of or in some cases all of Western society. However, in many occasions, the term "Asian" is also used as a description of certain cultures.

I have also moved the 'South Asians' section to "Asians in the UK and Anglophone Africa, since it is redundant to have the same discussion in two separate places.

— Keakealani //Pokeh// 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SouthEast Asian pic representation
It would be nice if a southeast asian(of the malayo-polynesia austronesian stock) is represented in the pictures on the top of the page. --Chicbicyclist 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading census classification inference
In the section "Asian" in Asia, at least one of the captions is misleading. David Wu, who is of Chinese descent, would be considered Asian in the USA Census and the Australian Census but not in the UK Census. The classifications in the Australian census are:
 * 6 NORTH-EAST ASIAN
 * 61 Chinese Asian
 * 6101 Chinese

The Broad Groupings distinguish between south-east Asian, north-east Asian and southern and central Asian and do not appear to aggregate more highly to "Asian".

For the UK (see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes) there is a broad grouping of "Asian" and a broad grouping of "Chinese or other" - coding would almost always be to the second level ie 81 not 8. I don't see the significant difference to the Australian approach.

In the US, ''Asian — A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, The Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian.”'' The coding does indeed seem to roll up to "Asian".

There is some point being made here that I can't quite see. I think the assertion being inferred is that in the UK, if you are Chinese you are not Asian. That is a long bow. It may be that Chinese are aggregated separately from other Asians for census purposes because of the numbers in the past and hence the categorisation has been how to break the population down into reasonably sized classifications. It does not necessarily follow that Chinese does not equal Asian in the UK. However, it may be that the world view from the UK is different. For example, the scope of the School of Oriental and African Studies includes China and Africa together. I think more sophisticated refernces need to be used to make the point however that in the UK, Chinese are not considered Asians and/or Oriental and African is often grouped together.

"Would be considered Asian, ...would not be considered Asian seems original research. Statistical categorisation and aggregation does not equal "would be considered".  If what is meant is  "categorised", the article needs to say so and then also say in the case of "not categorised", what the categorisation was.--Arktos talk 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2001 UK Census link makes it clear that choice E "Chinese or other ethnic group" is in a different category than choice C "Asian or Asian British". These are both on the same level of categorization i.e. capitalized Latin letters, so it is unlikely that choice E was conceived to be included in choice C.  If "Chinese or other ethnic group" was conceived to be part of "Asian or Asian British", "Chinese or other ethnic group" would have a smaller level of categorization.  This is not to say that these concepts are disjoint.  If someone identified as both "Chinese or other ethnic group" and "Asian or British Asian", then they would mark choice B "Mixed".--Dark Tichondrias 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The captions read much better now in the sense of accuracy - thanks--Arktos talk 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do some Asians keep trying to associate themselves with Indians?
It's like some editors are so desperate to have a Caucasian group included in the Asian category, but you don't want Middle Easterners (even though they live in Asia too) because they've becom so controversial. Notice how the word Oriental became politically incorrect for no good reason. It's only because Oriental reminds people that Asians are not Caucasian, and by creating a new category called Asian, some take comfort in associating themselves with Indians because they're Caucasian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.32.51 (talk • contribs).


 * Asian is a very common term for a number of groups - including people with Indian ethnicity. I could provide more references, from at least the UK, Europe, and Australia if you would like. I am fairly certain the term is used in a similar way in the United States - though some parts of the world differ in how exactly the term is used (south asian, west asian, etc), the broader label almost invariably includes people from India. I don't see what your problem is. Whatever you are calling Caucasian does not come into it at all. You ask is it "based on race or geography. Which is it?" - it is based on all sorts of things, principally every common use of the term. If you read the article you will see there are a lot of different usages. One of the most definitive sources is the censuses in each country, because they set the standard for classification of ethnic groups in their countries - we discuss them a fair bit. Some usages are based on country of origin, and others are based on self-identification and ethnicity. We need to cover them all in this article. Do you have a source which says that people from the middle-east are Asian? - I would be very interested to see it. Just to note I do not think the article is perfect at the moment, and it could do with a few improvements, but there is no need to redirect the whole thing to mongoloid. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard any Indian describe herslef as Asian and it sounds like wishful thinking to me. They may describe themselves as South Asians but then Arabs describes themselves as West Asians. The UK census describes Indians as South Asian, but if you're going to have a generic category called Asian,  and you're only going to include some Asians in the category, then include only Orientals, because it was Orientals who created the term in the first place to replace the term Oriental.  But if you're going to make the term more inclusive and include Caucasian Asians, then include all the Caucasian Asians, not just the politically correct ones. In fact Arabs are more Asian than Indians are because India is a subcontinet.  What the hell is the point of an article called Asians that is only about East Asians, South East Asians and South Asians but not West Asians?  Why not just have separate articles for each subgroup. There's obviously a political motivation into lumping only certain completely unrelated regions of Asia into a meaningless category. Asianpeople 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm Indian, born and raised in the US, and I call myself Indian or Asian-American, South Asian only if I want to differentiate between myself and say, for instance, a Filipino. Do me a favor and google "British Asian," and see what you get.  Look at the link (reference #1 I believe) and it will show you that in the UK, Asians are Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, but NOT Chinese.  I've traveled to the UK to visit family on many occasions, and I know from personal experience that the term "Asian" there is used to describe Indians, usually more often than the specific ethnic term of Indian.  I have family in South Africa and parts of Eastern Africa as well, and even over there, the term "Asian" is usually default for those who resemble Indians, not usually an East Asian.  This clearly differentiates us from Arabs.  "Orientals" in the US created the term Asian to replace the word Oriental, but I completely disagree with you if you meant that the word Asian was conceived by Asians.  In fact, I think it is generally understood that it was a word devised by Westerners and that most Asians did not have a word for Asian in their respective languages.  India is a subcontinent ONLY because it is divided from the rest of Asia by the Himalayan mountain range, but a subcontinent still has to be a part of A Continent.  If it weren't a part of Asia, then it would be its own continent, right? Which it isn't because believe it or not, India shares about 1800 km or so of direct land to land border with China.  If you ask any Indian in America if they'd consider themselves Caucasian, I can guarantee you that none of them would say yes.  I believe the point of this article is to explain the term Asian as it is used in the various non-Asian countries and to point out the obvious differences in perspective that arise with the use of the term based on historical connotations.  Most Asians in the US happened to be Chinese and Japanese in the early 1900s, whereas in the UK they were Indian.  So the current usage of the term "Asian" reflects that history.  Though Arabs are Asian by technicality, I know of no Arab who would consider themselves Asian.  Please don't forget that not all Arabs resemble South Asians; many of them actually are Caucasian or have African roots.  The ones that resemble South Asians happened to have had major appearances in the news recently (e.g. Afghanistanis).  Also, the character of "Asian" is defined by MORE than just physical appearance; CULTURE is a major aspect.  And in that regard, the root culture of South Asia, Hinduism (which gave rise to Buddhism) is most definitely Asian and is probably a major reason why Indians consider themselves Asian rather than Caucasian.  Islam exists in South Asia and it is pretty prevalent, but that is true for other parts of Asia, too, with Indonesia being the world's largest Muslim country; yet they are Asian.  So I am not quite sure why you would call Arabs more Asian than us or why you would want to call us Caucasian Asians.  GdaMan 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)GdaMan
 * Actually, he's right. Indians are actually technically Caucasian. I do agree with you that "Asian" is more of a cultural term rather than an actual racial epithet. Asians in that sense includes the people of East and South-East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, central asians and to a limited extent, the people of the middle-east. Most of them share some aspect of thier culture snd is quite different from thier African and European counterparts. Most live on the Asian continent and like you mentioned, influenced or outright adapt each other's religion. --Chicbicyclist 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how Central Asians can be grouped with East Asians, South-East Asians and Indians, but only have a "limited extent" relationship to people of the Middle East. It simply defies logic. I would love to here how this imaginary line between the Middle East and Central Asia came into being. Technajunky 22:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm one of those Southeast Asian people who would rather see the the South Asians and the West Asians separate from the North Asians and the Austronesians. With that said, it's not my fault the Europeans and Americans prefer to group the three together in one umbrella term. --Chicbicyclist 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd just toss my two cents in here, that I personally consider Indians to be Asian regardless of what actual heredity they may have (Aryan, or whatever), simply because it is geographically and culturally much more similar to East Asia than it is to most Caucasian-majority nations. I'm Asian (of multiple decent), yes, but I hardly think that the term is something coined by Asians to get out of being called Oriental - if anything, it was from the rise of over-political-correctness that occurred in the '60s.  At any rate, I don't really care for the obvious bias against Asians claiming that it's wishful thinking and racism-motivated, because at least in my case, it's absolutely not.  If it's wishful thinking, it's verifiable wishful thinking...and then you could call gravity the same thing. — K  e  akealani  05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to my response to gdman's comment above--Chicbicyclist 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations for "Asians in the UK and Anglophone Africa"
I'm not quite sure why citations would be needed to state that Asians in the UK are primarily South Asian, but as for the Anglophone Africa part, does anyone out there think these two articles would work? One is from a University and mentions that Asians are primarily Indian there and even uses the term to describe Indians. The other is from the NY Times which also points out that Asians are mostly Indian in South Africa. So does anybody think either of these would fit the citations?

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=56001

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/travel/NYT_ALMANAC_WORLD_SOUTH_AFRICA.html?ex=1158379200&en=5c39fd0ef0f3e4d8&ei=5070 GdaMan 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)GdaMan

Asian (people) vs Asian people
Is there any particular reason why this article is called Asian (people) and not Asian people or Asians? --Ezeu 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They all redirect to each other so your point is somewhat moot.--Chicbicyclist 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware that they redirect to each other. My question, which compelled your unmannerly reply, should perhaps have been formulated more clearly. My inquiry is simply that: isnt "Asian people" or "Asians" a more simple and appropriate a title for this article than Asian (people)? --Ezeu 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? It's just nitpicking on your part.--Chicbicyclist 10:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is bloody nitpicking. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer. I'll save your the quarrel, keep the damn title. --Ezeu 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ezeu, I think that the word phrase Asian People sounds racist, the word Asian is already People of a continent, seriously, i find this title rite now racist, it should be Asian(people).jackietang33 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Asians in Asia
Should we also mention what the term Asian means in Asia? Obviously things are somewhat different here since in Asia, "Asians" would generally not be used and instead more descriptive words chosen. However, most Asians who speak English would probably still have a concept for the term. Coming from Malaysia (although I live in New Zealand now), I would say most Malaysians (and Singaporeans) would consider South Asians, South-East Asians and East Asians as Asians. I'm not so sure about West Asians/Middle Easterns however Nil Einne 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To GdaMan, Afghans are NOT Arabs, they are mostly Indo-European (Pashtuns, Tajiks)or Mongols(Uzbeks, Hazaras). Afghanistan is NOT a part of the Middle East anymore than what Pakistan is. Afghanistan is usually classed as Central Asia or South Asia as much of it used to be a part of the Indian Moghul Empire. According to the faulty logic of this article, a Baluchi tribesman from Pakistan is `Asian' but a Baluchi from Iran is not (a Baluchi from Iran would BTW be classed as `white' in the US census), even though they belong to the same race!


 * Well, I would argue that Afghanistan is in the Middle East. For future reference, could you please sign your postings? Technajunky 08:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Asian Look
Should there be a section that describes what asians look like such as facial structure, skin color, etc? Sadmind 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhhh no. First of all, it would be impossible to pin this down without resorting to stereotypes. Second.... it would be impossible to pin this down without resorting to stereotypes. Third... (see above). But sincere thanks for the obviously well-intended suggestion.--Ling.Nut 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Asian (people) article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):


 * Wow, a lot of progress since I reviewed it a mere 6 weeks ago.
 * Wow again, tons of references. Kudos!
 * I still think it focuses just a little too much on the issue of identity. Some discussion, relatively brief, of issues such as language, culture etc. would probably be beneficial.
 * Needs infobox; use Infobox Ethnic group or one with a white background similar to the one at Jew and Taiwanese aborigines.

You can give this article (and any other article within the WikiProject) a rating, as described below.


 * -->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner Ethnic groups that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the Ethnic groups template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! -- --Ling.Nut 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

MAPS
Please include a map of the Indian subcontinent by itself to indicate what is identified as `Asian' in the U.K. and how pathetic the British are by restricting `Asian' to only 3 countries (India,Pakistan, Bagladesh) out of a continent of 3.8 billion people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.54.182 (talk • contribs).
 * There would have to be a few maps. If you ask anyone in the UK whether someone from Thailand or Japan is Asian, they will say yes! -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish! In the UK, `Asian' in the census is restricted to South Asians only and you know it! Asians from the Far-East are referred to as `Chinese or other' in the census and they are classed as `Orientals' in society a term considered offensive these days. Britain is statistically clased as being 4% Asian, but that is only South Asians. West Asians are ticked as `other', or some of them have the nerve to tick that they are `white other'. Britain would be close to 6 per cent Asian including people from the Far-East and Middle East.
 * What I said is not rubbish. Of course the ONS has its own ideas, and these are widely used, but so are other uses. The term 'Orientals' is not as widespread as this article sometimes suggests. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The British media and society is educating its young to restrict the definition of `Asian' to only South Asians. I have read many UK books and texts which place East Asians in a separate non-Asian category. Nonsensical ludicrous statements like "China and Asia" (seperate?). I did read a travel gide call once called `India and Asia', but this was due to the fact that India is sometimes referred to as `the Sub-continent' and hence a separate category.

INCLUDE ALL ASIANS IN THE STATISTICS AT THE START INCLUDING WEST ASIANS! ARABS, PERSIANS AND TURKS ARE ASIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Language" section of the Info Box
What is the purpose of the Language section of the Info Box? It is sadly inadequate. Asians speak hundreds (literally) of languages. The Info Box includes Vietnamese but not Thai??? Kristang but not Hmong???? What about Khmer (Cambodian) with over 8 million speakers or Lao or Burmese? What about the myriad of languages spoken by the Mongloid people groups in the area of greater Manchuria, some of which are Uralic languages? There's also Jurchen, Hmar, Chru, Samre, Phnong, Brao, Semang, Temiar, Akha, Karen, Kachin, Mien, Khmu, Cham....do I need to go on? I don't have any suggestions for a solution, in fact this whole page seems so arbitrary, I'm surpised it hasn't been AfD'ed more often.--WilliamThweatt 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Asian people?
What's that?!

I mean: seriously. What have Gujaratis and Koreans in common that makes them a single ethnic group? I think this article has a strong Anglo-Saxon bias (though maybe some Asian ideological POV too). It's not, I think an encyclopedic article and it seems to fall under some of the categories for deletion per WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.


 * I would argue it an an extreme Asian-American idealogical bias, and POV. Technajunky 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Aditionally is clearly outraging that West Asians and Siberians are arbitrarily excluded from Asian-ness. Look at a map of Asia, please. --Sugaar 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. Technajunky 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article represents a neutral point of view since it cites the UK, US, Australia,and Canada defintions; the article doesn't take one point of view and hold it up as the single opinion. To address the other accusation, the article's citations show that it is not original research.--Dark Tea  21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The U.S and U.K should have nothing to do with this article. Technajunky 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely: it's just too Anglo-Saxon in conception. Would it represent a consensus or at least a wide opinion current amon Asians (and I mean Asians living in Asia), it could make some sense but that's not the case. The problem is that you are talking about Asians from and Ango-Saxon POV, like if that definition was real. After all, an ethnic group's main trait is self-identification as such, if Asians don't self-identify as such (except in the very generalistic geographic sense) it makes no sense to have an article for the Asian people (singular???). It rather should be merged in Asia (continent) and the corresponding sections of US, UK, Canadian and Australian census articles.
 * As I said above, I'm studying to propose it for deletion. I just want to know more opinions before I proceed. --Sugaar 13:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Asian" people is a perfectly valid concept in the English language and, quite often, refers to people of Asian descent living in the U.S. or UK and other English-speaking places. A large number of people in these countries self-identify using this word.  Regardless of whether "Asian" in this sense is a Western concept (and it almost certainly is; cf oriental), "Asian" people is a notable and frequently uttered idea that merits a Wikiedia article; merging the article's content into the "Asia" would be inappropriate.  The article is not and never was intended to be about "people in Asia" or "people from Asia"--it's more about "people who look Asian" or "people who Westerners consider Asian" or "Westerners who consider themselves Asian".  If you find this concept ridiculous or controversial, go ahead and note that in the article using reliable sources who support your point.


 * Personally, I'm unhappy with how much space is spent parsing the various government definitions of who is Asian and who is not. It's slighlty interesting but should not be the crux of the article.  I would like to see an effort to intelligently trace the evolution of the relatively recent idea "Asian" in the West, with a focus on how the word itself supplanted terms like "oriental."  I doubt you'd find the support to delete this article, but perhaps it should be reduced to something rather stubby, with prominent links to articles like Asian Americans, British Asian, Asian Australian, etc.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have nailed it, FatMan: this article deals with the concept of "Asian" in Anglo-Saxon countries, not with the real (universal) concept of Asian peoples. And it should be very clear in the first line.
 * Aditionally, by extension, most of what it's written here should be merged into Asia, in a yet unexistent section called "Demographics of Asia".
 * In brief it needs a huge cleanup. --Sugaar 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've made the following changes:
 * Added a cursive line on top reading: This article deals primarily or exclusively with the defiition of Asian in several Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly refering to immigrants or descendants of immigrants in them. For Asians living in Asia, see: Asia.
 * Changed Common definition of Asian by scope of the common Anglo-Saxon definition of "Asian".
 * Provisionally removed the "globalize" template.

Note: the above are just a provisional attempt to "fix" the ambiguities of the article. It does not mean that I agree with the existence of this article as such. --Sugaar 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Aditionally: someone must fix that template floating on the left top corner of the article ASAP. It's really ugly. If you can't fix it, better delete it with the associated map. --Sugaar 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups template
I'm also removing the WikiProject Ethnic groups template as it's not clear that this censal definition actually refers to any ethnic group at all: but just to a catch-all tag of racialist census in Anglo-Saxon countries. --Sugaar 11:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the US Census claims to be defining racial groups, the Austrailian and UK census claim to be defining ethnic groups, so I am re-adding the ethnic group template.--Dark Tea 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not a member of the WikiProject. You have no authority to do that. There's been a discussion in the WikiProject and the consensus was that this article didn't merit our patronage. --Sugaar 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! You refer to the infobox template. That's something diferent. I think that it is misleading because it talks of real Asians and not Asians in Anglo countries. I strongly suggest that you throughtly review it.
 * You can either write an article on the Peoples of Asia or an article on the racial category of White Anglo-Saxon countries' census. These are two different things and you are mixing them at will, what really, merits deletion (in my humble opinion) because ultra-POV messing up. It's like talking of olive oil from the exclusive viewpoint of Denmark. A total nonsense. --Sugaar 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All that would need to change would be the population figures. Instead of calculating Asia's population, it would calculate Asia's diasporic population.--Dark Tea  17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, what the article would need is a radical change of focus towards a true ethnological article on Asian peoples that would include all Asia and not focus on the Anglo racialist concept of "Asian", that should rather only occupy a small section of the whole article.
 * As it's not the case (though I can't understand why) you'd better start calculating the Asian diaspora in Anglo countries.
 * It is still very confuse (POV) anyhow. This article will never become a good article with such a focus. --Sugaar 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ireland
when you say asian in ireland does it refer to people from pakistan, india, or does it refer to chinese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.207.127 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

People of Asia or "Asian race"?
Filipinos are Asian, Malays are Asian, Indonesians are Asian, heck, are the Rapanui Asian too? Or do the first three Austronesian groups have more in common with Arabs, Jews, and Persians, all of whom live in Asia? 210.213.172.229 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I wouldn't mind if the article's title was changed to Asian race, but I feel the term "Asian people" attracts fewer vandals.--Dark Tea 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Demographics of Asia
I really believe this article should be renamed to Demographics of Asia, the same way European people redirects to Demographics of Europe. You can't just lump the Indo-Europeans of the subcontinent and Siberia, the Japanese, the Semitic peoples, the Austronesians, and the Turkic peoples together and call them the "Asian people". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.170.148 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * For the European racial group there exists the white people article, so it is okay that the term European people redirects to Demographics Europe. For the Asian racial group, this is the article, so we cannot redirect it to demographics.--Dark Tea  11:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Asian people should redirect to Demographics of Asia and this present article should be renamed something akin to Census definitions of the term Asian since the main body of this article concerns that topic. "Asian racial group" is also problematic, Indians may be Asian under certain definitions yet so are Turks (Norwegian census). Diego de Sequeira 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The United States Census is the only census to define the Asian racial group. All other censuses define a "broad grouping" or an "ethnicity".--Dark Tea 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the different census definitions causes problems with the template, as it is based on the US Census; it includes South Asians but excludes Central Asians. Perhaps it should be removed in favour of a photo of a person from East Asia, India, and so forth. Information on the template (such as languages spoken on the Asian continent) could be transferred to the main page. Diego de Sequeira 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The representative photo idea would not reflect the Australian censal understanding of Asian. The Australian Census' "Broad Grouping" is based entirely on culture, so anybody can fit the bill.  Only the US Census' racial definition demands indigenous ancestry which would make the representative photo appropriate.--Dark Tea  11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussions of the Australian census is best left for it's own page, or perhaps a Definitions of Asian by country compilation page, as not every country's census can be covered here. Leaving aside the photo discussion, the template does still need to be excluded, for the reasons above. Thoughts welcome. Diego de Sequeira 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the population tabulations should be made showing all definitions. For every definition, the population could have an internal link to the section of the article whose definition is being examined.  I could Google how to do it in HTML or we could have someone else do it, but I know it can be done. This proposition could also apply to the language list as well.--Dark Tea  23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to include every country's definition such as Norway's definition that includes Turks. Trying to use an ethnic group box for a broad grouping of people that even crosses racial boundaries is incorrect, in my opinion.
 * The infobox should be removed. This article deals mainly with the legal definition of “Asian” as employed in different countries (as stated in the header), so an ethnic-group infobox would be inappropriate. —Lagalag 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing the article's name to something as specific as "Definitions of Asian in censuses" would violate Naming conventions because no English speaker would type that phrase in a search engine.--<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Asian people could link to the new article which lists definitions by country, as well as Demographics of Asia as someone suggested earlier. Diego de Sequeira 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)