Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 1

Criminal issues
The Criminal issues section reads:


 * In fact, Asians make up such a small percentage of the criminal population that the Department of Justice often does not present specific data for Asians when accounting for criminals by race.

It is common practice not to present disaggregated data (in this case "Asian-specific") where the percentage is very small. The wording of the article ("In fact;" "such a small percentage") makes it sound as though non-disaggregation is a special privilege for non-criminal Asians. Apologies, but I find it easier to write this critique than to reword. --ishu 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

major edit today
Tried to make it more inclusive and give it a heavy dose of Asian American Studies 101. Still rather rough, but a lot of the immigration stuff is in -- left out a lot, potential focuses are now like legal, media, labor, women's issues -- you name it! Zhongyi


 * Sign your posts please. Fuzheado

Asian Pacific American
Asian Pacific American redirects here. There is no mention of the Pacific Islanders in this article. --Jiang

I am Dark Tichondrias and I would like to point out that on the 2000 US Census Pacific Islanders self-defined themselves to be their own race, because they felt like they lacked similarity with the Asian Americans.

"Asian Studies" POV
The strong POV in this article is really disturbing. Open debates are presented as fact. The question of whether or not oriential refered to a "colonial" notion has nothing to do with the term's modern-day applicability, for example. See also the labor shortage point, which is an economic issue that is just stated as a given.


 * Please sign your posts. Above written by User:66.231.17.107.


 * What is "open debate" in this article?


 * The term "oriental" has connections with European colonialism of the past. The history of the term "oriental" is related to its present day applicability, just as there are historical reasons for why "negro" and "colored" are not considered appropriate today to describe African Americans.


 * The economic issues surrounding a certain group are crucial for understanding. Many Asian Americans (and their ancestors) came to America looking for work, and it should be mentioned in this article.


 * -- J3ff 09:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The "workforce deficiencies" can probably be reworded. But it should still be mentioned that the many Asians came to America to find for work.


 * -- J3ff 09:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Affirmative Action reference
I removed the following:
 * Asian Americans are often overrepresented at many educational institutions that do not practice affirmative action

since the proportion of Asian Americans is much higher than 3% at many institutions that do practice Affirmative Action, Harvard being only one example. We can discuss admissions practices that appear to put a "ceiling" on Asian populations, but the removed statement implies a lot of cause and effect that is highly controversial. --ishu 05:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ishu, a good edit. Also, I don't like the term "overrepresented" because of it connotes that one is getting more than is warranted, and am glad to see another way of stating it. Fuzheado | Talk 05:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Asian American' = 'oriental' ?
I removed the following:
 * This is an artifact of "Asian American" being a synonym for "oriental," which derives from a Latin word meaning "East."

I don't think that 'Asian American' is, or was intended to be, a synonym for 'oriental'. The idea is that the term 'Oriental' is imprecise due to its complicated and convoluted etymology. At different times it has to the Ottoman Empire and its descendants, and everything east to the Pacific Ocean. The usage in the U.S. during the mid- to late-20th century was narrower, but ill-defined. The other objection has been its colonial origin and associated connotations, referencing "east" relative to Europe. Asia is a defined land mass. On it are reasonably well-defined political states. There are somewhat well-defined ethnic groups within/across those. The reference is clear and more precise. --ishu 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Asian American Definition Website
This an informative Asian American website made by me Dark Tichondrias www.asianracedefinition.zoomshare.com

Link to Yellow Peril from here?
(originally posted on User_talk:J3ff:) Hello Jeff! You just reinserted the link that i had deleted from Asian American. My intention was not to gloss over this ugly part of history, but rather to put it in the correct context. There are many aspects of Asian-American history, and i believe it is better to group them together than to pick the one of them that is an ethnic slur to represent all of Asian-American history in that section. The article was already in Category:Chinese American history and i added it to Category:Japanese American history, which both can be found via the new Category:Asian American-related topics. It felt a bit odd to assign it to these two particular groups - as if other groups were not harrased. Maybe we should create a Category:Asian American history and link to it directly from Asian American – that would remove one mouseclick on the way to the Yellow Peril article. What do you think? 19:48, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

(replying to first, less clear version of the above statement:) Yes, I agree this was an ugly part of American history. However, I feel it should be included along with Model Minority. Model Minority may seem to be a "positive stereotype", but it is nontheless as racist as Yellow Peril. I do not feel Wikipedia should be censored in anyway. Feel free to leave any questions or comments on my talk page. &mdash; J3ff 19:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after clarification of above statement:) That's a good idea for creating an Asian American history category. However, I still think the link to Yellow Peril should remain in the article Asian American. &mdash; J3ff 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you want to keep the balance. And i am not generally opposed to mentioning that period of history in an article about Asian Americans. But i think there are better models: 20:29, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of a history section – if this article had one.
 * I disagree that it is necessary to balance the Model Minority link. The former is history, the latter is current. It makes sense to collect historical information one step removed from current one.
 * If you insist that the Model Minority link is imbalanced we also can consider removing this link altogether. It doesn't only apply to Asian Americans, anyway.

I agree that Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article. Until someone adds a section in the article describing Yellow Peril, I think it should be left as a link under "See also". &mdash; J3ff 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that "Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article". Please reread my first bullet point. (Maybe I should highlight the second half.) 21:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Am I mistaken? I thought you meant that Yellow Peril should be included in a history section (a section that currently doesn't exist). I'm saying that it should be kept as a link until such a section is created. &mdash; J3ff 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i meant – iff we had one. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to cherry pick a particular part of history and present it on a prominent place outside of historical context. The "See also" section of this article is prime advertizing space for all things Asian American. Bear in mind that i just agreed with Nectarflowed to remove Wing Luke Asian Museum from this list for this reason. 21:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it matters if the historical context is presented in the article it is linked from (the Asian American article). If readers wish to read the article, they'll click the link and see the historical context in the Yellow Peril article itself.  Is there a policy on Wikipedia that articles listed under "See also" must be current?


 * Yellow Peril is significantly related to Asian Americans. Listing it is not the same as trying to create a link farm to advertise museums or businesses. &mdash; J3ff 21:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's it. I give up. I tried my best to convince you with rational arguments, but you just ignore or distort them. Policies are beside the point. I never said there was a policy for my way, but there is none for your way, either. This is something that rational people should be able to solve by listening to each other's arguments. I understand that you personally are very attached to this link. If your happiness depends on putting it there, be my guest. I can live with it. 22:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thank you, Nectarflowed, for adding the history section – you did the right thing, where we two knuckleheads couldn't agree. 00:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing up the topic and exploring it's implications, as well as maintaining this article with me :) Nectarflowed (talk) 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition
Why isn't the definition simply, "an American of Asian ancestry or an Asian immigrant to the United States"? Someone who was born in the United States is not necessarily an American.
 * (above question posted by 128.226.195.158 on May 1)

That's a good question. Any objection to changing it? &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


 * I object. For reference, the current definition reads:
 * An Asian American can be generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry or origin who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States.


 * The current definition clearly defines (and distinguishes between) the two key attributes of being Asian American: (1) Asian ancestry; and (2) a definable relationship to the United States.  The second part clearly avoids defining American, which requires an extensive disambiguation page (also see Use of the word American).  The relationship clause also provides criteria to indicate who is included (citizen by birth or immigrant) and who is excluded (e.g., tourists).  They're not airtight (e.g., a tourist overstaying a visa for work), but at least they're debatable on their own terms.


 * Using the word American in the definition of Asian American (as proposed above) raises more questions than it answers. We can debate how to define the relationship to the United States, but the definition should be clear.  The current definition is wordy (i.e., could be improved), but it is conceptually clear.


 * Asian Americans have featured roles in several major controversies and legal legacies (e.g., Ozawa and Thind) over what defines American. I think it is important to explicitly include immigrants and natural-born citizens in the definition to make it clear that citizenship is not required to be included in the definition.  Since Asian immigrants were denied citizenship for most of U.S. history, many people would argue that they are not "Americans" since they are not citizens.   It is important to specify that Asian Americans include citizens and non-citizens, immigrants and natural-born citizens.


 * As an aside, there are plenty of European Americans who are citizens by birth but who reside abroad. For the most part, these people are considered to be Americans, both by people in the U.S. and in their host/home countries.
 * --ishu 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

South Asian American
I've expanded upon that article a bit, about the South Asian subgroup as a whole, so South Asian American probably shouldn't be merged in here. Arun 10:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Philippine-American War
I changed the reference to the Philppine-American War to "also see" since the existing sentence implied that immigration to the U.S. was a result of the Philippine-American War. The annexation (or whatever we choose to call it) of the Philippines is what enabled the immigration, not the ensuing insurrection. --ishu 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

removing link
I am removing the link to www.selectiveasia.com because it clearly does not add anything to the article. --vaeiou 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Demographics
I think that the demographics section is getting too mired in minutiae.

I changed the reference to East Brunswick, New Jersey back to Cherry Hill, New Jersey because of the earlier reference to Philadelphia, not because I think Cherry Hill is more important than East Brunswick. I appended "of these cities" to "suburbs" to clarify this relationship and hopefully prevent link-creep to an endless list of suburbs. For Pete's sake, if we must reference Middlesex County, then a better candidate is adjacent Edison Township, which has twice as many Asian Americans and is well known in the region for the South Asian district there, as well as a significant Chinese American population. But the suburbs of New York are better known as enclaves for Asian Americans; those of Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston less so, which is the reason for the original reference to Cherry Hill.

Unfortunately, once something goes in an entry (e.g., this suburbs discussion), it's hard to take it out. This might be a good case for reduction, or moving to another section. The proportion of Filipinos to Chamorros is not irrelevant, but it isn't quite on-point with respect to aggregate demographics of Asian Americans. For example, the specific ethnicities within any particular state are not discussed in this section, and are more appropriate topics for the individual state articles. --ishu 07:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a reasonable concern. I added the link (List of U.S. cities with Asian American majority populations) under the Demographics section. Perhaps another list should be created to say List of U.S. cities with large Asian American population. Mikefzhu 02:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Asian Americans in Sports
Are Ichiro Suzuki and Yao Ming, two people who are Japanese and Chinese citizens respectively, considered "Asian Americans?" I think they should be omitted from this article, as they are not "American citizens with Asian ancestry", unlike Michelle Kwan. I have a feeling that a few other people mentioned in this article are not Asian Americans, although I haven't checked this. I would really appreciate some input.--Xmts 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they should be removed too. --Lukobe 05:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I don't think most the pictures and images are really appropriate for the article. Photos of real people should be used instead, and the first image 1) doesn't really seem necessary and 2) is of poor quality. Anyone else agree? --Lukobe 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. No offense to the person who took the time in making them, though. --Chris S.

I re-deleted them after they were re-added. Haven't had the time yet to add images of real people, but I really don't think the pictures belong in the article. Can the editor who re-added them comment here? --Lukobe 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He added them to my personal talk page--I'm reposting them here; the discussion should take place on the talk page of the article in question. --Lukobe 05:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the drawings I drew are better than real pictures of Asian Americans. I spent twelve months, going once per week to an Asian-Indian club. I did this to find out how to draw South Asians. I asked "Who is the most Indian-looking?" I modeled my pictures after their descriptions. I also feel my pictures allowed me to choose pictures of Asians who looked like the average face instead of the "prettiest" face. --Dark Tichondrias 1:00 February 25 2006


 * Again, I'd have to disagree. I think actual photographs are better than non-lifelike drawings in this context. True, Asian Americans who have Wikipedia articles with photos might be better looking than the average Asian American, but then again maybe not. Perhaps you could pick out some which you'd find acceptable? Anyway--anyone besides the two of us have an opinion on this? --Lukobe 05:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some actual photos. --Lukobe 06:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that real-life pictures are okay as long as they are balanced. There should be equal amounts of men and women portrayed and equal amounts of East, Southeast, and South Asians. Please, find two Southeast Asian faces and a South Asian woman for the Asian page. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Tichondrias (talk • contribs). [moved from User_talk:Lukobe]


 * We have one East Asian woman, one South Asian man, and one Southeast Asian man. Wouldn't being "balanced" mean we need to add one East Asian man, one South Asian woman, and one Southeast Asian woman? Anyway...feel free to find such pictures and add them...I don't think we want to put TOO many pictures in here... --Lukobe 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like the drawings are back. Does ANYONE else want to chime in on this? --Lukobe 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Asia redefinition
This article asserts that:

1. " "Asia" consists of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. " (for the purposes of this term)

Question: How can Asia be redefined ? It is geographically clear what Asia is. This statement is surely a nonsense.


 * Certainly. I think the article is trying to say that, generally, Americans of Far Eastern, Southeast Asian, or Indian Subcontinental descent are considered Asian Americans, and Americans of, say, Lebanese or Turkish descent are not. --Lukobe 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

2. " Asian-American replaces Oriental "

Question: Surely (assuming the absurd redefinition in 1 is applied) Asian American includes and replaces Oriental as well as including persons from SE Asia and south Asia ?

Is this article a true representation of what Americans believe this term to mean ? If this is so, then the answers to the above two points need to be discussed, as to non Americans, this seems like the article is a nonsense in these two respects.

In addition, what about central Asians, Israelis and Turks - shouldn't descendents of these peoples be Asian Americans too - if not then this article should make clear what US hyphernated American label is applied to these people. And what about Russians (from Vladivistok for instance) - if, as many are, they are of East Asian appearance - are they Asian Americans if their descendants emigrate to the USA ? Is a person emigrated to the USA from Uganda an Asian American if he is of Indian appearance (after Idi Amin booted Indian descendants out) ? Or are they African Americans ? Or neither ? Many Pashtuns have pale skin and blue eyes, and many have often been mistaken as being of traditionally European appearance, but under this definition, such peoples descendants in the USA would be Asian Americans. However, perhaps it is fortunate that the redefinition of Asia is applied as if it were not then descendants of Cypriot Greeks in the USA would also be Asian Americans - after all Cyprus is in geographic Asia, even though it is now in the European Union.

These questions do not need answering here, of course. But they serve to demonstrate that this article is poor as it asserts the term Asian American as if it has true meaning, whereas meaning is surely subjective to the user. Therefore the subjectivism of the term and its use should also be discussed. What the term means is surely the first purpose of this article (the matter is glossed over in the "Definition" paragraph) before going on to list people and history as if the term is defined and clear.

Thoughts ? I am not American and am merely confused as to the use of this term, if anyone thinks I am trying to make a major point of US use of American hyphernated identity (a point which I am not attempting to make)--jrleighton 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a great starting point. We should definitely talk it over. I think there is absolutely no doubt that people of Korean, Japanese, and Chinese descent "qualify." We can very likely add to that Mongolian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Burman, Thai, and Malaysian. Indonesia and Philippines as well? Comments? --Lukobe 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense to anybody here, but I think this discussion of "Redefinition" pretty much belongs here instead: Asian. It seems the discussion centers around what is considered "Asian" and not so much Americans of Asian descent, or Asian Americans. As far as definition and usage goes, the important issue is covered at the above "Definition" section of this Talk.

But I am of the opinion that this entry needs to be expanded anyway, so we can add texts concerning how the US government defines "Asian American" for the census, and also texts concerning self-identification. Hong Qi Gong 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest deleting the second sentence of the introduction, so that the introduction reads simply:
 * An Asian American is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry or origin who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States.
 * This change should address jrleighton's first concern, which I share, more or less.
 * jrleighton's second concern appears to be the subjective nature of the term Asian American. That is a much more extensive topic that should not be complicated further by deploying arbitrary definitions of what is and is not part of Asia.
 * I will attempt to address the subjectivity point as briefly as I can. jrleighton appears to seek a dictionary-style ("defined and clear") definition of Asian American:
 * What the term means is surely the first purpose of this article ... before going on to list people and history as if the term is defined and clear.
 * The term has an historical origin and usage that have been more or less in dispute since their inception. (That they are in dispute should not necessarily impact the legitimacy of the term or of this topic.)  As a result of these disputes, and in parallel with historical trends, the meaning of the term has changed over time.  As such, there is no fixed or "true meaning" of the term as jrleighton notes.  But many other articles have the same problem.  African American and Jew are obvious parallels, but we should also compare terms that have common usage versus more studied/formal usages such as technology and science; or conservatism and liberalism.  The common usage is often very different from the formal usage.  Generally, the origins and historical usage of the term are a critical part and purpose of this or any article
 * With respect to Asian American, the common usage has impact on the people it defines (and excludes) and this may change behaviors, which changes usage of the term. This is true for certain other sociological concepts that have common and formal usage.
 * jrleighton asks whether the article represents "a true representation of what Americans believe this term to mean," but I would argue that "Americans" mostly believe that the meaning of Asian American is self-evident, even though "Americans" would not easily agree as to what it means. This is why the historical development of usage of Asian American is a key part of the article.
 * The Usage section notes that the initial usage of term Asian American was an alternative to the colonial Oriental, which referred primarily to people "from" what we now call East Asia. For better or worse, over 30 years this initial use has collided with historical changes (see Immigration Trends) in which people from all parts of Asia are more represented.  Asian and Asian American once were used as substitutes for Oriental (meaning Chinese and Japanese, principally).  Now usage of Asian is commonplace, and the reference is increasingly to the whole of Asia.
 * We should recall that pre-1970s (1980s?) census categories did not include an Asian category for race. Only after activists advocated for the use of Asian and Asian American was the census category added, which has been expanded ever since.
 * OK, that wasn't brief at all. Much, much more to discuss.  --ishu 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the citizenship issue, I basically agree with what was said in the above Definition section of the Talk. As for what ethnic groups would be included in "Asian American", I suggest we simplify things by mentioning 1) what the current US Census says, and 2) also that some individuals may or may not self-identify with the grouping.  What is considered "Asian" is already covered in another entry (Asian).  Hong Qi Gong 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Asians Comparison Changed to Whites
I changed a section to make Asians be compared to Whites as a group with different physical and cultural traits. Before it was being compared with Hispanic. Hispanic is not a 2000 US Census race. I felt Asian should be compared with a 2000 US Census race. Whites as defined by the 2000 US Census to be Middle Eastern, European, and North African do have dissimilar physical traits and culture. I made the comparison between Asians and Whites to compare to more similar terms people can grasp.--Dark Tichondrias

Categorising External Links?
It seems like people just basically drop any site in the External Links section that's related to Asian Americans. It's getting a little cluttered. Perhaps there is a way to categorise the links listed there? Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographic Trends: Secondary Schools
I removed the list of high schools with "high" Asian populations as it reached nine, with no end in sight. Users are invited to create a page "High schools with significant Asian American populations" or similar. --ishu 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian American Pictures
I feel the drawings I drew are better than real pictures of Asian Americans. I spent twelve months, going once per week to an Asian-Indian club. I did this to find out how to draw South Asians. I asked "Who is the most Indian-looking?" I modeled my pictures after their descriptions. I also feel my pictures allowed me to choose pictures of Asians who looked like the average face instead of the "prettiest" face. Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page. --Dark Tichondrias 1:00 February 25 2006

Balance of Asian faces
I feel that real-life pictures are okay as long as they are balanced. There should be equal amounts of men and women portrayed and equal amounts of East, Southeast, and South Asians. Please, find two Southeast Asian faces and a South Asian woman for the Asian page.Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page.




 * I don't think these belong in an encyclopedia article. --Lukobe 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They barely belong on this talk page. — Indi  [ talk ] 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes for Asians
Hey, you guys forgot to put Hargobind Khorana (India) who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the genetic code. He worked in the US and in Canada (at UBC).

Central Asians
My concern is one of wording rather than fact. Americans' newfound appreciation for south and central Asia (vis-a-vis Afghanistan) has been significantly upgraded. On the one hand, I think that it remains generally true that Central Asian ethnics are not considered to be Asian American. On the other hand, increasingly Indians and Pakistanis are included. Since many Americans now recognize the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, central Asians may be included; alternatively, the ethnic groups might affiliate themselves in a new sub group. Just Talk:ing "out loud."--ishu 12:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I had problems with trying to figure out whether "Indian American" was a correct term, and whether this included Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. I'm not sure they would appreciate being referred to as "Indian" anything. - Fuzheado 06:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN SHOULD BE BECOME A SUB-CATEGORY OF ASIAN AMERICAN AND INDIAN, BANGLADESHI, PAKISTANI, BHUTANESE, AND NEPALI CAN BE SUB-CATEGORIES OF SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN.


 * FWIW, Indian American is just fine according to Indian Americans I know. Many are irritated that Columbus's mistake leads American Americans to be confused when Indian Americans say they're Indian.  At the same time, many Indians also identify themselves as Bengalis, Gujaratis, or Punjabis.  And yes, it's a bad idea to apply the Indian label to Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans (not to mention separatist Kashmiris).  It's no different from Canada (and Puerto Rico) being distinct from the U.S., no?  --ishu 04:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, the "new appreciation" of South Asians as part of Asian America seems to be more of a West Coast phenomenon, since in my experience this appreciation is old and common in the Midwest and on the East Coast. I do think that some note could be added about the fluidity of the term "Asian American" across geography and time.  I think some scholars probably have written about it already...   -Chicagoguy321 10:25pm, 8 Sep 2004 (CST)

Definition section


I took a stab at reworking the Definition section Here's a run-down of the edits and to-dos.
 * Transposed first two paragraphs.
 * Edited "new" first paragraph
 * Removed text on map, since it disagrees with the article. For the record, that text is reproduced with the image to the right:

Needed:
 * A clarification of definitions and contexts. Discussion of common definitions vs. formal (e.g., gov't.) definitions.  Included in this is the issue of self-identification (i.e., by people who fall into the category) and "placement" into the category by those who do not fall into category and/or do not self-identify with category.

--ishu 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A discussion of the different usages of 'Asian' and 'American' separately and conjoined. The "what is Asian" debate has been hashed over elsewhere on this talk page.  But does 'American' require citizenship?  This requirement is problematic, since some 19th century immigrants spent their adult lives in the U.S. but were denied citizenship until 1955.  Does 'American' require an intention to settle in the U.S.?  Again, many immigrants in history and today never intend to stay, yet never make the return to settle in their birth countries.  These issues should be discussed, not necessarily answered.

Adding text placed on User talk:Ishu by Dark Tichondrias at 03:51, 1 June 2006

Moving "West Asian" out of Asian American

West Asians do not identify as Asian. They identify as Middle Eastern in the USA. They are not officially part of the Asian race with the US Census Bureau. They are only included as part of Asia in some maps because Asia has been defined as the non-European part of Eurasia. -- Dark Tichondrias


 * We cannot rely solely on Census Bureau usage. Official Census Bureau "race" categories are defined as follows:
 * White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
 * 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 Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian."
 * [census.gov, accessed 06-Jun-2006]
 * Most "white" people don't include Arabs, Persians, etc. as "white." I think it's worth discussing "Middle Easterners" on this page because the formal and common usages of 'Asian' and 'white' don't overlap well at all.  The page clearly notes that the common usage doesn't include "Middle Easterners" as Asians, but there is a logical case to be made for inclusion.  Self-identification matters, but it's not the only factor to consider.  Twenty years ago, nobody included South Asians as Asian American; now most people do (and the article notes this transition).  Especially due to the War on Terror, the common understanding of Asia is being expanded westward (Pakistan-->Afghanistan-->Iran).  The article should reflect this shift. --ishu 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * [The following comment was placed on on User Talk:Ishu in response to User:Dark Tichondrias's comment on that page]
 * This is partially false. Americans of Middle Eastern extraction do not identify as "white", but rather are identified as such by the U.S government. There is a fundamental difference. User:Technajunky 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Technajunky. --ishu 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Three relevant issues contribute to the definition: The article discusses the interrelation. First, people self-identified as 'Asian American'. Limited formal (academic) use followed. Formal (geographic) use of 'Asia' has long defined the entire continent, but formal (social science) use has expanded over time. Common usage has lagged formal usage. There are gaps in the formal (social science) uses vs. common and geographic usage. For example, is Afghanistan more like Pakistan ("South Asia") or more like Iran ("white" "Middle East")? What about the Central Asian states, particularly those just west of China?
 * Formal use
 * Common use
 * Self identification

I think we should keep the "all Asia" map--it's more inclusive, and--with appropriate captions--won't send the "wrong message" about what the article says.

--ishu 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Lead (scratch area)
I'm reworking the article header, but I'm putting my start on Talk as a scratch area. All are free to make edits and offer improvements (and/or move to the main article). I'm keeping it out of the main article for now because I'd prefer to keep it tight, and the article itself isn't very tight right now. Also, working here on Talk will allow discussion as to pros and cons without risking revert wars and other unpleasantries.

So here is my second (not so rough) draft:


 * An Asian American is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry or origin who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States. The term "Asian American" was used informally by activists in the 1960s who sought an alternative to 'Oriental', arguing that the term was derogatory and colonialist. Formal usage was introduced by academics in the early 1970s, notably historian Yuji Ichioka, who is credited with popularizing the term.  Today 'Asian American' is the accepted term for most formal purposes, such as government and academic research.  In common language, the full compound term 'Asian American' is rarely used; instead the single adjective 'Asian' is applied to people of Asian heritage.


 * As with other ethnic and racial groupings, formal and common usage have changed markedly through the short history of this term. The most significant change occurred when the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 eliminated highly restrictive "national origins" quotas. The new country-specific quotas enabled significant immigration from every country in Asia, which led to dramatic and ongoing changes in the Asian American population.  As a result of these population changes, the formal and common understandings of what defines 'Asian American' have expanded to include progressively more of the people with ancestry from various parts of Asia.

Somewhere in the article itself should be a discussion of Pacific Islanders.

--ishu 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Updated by ishu 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm going to promote this to the main article --ishu 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the copy I removed from the main article header:
 * Although technically tropical Caucasion Americans of Indian, Pakistani, and Middle Eastern ancestry are Asian-American, the term Asian-American is best understood as describing only Americans of the North-East Asian genetic cluster, just as the term African-American describes only Americans of the sub-Saharan African genetic cluster and doesn't describe Americans from Caucasoid regions of Africa like Egypt.
 * This text is unnecessarily technical, and in my opinion recaps some of the discussion elsewhere in the article and certainly on the Talk page. At any rate, it shouldn't be in the article header/lead.    It appears that "technically"="genetic", but the term is "best understood" by recognizing there are formal and informal uses, and also differences in self-identification.  Some South Asian-descent people believe they are rightful Asian Americans, while others insist they should be considered distinct.  There is no one "best" way to understand the term; we have to understand its history, development, and usage in key contexts.
 * --ishu 04:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the term Asian-American is that unlike the now controversial "oriental", it lumps too many different diverse ethnic groups into one category as if they were all one race. But in fact people from Caucasoid areas of Asia such as the middle East, India, are a very different race and people from South East Asia seem to form their own unique race. Since the terms Oriental and Mongoloid have become controversial there's no simple term to describe Americans of North East Asian ancestry. Usually they're just called Asian-American just as U.S. blacks are called African American, but if Caucasian & South East Asians are lumped into "Asian-American" the term loses precision.
 * -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.1.195.4 (talk • contribs).


 * Unregistered User assumes that there was some precision to begin with. The article describes the development of the term, and its commonly understood usage and formal usage.  Implicitly, the article recognizes this lack of precision.  'Oriental' has historical variation in meaning and usage, too, as its article indicates (also see comments on this page about 'Oriental' and Asia redefinition--for that matter, the whole Talk page is worth a review).
 * In any case, the term 'Asian American' (1) is widely used in formal and common language; (2) has largely (but not completely) replaced 'Oriental'; (3) is progressively redefined as the term is used differently and is used by different people; and (4) often includes people "from" different parts of Asia, including South and Southeast Asia. The formal language follows this usage.  The common language accepts this usage.  The article and definition should reflect these realities.  --ishu 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Public education, illegal immigration, gangs and crime
There is no mention of the demands that thousands of Asian American children place on the nation's public school systems and social service networks w/regard to ESL programs, etc. The section treating immigration is hopelessly outdated. It doesn't treat the many thousands of Asians smuggled into the U.S. annually, and the criminal activity associated with this activity. The section on crime is also pretty thin, considering the increasing incidence of prostitution rings, sexual slavery and gangs in the U.S. See the following sources for more information:


 * Asian prostitution rings on rise. Brothels are spreading beyond major U.S. cities, by Steve Kanigher, Las Vegas Sun, September 25, 2000

At a website called the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women - U.S.:


 * 5,000 women of Chinese descent are in prostitution in Los Angeles alone. (Kathryn McMahon, Daniel B. Wood, "A Crusade to Free Captive Daughters," Christian Science Monitor, 12 March 1998)


 * Chinese women are being trafficked into the United States for brothels in New York and North Carolina. They are held in $40,000 debt bondage. ("Chinese women ‘forced into prostitution’ in US," BBC, 3 March 1998)


 * Traffickers force Chinese immigrants into indentured servitude, women into prostitution and men into the restaurant business. In September 1998, 153 men and 21 women, including 35 juveniles, arrived in San Diego, California from China via Mexico, after paying smugglers $30,000. In 1997, 69 and in 1993, 650 Chinese immigrants were intercepted in the same area. If caught by immigration (INS) officials, most will be sent back to China, unless they receive political asylum. The smugglers may face jail time in the United States. (Paula Story, "Chinese Immigrant Boat Reaches US," Associated Press Online, 19 September 1998)

Chinese women and girls in domestic and sexual slavery in the U.S. is on the rise with illegal immigration.

Tong and other Asian gangs are active and spreading in a number of cities across the U.S. -- notably in Maryland, Virginia, Chicago and New York.

Lest raising of these issues be interpreted as arising from anti-immigrant bias, let me say flat out that is not the case. In comparing the seeming endless, ad nauseam examination of issues related to African-Americans in African American and a companion article -- yes, an entire article -- African American contemporary issues -- I see no parallel examination of such issues in articles treating other ethnic groups in the nation -- and none here. Balance. deeceevoice 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The crime section was added last week. The Immigration history section began at the beginning.  It's not outdated, merely incomplete.  By all means, please do add needed content to this article or create a new article.  --ishu 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Clean-up To-Dos (was: lots of links)
need to clean them out or at least organize them.--Dangerous-Boy 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about setting up broad categories such as:
 * Organization web sites (e.g., media watchdogs, services, legal, etc.)
 * Culture
 * Politics
 * General focus (including blogs)
 * Formal publications (information sites updated regularly, excluding blogs)
 * Information & References (to individual "fixed" pages, reports, etc.)

--ishu 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've retitled this section as Page Clean-up, since the links are one of many to-dos. Let's try to maintain a list of to-dos here. So, in keeping with this "list" spirit:
 * The 'List of ____ Americans' should be restricted to ____ Americans without their own articles. For example, there's already a link to Bangladeshi American and the List of Bangladeshi Americans link probably belongs there.
 * --ishu 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just did that myself. --ishu 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I envision we'll eventually come up with a template like the one that exists for African American topics: Template:African American topics sidebar. Hong Qi Gong 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of Wang Lee Hom paragraph
I removed the recently added paragraph about Wang Lee Hom as an Asian American entertainer that's gained fame in Asia, basically because that would have been the start of a very long list. There are a lot of entertainers in Asia that are actually Asian American. This is worth noting, of course, but not in a one-by-one manner like the Wang Lee Hom reference that I deleted. Hong Qi Gong 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)