Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 6

Intro definition
"As with other racial and ethnicity based terms, formal and common usage have changed markedly through the short history of this term."

This wikipedia article's definition of asian is "persons of east, southeast or south asian race", so how can the term asian be called a racial or ethnicity based term? East asians and south asians for example are as racially close as eskimos are with africans.

I think "racial and ethnicity" should be changed to a more appropriate designation. The term asian as defined by this article has no racial implication or if there is one, it is defined as "other than white but not black or hispanic". -Ecko1o1 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What system of racial classification are you using? They are all subjective. "Asian" is considered a race in the United States. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

When Asian is considered a race in the United States, that perceived race is mongoloid, southeast asian and east asians (and these two aren't even very close at all in the first place). When south asians are put into the mix, the term Asian as a racial classifier loses any meaning it might have had. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First this is original research, you aren't citing any authoritative sources. If you take a look at Asian American Studies departments that study the history of Asian Americans, you will also see that their definition of Asian American matches the census definition. You are looking at uneducated layman's definition are focusing solely on a specific group of traits using a racial categorization system that is not very accurate. If you look at this culturally, it actually the opposite South Asia and Southeast Asia are very culturally linked through religion, writing systems, and other factors, whereas East Asia is somewhat disparate. If you want to make your case, you are going to need some authoritative sources. Also, we already have a section that talks about different uses in the terminology section


 * East asians and south asians for example are as racially close as eskimos are with africans.
 * This is incorrect for so many reasons. First, both groups are exo-Africans and thus share common ancestors less far back in time than an exo-African and an African do. Second, there are haplogroup studies that seem to show that the ancestors of modern East Asians actually a mixture of offshoots of ancient South Asian populations that migrated into East Asia (and given that South Asian mtDNA haplogroup trees are deep-rooted, most South Asians are probably at least maternally related to the original South Asians of whom an offshoot went into East Asia (the Aryan invasion is thought to be mostly by males, very few/no females)).

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The uneducated layman definition? I'm talking about perceived race. And most americans are intelligent enough (though that may be debatable) to realize that south asians and east asians are racially and culturally distinct. What does it matter that a few high brows at some obscure institutions go about claiming what is which, when the general population has a clear image of what an asian is? An asian to those people have pale skin with a yellowish tint and slanted eyes. And where is your "authoritative source" on this ridiculous aryan invasion of east asia? Is this a joke? East asians are a mix of altaic mongoloid peoples and sino-tibetans, there is nothing from south asia. However there were many mongol invasions of India so maybe there are some blood relations there, since the mongols were known for their barbarity and rapes. When americans talk of indians, they will never link them to any other asian people or claim them to be asian. Indian americans are indian, nothing more nothing less. But hey, if you are going to call indians "asians' I want to also include in this taxonomically worthless term, all the israelis jews, all the persians, all the arabs and all the other races we may have missed. And yes East Asia is "somewhat disparate" compared to South Asia because they are racially and culturally completely different, the relationship between south asia and east asia is near zero. Anyhow this is all irrelevant, my original point was that the "asian" as defined by this article should be changed from ethnic based term to another. Here is my source: "Asian American—An umbrella term referring to Asians in the U.S. and covering a broad range of ethnic backgrounds (East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian)" This is quoted from the University of Illinois, the Asian American Resource and Cultural Center. Asian American is an umbrella term and has no implications in race or ethnicity. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok let me clarify something. Over 20,000 years ago well BEFORE Aryans invaded South Asia, a group of South Asians migrated into East Asia, then (mostly male) Aryans invaded South Asia and genetically mixed in with pre-existing South Asian groups. East Asians are related to that original South Asian population that later melded with Aryans; northern South Asians are more Aryan and southern ones more "non-Aryan". Austro-Asiatic speaking tribal people in India are thought to be the closest related modern representative to that original South Asian group. South Asians and East Asians are somewhat culturally different, though they is still some interchanged (Buddhism being one of them). Wikipedia doesn't use the layman's definition, they use definitions that authorities (academic, geopolitical, governmental, etc...) use. These authorities define South Asians as Asian. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, etc... aren't very accurate terms as there has been lots of admixtures between populations of them. Both South Asia and East Asia make up about 40% of Asia's population, so it is highly inaccurate to use any definition of Asia that does not include both. Also on top of that Southeast Asia is genetically disparate from both South and East Asia (but culturally tied to South Asia). Trying to lump East Asia and Southeast Asia together for biological reasons is utter nonsense. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

model minority=
I removed a parenthetical statement, that stated that insinuated that model minorities particularly referred to East Asian. Given that East Indians according to census data have the highest levels of education, per capita income levels, and as a group largely are in professional white collar positions, it seemed that they would also meet most of the characateristics of a model minority. 98.71.124.91 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Woods is not asian
Why is Tiger Woods in the picture box representing asian peoples? He is of mixed race, and as much African as he is Asian. He would be better placed representing mixed people of America. He should be removed. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Tiger Woods is not "as much African as he is Asian". According to Tiger Woods, he is half Asian, one-quarter African American, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch. So he is more Asian than anything else. Also, this was addressed when people wanted to say that Barack Obama is not African American because he is "African as he is European". I could only see removing Woods if he refuses to identify as Asian American, which he does not, much to the chagrin of those African Americans who demand binary identity. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is inaccurate, Tiger Woods never claimed to be Asian, he identifies himself as a mixed race person, not as an Asian. I myself find it ridiculous that a person who is not of 100% Asian descent can be seen as representative of Asian peoples, especially when this person does not even consider himself to be asian which he couldn't anyway because HE IS NOT. I find this insulting. Look up the wikipedia article White Americans, are there any mixed race people on that picture there? Could Obama ever be considered a "white" american? So how is it logical that a half Asian man can be considered an asian american? I have only one explanation for this, racism. If you have another explanation, please elucidate me. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tentatively removed Woods in lieu of a comment from him separately identifying as Asian American or as some subcategory thereof. I expressly disagree with your sentiment that only racially pure people should be "representatives", but I also think that there is too much wrangling over the infobox pictures at the expense of the article itself. Quigley (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion in the past regarding the images selected for this article's Infobox. If you aren't familiar with this, please see Talk:Asian_American/Archive_5 for the most recent debate and its consensus. For now, I'll let the most recent changes stand and update the caption to reflect the current selections. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I left wikipedia midway through the secondary process of those ethnicities with smaller populations. We had a good thing going building consensus as to how the infobox would best represent the entire ethnic group, rather than it reverting into edit wars.
 * Perhaps we need to revert the mouse over description again, to include the ethnicity of the individual that they are representing.
 * If I am not mistaken Tiger Woods was there to represent Thai Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious trends of Korean Americans
Currently, it reads as follows:

Many South Koreans, especially, are already Christian[67] when they immigrate to the US, and hence most Korean Americans are born into Christian families.

And the link [67] leads to PEW statistics saying that about a quarter of Korean population are Christians. Although it is true that you have a sizable Christian population in Korea, it is not the norm. As indicated on the same page, the data shows the majority of Korean population is NOT Christian. Therefore, this statement is very misleading into having the reader think that somehow most of Koreans are Christians.

According to my experience of living 30 years in the U.S. as a Korean American in two major cities, namely Washington D.C. and Chicago, I have seen most of immigrant Koreans come to the U.S. and start attending a church to connect with other Koreans. Another words, Korean American churches have a vital social function, and for pastors, churches play more as a social organization than as a religious organization. I have seen numerous cases where a person who DID NOT attend a church in Korea would come to the U.S. and start attending a church. Of course most of them have either neutral or favorable view of Christianity, and those with hostile feelings towards the church would not come.

But in every big city a perceptive American would quickly notice innumerable number of Korean churches. This is largely due to about two decades of ongoing revivals in Korea since mid-1970s. Many have gone into seminaries and come out only to find overcrowded ministries in the homeland. There are probably more ordained pastors in any big American cities than the number of Korean American churches at any given moment due to this influx of many pastors overflowing out of Korean peninsula.

It's only natural that all these pastors are looking for a comfortable way to minister without giving their own families undue hardships in foreign countries as missionaries, so they seek the US, Canada, or other developed nations as their destinations when it is already overcrowded with Christian leaders.

This is my two cents on religious trends for Korean Americans. There is much more, but I think it may deserve a separate page. - clayjar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayjar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you may personally experience this, please provide references to support your statement if you want to include it in some form in the article; otherwise, please see WP:FORUM. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Effects of World War II subsection
I believe that this section focuses only one one ethnicity that are one of many that are the subject of this article. I believe that either it needs to be improved upon to include how other ethnicities, such as Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans (the three other asian ethnicities that had a significant population in the United States (continental and in non-continental territories)) were effected by the conflict, or it needs to be removed entirely. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chinese Americans' status in the US dramatically improved when the US officially entered WW2 because the US became allied with China. There is so much more that can be written on that section, and really, in the History section overall.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I did a huge improve on the military history section that I created a new article. Perhaps the material should be on the Asian American History article, which already exists, and a summary should be here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Historical Information tag removal
This article has been tagged since March of last year stating that is lacks historical information. I would like to contest that. Most sections of this article have information going back well into the 20th century or earlier, or have links to content due to the article's large size that have the information. If I hear no objections by 18JAN11, I think we can say that there is a consensus that this article has historical information, and I will remove the tag. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: The reason for having this tag is: Keeping with the tag on the Asian American history page, this section needs to be expanded. Furthermore, the second subsection is heavily weighted towards only one subgroup of this larger ethnic group. Please help to add historical material to help counter systemic bias towards recent information.


 * 1) Per WP:Article length, articles such as this one where the size is over 100 KB should split into sub-articles. The tag were it was placed original was towards the history section. We already have a sub-article for history which is Asian American history. Any further expansion should be placed in the sub-article to prevent the article from being too long.


 * 2) the second subsection is heavily weighted towards only one subgroup of this larger ethnic group. The second sub-section being Effects of World War II at the time the tag was placed and it is still is. I haven't seem a history textbook that ever mentions another ethnic group other than the Japanese during WWII. Honestly, I don't think that this should be a section itself.


 * 3) Much of the history of Asian Americans really picked up during the 70s or so which in my opinion is covered adequately in the immigration trends. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I haven't seem a history textbook that ever mentions another ethnic group other than the Japanese during WWII."


 * There are books that do speak of non-Japanese American Asians during World War II, and how their non-military lives were effected such as 1 2 3and others. However, for most general history books, due to the Japanese American internment, their plight is significantly as they were singled out due to the nation of their ancestors having launched the attack on Pearl Harbor, and declaring war on the U.S. Actually, other Asians benefited from their internment, some taking possession of the lands or businesses they were forced to abandon, others being treated more positively placing signs on their businesses, or having things that said "I am not Japanese". Of course, it is well documented that prior to World War II, there was a very strong "anti-oriental" sentiment, even during the depression era. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well yes, there was strong anti-oriental sentiment, with laws such as the Chinese exclusion act being enacted. But the point I was making is that, with the article being large, any other information should be put into the sub-article. The more notable or important events should be put into this article. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thus the military sub-article. However, these sub-articles need to be linked as such in their talk pages using the appropriate templates, and need to be improved. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, and it being past 18JAN, I will remove the section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For posterity sake, not that one cannot look into the history of the article, here is the content that was removed: "During World War II, the United States government declared Japanese Americans a risk to national security and undertook the Japanese American internment, authorized by President Franklin Roosevelt with United States Executive Order 9066. This controversial action forced the relocation of approximately 112,000 to 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, taking them from the west coast of the United States to hastily constructed War Relocation Centers in remote portions of the nation's interior. This chapter in US history was a result of war hysteria, racial discrimination, and economic competition. Sixty-two percent of those forced to relocate were United States citizens. Starting in 1990, the government paid some reparations to the surviving internees in recognition of the harm it had caused them and their families. Despite the internment, many Japanese American men served in World War II in the American forces. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team/100th Infantry Battalion, composed of Japanese Americans, is the most highly decorated unit in U.S. military history. The 442nd/100th fought valiantly in the European Theater even as many of their families remained in the detention camps stateside. The 100th was one of the first units to liberate the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau."

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Japanese American Units Congressional Gold Medals
A recent reversion was made of one my edits. I understand the policy of WP:OWN, and in an attempt to be civil and to avoid a edit war I am seeking to reach consensus as to whether the content should be included in this article, or left in the sub-article where it is already mentioned.

Although the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal was documented in a reliable source, it is already mentioned in the units page, as well as in the subsequent sub-article due to this article's large size. There are other significant awards earned and recieved, such as Presidential Unit Citations, to other units that were segregated due to its members predominately Asian American ethnicity that would fall under the scope of this article. Should those units awards be mentioned in this article as well? If not I say that the Japanese American units of the 442nd and Military Intellegence Service, which are already mentioned elsewhere in this article and significantly so in the sub-article, would be given undue weight in this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the awards are political apologies by Congress for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans in the camps in World War II, an excessive recognition is out of place in a general article on Asian Americans. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not hearing objection presently, I will consider that we have reached a consensus if no objection has been posted by 26JAN11. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With no objections posted to date, content will be removed. Content is preserved on the Military History of Asian Americans article and on the unit's article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Immigration move discussion
Due to the large size of this article, I am proposing that certain content be spun out and be created as sub-articles to this one. This will reduce the size of this article, while allowing for increased focus on those subjects in the sub-article.

Therefore, my first proposal is that the Immigration trend section be moved to the article History of Asian American immigration. This would help that article become greater than the stub that it presently is, as well as connect it to this article as a sub-article. One issue that would remain though is that it would still need to be cited better, as it presently has no references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without hearing objection for over 21 days I will be moving the text to the article stated above while tagging that page with the appropriate template in its talk article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in official documentation
Information from this article, that was recently been moved to the article History of Asian American immigration has been found on a website, almost word for word, hosted by the Department of State, specifically here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Asian American Femininity
In a recent edit, content was removed, then re-added. In order to cut this off at the pass before there is an edit war, I would like to discuss these changes, and the content all together, and come to a consensus from the active editors as to whether this section is necessary to the overall article, is the right size, needs expansion, should be excluded, or should be split and a new article be created about this subject specifically. In the removal of expanded content the user stated in the edit summary: "drop off topic essay"

- User:Rjensen

The content was re-added without an edit summary, as to who the newly expanded content for the section was reverted to its previous state. I do not want to make assumptions as to what Rjensen removed the content, and thus will seek a comment from the user as to what he/she meant by edit summary.

As for the editor Dukecitychica, recent edits show that all edits as of this posting have been regarding the content which was added to this article, which was previously removed from the article Femininity without continuing edit or discussion there.

To restate the reason for this discussion, should this section be included, expanded, excluded, or split? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excluded--the text has only a remote connection to Asian Americans, at best. It could just as well be about Africa or Brazil. --for example the main practice discussed is foot binding, which did not happen among Asian Americans.Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excluded 1. For the reason stated above by Rjensen. (and because) 2. This narrative was taken out of context in an attempt to make a point in an encyclopedia article, which makes it both POV and original research. USchick (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will keep this conversation open until 16MAR11, or when Dukecitychica has responded, which ever comes first. If we don't hear a response from Dukecitychica by that time (one week from now), I will have considered a consensus reached to exclude the material. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To address all of you and especially Rjensen: The claim that "the text has only a remote connection to Asian Americans, at best. It could just as well be about Africa or Brazil. --for example the main practice discussed is foot binding, which did not happen among Asian Americans. byRjensen" is completely false. All one needs to do is click on over to the foot binding Wikipedia page (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding) and read the first sentence: "Foot binding (, literally "bound feet") was a custom practised on young girls and women for approximately one thousand years in China, beginning in the 10th century and ending in the first half of 20th century."

Secondly, the text and quotes that I used both prove that the original research provided by the following authors: has not been taken out of context nor shall it be considered original research, as I simply quoted and analyzed the work of others.

Thus, I move to reinstate the editions that I added: ====Hegemonic Femininity==== and ====Psychological Dominance====. Now it is your turn to prove that it should not be included in order to remove it. I will keep this conversation open until 16MAR11, or when Rjensen, RightCowLeftCoast and/or USchickhave responded, which ever comes first. If we don't hear a response from the above mentioned users by that time (one week from now), I will have considered a consensus reached to include the material. --Dukecitychica (talk)
 * What happened in China centuries ago is not very relevant to Asian American women -- and indeed none of the additions deal with Asian American women. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it Rjensen, that you believe the psychological effects of Asian American femininity should not include foot binding as an example? If you are saying that it no longer applies because you believe history does not matter, must I also include a contemporary example? The history of it is indeed important to understanding contemporary Asian American femininity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukecitychica (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dukecitychica it seems you are having trouble making a distinction between "Asian American women" and "Chinese women from the 10-20th century." Asian American women are comprised of women from many different ethnic backgrounds, not just Chinese. I have seen no sources that state foot binding was ever a significant practice in the United States. Therefore your argument for the inclusion of your edits is tenuous as they are completely irrelevant to this article. Furthermore going into detail into such a specific topic goes against the flow and beyond the scope of this article, merely a general overview on Asian Americans. Also, please properly indent your posts on the talk page so the discussion is easy to follow. ― Shaolin Samurai (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dukecitychica,
 * Please remember WP:CIVIL, as the tone of your text may have already violated the policy.
 * I am not advocating removal or inclusion of the content that you added. Furthermore, I kindly request that we all leave the text of the section in question as it was on 9MAR11. The reason why I placed a deadline, is that it gave one week for active users to come to a consensus as to the end status of the content; this should avoid anyone violating WP:3RR, and beginning an WP:EW (which may have already stated). If no response was given, then those who have would have created a consensus within those active editors of this page.
 * Again, let me reiterate, I am not advocating any outcome for the content in question, but rather am trying to facilitate a civil discussion of the content as its inclusion in this article appears to be disputed by an other active editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of context: The essay came from where? It pertains to a topic being discussed at length and in depth somewhere else, but here, it is removed completely out of context from the original discussion. To apply one particular viewpoint written at a particular time in history to all Asian American Women is not encyclopedic. USchick (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition I would argue the same for "Racialized Femininity" part of the article. What portion of the general Asian American population is having eyelid surgery? How is that different from other women who have eyelid surgery? And how is that different from breast augmentation, or a tummy tuck, or liposuction? Maybe this information is more appropriate in an article about plastic surgery, but it has nothing to do with femininity. USchick (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Warning
It is clear now, that an EDIT WAR has now began regarding the content of the section in question. I kindly ask all active editors to stop editing the section, and civilly discuss the content, as I originally requested. To restate the reason for this discussion, should this section be included, expanded, excluded, or split?

If we cannot come to a consensus, or if edit warring continues, I will follow policy in question, and elevate our deliberations as the policy indicates. I do not wish to have to do that, but if we cannot, as civil editors all seeking to improve wikipedia, reach the consensus this content needs, it will be the next step.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be stubbed down to the relevant factual sentences and all the original research (i.e. essay text) removed. The sentences about eye lid surgery and skin bleaching are relevant and factual and cited to a reliable source specifically about Asian American Women. Everything else should probably be removed. Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide additional statement to support this course of action. Are you suggesting that the content be included in this article, and if so included, reduced down to that which can be verified by reliable sources? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excluded information about personal grooming habits of individuals is completely irrelevant. Asian women also go to tanning salons to darken their skin. People of all races change the color of their hair, nails and skin. Sometimes they alter their appearance permanently. Why are Asian American women singled out in this case? Everyone changes their appearance for one reason or another. USchick (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excluded — the content in question is completely out of place in this article, a general overview on Asian Americans. The focus is on a tangential subtopic and as stated above is of extremely dubious relevance, and there is no similar topic on Asian American masculinity. The tone and language of the content is also un-encyclopedic and reads like an academic paper. — Shaolin Samurai (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed statements under Racialized Femininity
''The white standard of femininity is seen as the normal and most desirable. So desirable is the norm, that women of color spend their lives striving for this version of “the American dream” through becoming more “white.”''
 * If this is true, why do Caucasian women spend so much time and money tanning to get their skin darker?

assertiveness and independence are never presented in popular images of Asian American women
 * Examples: Aung San Suu Kyi, Michelle Yeoh in Supercop as Woman Warrior, Mulan based on historical Hua Mulan.... I can go on and on....

Asian American women have been socialized towards American mainstream culture.
 * This can be said about any minority culture and not just women.

in order to become more assertive and autonomous, many believe
 * How many? How do we know what they believe and why they believe it? Personal belief needs to be discussed in an article about religion.

This entire section needs to be removed because it is false. USchick (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I am going to remove the content under Racialized Femininity. USchick (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please wait a reasonable amount of time for anyone to respond, say anywhere between 7 to 14 days, to see if there are any objects. If beyond that time, there are no objects, one can presume that there is a consensus amongst active editors for it to be removed, and go ahead and remove it. (so say no earlier than 20MAR11) If it is re-added, it will begin a new revert, discussion cycle, which is where we are at presently. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sports
Add Ed Wang (NFL) alongside Jeremy Lin (NBA), for first NFL of Chinese-American this previous football season. Offensive tackle, drafted by the Bills.

Refer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.116.140 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Vietnamese American Representative
Jog my memory, but it looks like no consesus was ever created to represent Vietnamese Americans, the fourth largest ethnicity in the ethnic group.

Let's restart it. Let us begin taking nominations for an individual with a picture to represent Vietnamese Americans. See List of Vietnamese Americans or Category:American people of Vietnamese descent. As keeping with previous consensus, let us avoid political individuals.

I would like to nominate: --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Margaret Denise Quigley - Actress
 * Eugene H. Trinh - First Vietnamese American Astronaut
 * Dustin Nguyen - Actor
 * Nguyễn Ngọc Loan - ARVN Brigadier General

I'd like to nominate Cung Le - Mixed martial artist, former Strikeforce Middleweight champion, actor. — Shaolin Samurai (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does your nominee have an image presently on Wikicommons that is usable if he is the consensus choice? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, unless there is a problem with this I am not aware of: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cung_Le_at_Inside_MMA.jpg — Shaolin Samurai (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Lets leave the nominations open until 25JAN, then have a discussion period afterwards where we reach a consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems that this article has slowly evolved into a "List of" or "examples of" instead of what it is intended to do. It is not meant to be Comprehensive of every notable Asian American and the list of people in professions should be only used as an example and not include everyone that is nominated or notable. That's what List of Asian Americans and various professional lists are for. As of now, it appears that the examples comprise of much more than half of the content and I would rather propose that a good number are purged from this article. Look over the film and TV section and let's discuss removing some of those entries. --Travis Thurston+ 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this discussion is about a Vietnamese American in the infobox. There originally was one, but a while ago, before my wikibreak we had decided that due to the massive changes to the infobox individuals that it would be best to have a consensus develop to determine who shall represent the group which is the subject of the article. The consensus developed that one individual from each ethnicity of a significant size (I believe that it was over 250,000 as of the 2000 census (or something like that)), non-political, in order by the size of their population. There was no consensus as to whom the Vietnamese American representative would be, and thus why they aren't represented in the info box and thus this discussion topic.
 * Also, if you disagree with the notable contributions section and its subsections perhaps we should build a consensus as to whether it belongs here. Personally, I would not the content to be blanked, and if possible if there is significant information, it can be removed from here, and turned into a subarticle. I have done this with the Military section, and it has been done with the History section by someone else. Given more content, I can definitely spin out the "Government & politics" subsection and/or merge it with the List of Asian Pacific Americans in the United States Congress article and change its name to something that is more encompassing of the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination is now closed, and long overdue. Let us begin to discuss the merits of each of these nominees: --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Margaret Denise Quigley - Actress
 * Eugene H. Trinh - First Vietnamese American Astronaut
 * Dustin Nguyen - Actor
 * Nguyễn Ngọc Loan - ARVN Brigadier General
 * Cung Le - Mixed Martial Arts fighter
 * Being a week since the list has come out of nominees, no one has yet to state their opinion. I would like to state a preference of Trinh then Nguyen. Trinh is one of less than two dozen Asian Americans to have made it into space, however Nguyen is by far the most recognized individual of this list save Loan who may not gain significant support, and thus consensus, due to the politics around the event he is best known for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how relevant popularity and recognition is to this discussion, but I'd definitely have to disagree that Dustin Nguyen is the most recognized. A google search for "dustin nguyen" returns 280,000 hits, while "cung le" returns 2,200,00 - nearly 10x as many. While this is hardly a scientific method of gauging recognition, I think it can be used as a rough estimate. Cung Le is probably by far the most recognizable contemporary Vietnamese American athlete, and Asian American athletes in general are severely underrepresented in media. As a fighter and actor he has mainstream appeal. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with having Le as the representative the of Vietnamese Americans, as I don't find him as notable, that's a POV issue on my part as I am not a follower of MMA. Furthermore, if google hits were relevent than Maggie Q wins out of all these nominees with 3.67 million returns.
 * Also let me correct my statement on Trinh, one of ten Asian American Astronauts, and only one of to Vietnamese individuals to make it into space (the other being Cosmonaut Tuân). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No additional comments have been made in the past eight days, and there presently doesn't appear to be a consensus amoungst active editors as to whom the Vietnamese American representative should be in the infobox. I will rfc this discussion to attract additional opinions if no further comments are made by 15MAR11. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Representative approval
Keeping with similar processes such as coordinator election, and past representative approval we shall bring about consensus about who of the proposed shall be in the infobox. If nominees have a tie, a runoff will occur.


 * Nomination period: It has past, as it was open from 11 January 2011 until 14 February 2011.
 * Consensus period: Starts immediately and shall last until 10 April 2011.
 * The consensus shall be discovered conducted using simple approval voting. Any editor may show their support for a nominee by placing the following in the appropriate section: # support ~ Any editor may support as many of the nominees as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of supporters will be chosen.

Votes in support of Margaret Denise Quigley

 * 1) support RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes in support of Nguyễn Ngọc Loan

 * 1) support RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of consensus
There does not appear to be a consensus built to support any one candidate for the Vietnamese American representative in the infobox. Looking at the image of Nguyễn Ngọc Loan states that is used in fair use and therefore may not be usable in the infobox. Therefore, I will insert the image of Maggie Q.

Seeing as how consensus can change, if there is consensus amongst active editors for someone different, the individual can be changed with a discussion here on the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Arts and Entertainment Move/Merge Discussion
It appears that back in 2007 the arts and entertainment section of this page was spunout to create a sub-article of this section. However, it's been so long that it was forgotten, and both this section on this article and that article have expanded (with for the most part unreferenced material). Therefore, I propose that the content that is presently here, be merged with the content in the article Asian Americans in arts and entertainment and a summary be left on this page, just as was done in the Military section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No recent discussion has yet been made regarding this proposal, perhaps I should bring this up for RfC? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed, as far back as January 2011. No other editors have commented support or opposition for the proposed move. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, but how much info would we leave in this article? Aristophanes 68   (talk)  17:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only thinking of leaving a brief summary of a paragraph or two. As the article which I am proposed the merge to is a sub-article that was forgotten about, and new additions where added to the main, in theory new additions should have been added to the sub the entire time. The most difficult part I think would be what to keep, or how to merge without loosing any data. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Without objections, there appears to be a consensus towards the move. I shall begin this arduous process, and it may take some time to complete it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Modeling and Fashion industry; rise of AsianAm influence
Asian-Americans Climb Fashion Industry Ladder

"The mood was set early at the American fashion awards ceremony at Lincoln Center in June, an event often likened to the Oscars of the fashion world, with a guest list that included celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker and Gwyneth Paltrow and almost every top designer. In quick succession, three men were called to the stage to accept their awards as the best new designers of the year: Richard Chai for men’s wear, Jason Wu for women’s wear and Alexander Wang for accessories.It was the first time that all three prizes given by the Council of Fashion Designers of America were awarded to designers who are Asian-American."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/fashion/05asians.html

Also breakthrough in the modeling industry; Godfrey Gao is Louis Vuittons "Man of the Year" First Asian-American male supermodel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/godfrey-gao-first-asian-m_n_811518.html --(However he is Canadian-Chinese... I don't know if we can include this then)

Also rise of AsianAm in modelling for other companies-- Daniel Liu in the recent Bloomingdale commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmUNZuZFf7w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.116.140 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans
The cenus might classify them as such, but they are not regarded as Asian Americans in common useage. Fareed Zakaria is not considered Asian in common useage. Saturdayseven (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for making this change, and the differences in terminology of who is and is not Asian American is well referenced in the Terminology section. I have reverted the edits to the introduction paragraph because they were done under WP:BOLD, and therefore can be reverted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is a consensus for all facts being referenced, and it sounds like a lot of the claims in this article are not confirmed by the sources cited. A lot of the claims in the terminolgy section seem dubious.  Does the census really say their defeinition is the most common definition? Saturdayseven (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference facts are more then welcome, however, whether it should be added to the introduction paragraphs, and thus changing the scope of this article, is what does not have consensus. I believe that without deletion of content that existed and is supported by reference prior to introduction of the content that have since been re-added without consensus, the content should be placed in the terminology section.
 * I shall invite other active editors to this discussion, in an appropriate manor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, If you are looking at this history of the past consensus that lead to the defining of the scope of the article, it was thoroughly discussed here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is some sense to what you are saying Saturdayseven and I see value in creating an article specifically referring to Americans of South Asian descent if there is enough references and material available. However I do not agree that at this time we should remove them from teh article. Since they are Asian and since the census classifies them as such I think we need to leave them be for the time being. --Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I work on Asian American literature and history, India is most certainly included in the mix. The predominance of East Asia within Asian American Studies is more a historical accident than a theoretical statement about Asian identity. Most scholars in the field would consider South Asia part of the field, unlike, say, Western Asia (the Middle East), which is most often seen as a separate entity. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the statement that was added by the editor Saturdayseven be included in the introduction paragraph, or should it be moved and merged into the terminology section? Would including it where it is possible be considered WP:UNDUE towards a certain WP:POV as it uses a less inclusive definition? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Aristophanes68 sums it up nicely. I agree with Saturdayseven that the census doesn't have best definition. For example the census classifies Middle-Easterners as white even though they are not generally considered white in the historical use. Also from what I know, Middle-Easterners don't really considered as white. I know a couple of Middle-Easterners who even checked Asian as the race they belong to. However, I know several South Asians who consider themselves as Asian. There's a difference. Yeah I know this is based on personal experiences but it's along the lines of who considers what. I also agree with keeping South Asians as Asians since that's it's referenced and is the official definition. Elockid  ( Talk ) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP articles should be consistent between one another. In fact, see the contradict other template, which is a tool for fixing contradictions between WP articles. Having said that, I note:
 * This article's lead says, "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent."
 * "Asian descent" there is aliased to Asian people.
 * The lead of the Asian people article says, in part, "In Anglo America (mostly the United States of America), the term refers most commonly to people of predominantly East Asian and Southeast Asian ancestry; however, in the United Kingdom, the term refers most commonly to South Asians.", citing a couple of outside sources for support.
 * Saturdayseven may be thinking of usage which is peculiar to the U.S. which, given the title of this article, might be appropriate.
 * Perhaps this article might be a bit clearer in what peoples are and are not considered Asian for classification as Asian American for purposes of this article. If a definition peculiar to that usage is used here, and particularly if that definition contradicts the Asian people article, it would be best if that definition was in concert with and supported by some authorotative outside source, and cited that outside source.
 * According to the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census article, and supported by this source cited there, Asian was defined for purposes of the 2000 U.S. census as "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'."
 * See also Asian people and Racial classification of Indian Americans.
 * Re classification of middle-easterners as "White", according to the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census article, the definition of "White" in the 2000 census was, "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.", supported by this source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the Oxford dictionary definition be as prominent as it has become in this edit? IMHO, I believe the terminology of Asian Americans should be summarized in the introduction per WP:LEAD; however I believe the introduction sentence should remain as prior to said edit as to not lead to questions regarding the scope of article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionary's definition of Asian (usage) and Asian American says Asian refers to people in East Asia/chiefly East Asia. Oxford dictionary's definition is a bit off in the vernacular sense. Asian is not considered chiefly to be East Asian. Southeast Asian groups such as Thais and Vietnamese are commonly considered Asian. Usage is also wrong. From the diff, this statement from Colorq.org: In the U.K., the term 'Asians' is popularly used to apply to all people from Asia appears to be wrong. The term Asian as Wtmitchell stated as well as in the article British Asian and from what I know refers mostly to South Asians. Oxford dictionary also says this. I looked up another statement from the Colorq.org: If you look up Webster's dictionary definition of the word "Caucasoid", you will see that it mentions the people of India. Webster doesn't mention South Asians as being Caucasoids/Caucasians and their definition of Asian or rather Asian American doesn't support Colorq.org's statement. So I wouldn't consider it as an entirely reliable source. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford link does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the terminology section, where it was already present. Also I am pretty sure somewhere on the page, there are citations that show many Asian American Studies departments include South Asian Americans. We already mention in the terminology sections (the FIRST section after the lead) that there are (IMHO racist) definitions that exclude South (and Southeast) Asians. We do not need to bring the divisive comments into the lead. The census definition is the most prominent definition. Yes it (stupidly) excludes as countries west of Pakistan, but it is still the official definition and Wikipedia consistently enforces it (see the template:Asian Americans, we leave Tibetan Ams as Chinese Ams because that is the census definition). The lead should be without the Oxford comment. Let us leave the alternate definitions in the terminology section where they belong Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The U.S. cencus definition of Asian is an extreme minority opinion. This article violates WP:UNDUE by giving the U.S. census definition of Asian so much weight, having it so prominently displayed in the inro, to the exclusion of mainstream definitions like the oxford dictionary.  This is a very clear violation of WP:POV.  The article is simply taking the POV that the U.S. census is correct, and ignoring mainstream defenitions. Saturdayseven (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The section title here asserts that South Asian Americans are not regarded as Asian Americans. (Wait -- let's go back and read that one more time: "South Asian Americans are not regarded as Asian Americans". Yes, that is what it said.) Is John Cleese perhaps a contributor here? Did I just glimpse a Norwegian Blue parrot? (Please excuse that segue into something completely different -- it seemed called-for)

We're talking about "Asian-American" here, right? That's referring to U.S. persons (vs. e.g., Peruvians) who are Asian, right? We're talking in the context of the U.S here, right? We're speaking of common usage in the U.S., not common usage somewhere else on the planet, right? If that's right, it seems to me that it's appropriate to use an official U.S definition of "Asian". Alternative definitions from within the context of the U.S. should be given due weight. Alternative definitions from outside the context of the U.S. should probably be discussed in a separate section, or might not have enough weight in re the article topic to merit inclusion in this article at all. (... we'll now return to your regularly scheduled discussion) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The intro of the article should reflect broad mainstream views, not obscure official defenitions that don't apply in everyday life. The U.S. census defenition should be relegated to a narrow subsection of the article because only a narrow percent of Americans share the cenus view.  An extreme minority view point should not be dominating the entire article as it is now. That violates WP:undue.Saturdayseven (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is true that popular opinion is that the word "Asian" is used to refer to those Asians with mongoloid features (regardless of where they actually come from) but a Wikipedia article cannot use opinion alone. Accuracy is paramount. There are people from North-east India, Nepal and Bhutan who would look very "Asian", but the census would record them as Asian Indian, Nepali or Bhutanese respectively. So in reality referring only to East Asians as Asians is unduely exclusionary. The U.S. Census bureau incorrectly uses "Asian" as a racial category and lumps unrelated groups of people together - Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistanis, Indonesians etc. If "Asian" was a race, "South Asian" would make as much sense as "South White" or "East Native American". Directional adjectives make no sense if the word they qualify is a race. It is weird that the Census bureau uses Asian as a racial category while using geographical subcategories. They should either stick to the geographical sense of the word and include west Asians under the "Asian American" umbrella or use another word to refer to the erroneously used "Asian" terminology to denote people from East Asia. In fact, it would be best to do away with all racial categories and only use geographical data for Asia as Asians (unlike Europeans) are not a homogeneous population. East Asians, South Asians, South-East Asians and West Asians are all very different when it comes to physical appearance. --76.218.92.239 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue tag
In recent edit, a user had tagged this article with the following:Template:Undue. As stated in the template itself, the issue should be discussed, as it was being done above, prior to the removal of the template.

It appears that above, that a majority of active editors of this article have agreed that the Oxford Dictionary definition should be included in this article, but that its presence outside of the Terminology section, and in the lead of the article would itself give that definition an undue amount of weight, may change the scope of the article, given the significant number of the reliable sourced references which use the broader definition used by the U.S. Census. Furthermore, the Colorq.org reference that was previously removed, as there was a finding that it is not a reliable source. Thus, one could reasonably presume that there is a consensus; however, given that consensus can change, a further discussion should be held prior to the removal of the template. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As with the previous discussion, I shall invite interested editors in an appropriate manor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Saturdayseven simply does not like the census definition, so they deride it and claim it is an extreme minority. Wikipedia's job isn't to reflect the incorrect opinions of random user John/Jane Smith, it is to reflect the opinions of authorities. The US Census bureau as well as Asian-American studies departments are authorities and their views are what we depict, not the narrow-minded incorrect definitions that the average person may use. Oxford is simply stating that the average joe may use that definition in colloquial speak; I doubt Oxford is meaning to say that definition is correct. We are acknowledging these incorrect definitions exist, and that is all we have to do to to give it due wait.

The undue tag is unmerited, Saturdayseven simply does not like that their point of view is not supported by the census or the consensus above. I really don't think this discussion is merited, it is basically exactly what was said in the previous section. User:Wtmitchell's comment at the end of the previous discussion basically sums up the absurdity of this topic. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oxford dictionary represents the mainstream view on what it means to be Asian American. The U.S. census and Asian American studies simply represent extreme minority views of a tiny group of government officials and academics.  Wikipedia policy demands that extreme minority opinions not be given unue weight.  The Oxford dictionary defenition should be in the lead and the census defenition and Asian studies defenitions should be relegated to brief sections on goverment/academic use of the term.Saturdayseven (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Oxford dictionary definition is a bit ambiguous in terms of what it means as "East Asia". The most common definition of East Asia are the countries of Japan, China, ROC, Mongolia, and the Koreas. If this is the case, then the Oxford dictionary does not encompass the entire mainstream definition. The common definition of East Asia is what I'm going on and Oxford also has a separate definition for Southeast Asia. So Oxford probably goes by the common definition as well. Some people/sources do combine both geographical regions together, but these are usually termed differently like "East Asia and the Pacific" as to not confuse with the most common definition of East Asia.


 * Basically, like I said previously, Southeast Asian groups such as Thais and Vietnamese are also commonly considered as Asian. The term Asian doesn't chiefly refer to East Asians. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 15:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is simply a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:GETOVERIT. The consensus did not go over Saturday's way, so they are just trying to make a fuss. The comment that the census view is an extreme minority is not only WP:OR (there is no source that indicate such is true) but is also blatantly untrue. I ask Saturdayseven to indicate any US employer or school that lists South Asians (and Southeast Asians) in a separate category than "Asian". The reason why the census definition carries much more weight than Saturdayseven gives it credit.
 * I would also like to some other kind of source of American origin that indicates an extreme minority of Americans follow the geographically-correct definitions of Asian (i.e. those that include South and Southeast Asians), such as maybe some kind of scientific poll. Until Saturdayseven can produce one of those sources, the claim that the census definition is an extreme minority is supposition (or at best WP:OR). Also, this is WP:OR, but I know many people who follow geographically-correct definitions of Asian; if they are such an extreme minority I wouldn't likely know so many of them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My assertion that the census view is an extreme minority view is proven by the Oxford dictionary. Dictionaries reflect broad mainstream word useage and seeing as the census definition is not reflected by the dictionary, it's not mainstream.  As for an American source, I looked at the Webster defenition of Asian-American[] and it simply defines an Asian American as an American of Asian ancestry, so Webster includes ALL Asians (including West Asians).  So either way, the census definition is not mainstream.  It is too broad for the oxford definition (which only includes East Asians) and too narrow for the Webster definition (which includes ALL Asians, including West Asians).  I propose we divide this article into three main sections:  NARROW DEFINITION, BROAD DEFINITION, CENSUS DEFINITION.  That would be far more helpful to the reader than just trying to force-feed the census definition down our reader's throat because it's politically correct at the current time.  Now as for whether South-east Asians are considered Asian by the narrow definition; I think there is some confusion because many people view south/east asians as a mixed ancestry population (part East Asian, part indigenous natives of south-east Asia, and thus they are less well defined in their appearance) Saturdayseven (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again this is all OR. Oxford says "chiefly". Chiefly does not mean the outside view is an extreme minority. Provide a scholarly source other than that one single dictionary entry, and then we can talk. Wikipedia does not follow headcounts or popular thought. We follow reliable sources. The Census and AsAM Studies departments are reliable sources, so we look at their definitions. People may use geographically-incorrect definitions of Asian in common speech, but in reality no one who matters actually follows that definition. I told you find a college/university or an employer who does not use the census definition. What random Joe on the street thinks is not what Wikipedia is meant to display as a primary view point. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, for this article the census and academia are the two most reliable sources. The census definition has a lot of clout, because as the article indicates, most government programs pertaining to equality are based on the census.

{{cquote|}Now as for whether South-east Asians are considered Asian by the narrow definition; I think there is some confusion because many people view south/east asians as a mixed ancestry population (part East Asian, part indigenous natives of south-east Asia, and thus they are less well defined in their appearance)}} This is extreme OR also. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of breaking the entire article into the three in-article sub-articles is a bad idea.
 * There has been previous consensus, and current consensus as to keeping the scope to match that of the definition provided by the consensus. Discussions as to the terminology of Asian American, IMHO, should remain within the terminology section, with all definitions provided there in, with references to support any newly added content. If one wants to link the articles concerning other "Asian Americans", that are not listed here but fall under the wider definition, in the See Also section by all means please add them. However, content concerning those ethnic groups should be kept in those separate articles until the consensus of active users change here to use a definition other than that of the Census to define the scope of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Find a well respected dictionary that actually supports the census/academia definition of "Asian American". If you can't find a single reliable mainstream dictionary that recognizes this definition, then it's obviously an extreme minority POV & it violates WP:undue to allow such a fringe view to dominate an entire article. Saturdayseven (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:CIVIL, WP:NAM
 * Dictionaries are definitely reliable sources, I don't believe any editor is questioning that point. What the general consensus appears to be is that the definition most used is that of the Census, as well as the definition that that has consensus up to this point for defining the scope of this article. Furthermore, this is supported widely by multiple college Asian American studies program, as well referenced in the article itself.
 * What is not in question is that the stricter, and broader definitions exist as it has been indicated here. What is in question is whether the scope of this article should be defined those dictionary definition. As stated before, there is not the consensus to follow those dictionary definitions, but the definitions as presently used by the United States Census and the Asian American Studies programs.
 * Again I do believe that all definitions of Asian American should be included in the terminology section, however I do not believe it should effect the content of the wider article outside of adding wikilinks to the See Also section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the census definition of Asian American were so commonly used, it would be in the dictionary. The whole point of dictionaries are to document how words are used.  There's obviously several definitions of what it means to be Asian in America, and to just arbitrarily choose the census definition as superior and allow it to dominate the whole article and relegate mainstream dictionary definitions to the terminology section seems like a very clear case of POV pushing.Saturdayseven (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, no one is questioning whether there are other definitions for the term "Asian American"; it has been well documented here from reliable sources that those definitions exist. Also, I have conceded that those definitions do belong in the appropriate Terminology section of this article, but for reasons as for defining scope, there has been a consensus that the Census definition to be used. Furthermore, for the census definition to be used, as it is presently, it allows for an accurate population count from reliable sources, mainly being that of the census. To use other definitions would mean cobbling multiple reliable sources together and then synthesising a figure from those, which some may consider WP:OR. Using the census definition removes that possibility. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving all definitions equal weight in the article does not mean census population counts can't be used, but simply specify that the figures are based on the census definition of Asian. Then when someone finds a source with a population count based on a different definition, that could be included too. Saturdayseven (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In other conversations I've been in about these kinds of definitional disputes, we often acknowledged that our terminology should match the professional usage as often as possible, even if the definition is not the most common dictionary use. Is there a policy that says that dictionaries have more authority than other sources? I know that in my academic field, there are terms commonly used that haven't even made it into the dictionary yet. So unless we can find a policy that privileges dictionaries, I say we look at what the academics are doing. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does privelige dictionaries in that wikipedia priviliges mainstream sources and feels extreme minority views should not be given undue weight. The census definition is a minority view as proven by its failure to emerge in mainstream sources like the dictionary. Wikipedia policy would dictate that the census definition should be only a tiny section of the article because it's such a minority view.  But I'm not arguing that.  I would be happy if all definitions could just be given equal weight.Saturdayseven (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The census definition is a minority view as proven by its failure to emerge in mainstream sources like the dictionary. I don't find this assertion logically convincing at all. I don't think that not being in a dictionary automatically makes a definition a minority view. And even if it did, some minority definitions are better than mainstream definitions--especially when referring to technical terms like this one. In this case, I would weight the governmental and academic definitions over the "mainstream" definition, which is probably "mainstream" simply by being 30 years behind the time. I've got textbooks going back to 1992 that include South Asians in the group. (But I admit that it's problematic that West Asians aren't included--they tend to be placed in "Middle East" studies. I think the assumption is that they've had more contact and reciprocal influence with European cultures, whereas India, China, Japan, Korea and SE Asia have only recently had significant interaction. Plus, the invisible line that separates Abrahamic Asia from Buddhist Asia may also keep West Asians out of "Asian America". It's a problem.) Aristophanes 68   (talk)  01:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement made by Aristophanes68; since there have been multiple reliable sources, including multiple institutions of higher learning as well as the federal government definition via the U.S. Census Bureau that have included East Asians, South Asians and Southeast Asians as "Asian Americans", this would appear to be the majority view amongst academics and has so far been supported by the majority of active editors on this article.
 * I agree that based on the referenced, and supported by consensus (so far), that the above definition be used that ethnic groups from Western Asia, Central Asia, and parts of Russia that are on the Asian continent should be discussed in the terminology section so far as the discussion of terminology goes. However, as there are not references for that wider inclusion that fall under the present definition that is supported by consensus that information regarding those ethnic groups should at most be wikilinked in the terminology section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, it appears from this discussion no one (other than Saturdayseven) supports the undue tag. Should no one come forth to support Saturdayseven within a week, I think we should all agree to take down the tag Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support this proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support there really is no need to add that tag. Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on dictionaries, the main definition of "Asian American" are Americans of Asian descent (including Western Asians).
 * Dictionary.com,
 * Merriam-Webster
 * Encarta dictionary
 * Cambridge dictionary (Asian American redirects here, but it is under American English setting)
 * Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
 * FreeDictionary (supposedly copied from American Heritage Dictionary)
 * So then, based on Saturdayseven's argument, Dictionaries reflect broad mainstream word useage and seeing as the census definition is not reflected by the dictionary, it's quite evident then that South Asians are considered Asian as well as Western Asian. Since dictionaries represent mainstream usage, and multiple dictionaries are going by the same/similar definition of what it means to be an Asian American, then the mainstream definition of Asian American must then include South Asians and Western Asians. It would appear then that based on all these dictionaries, Fareed Zakaria is considered Asian. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not reliable but even the slang person's dictionary, Urban Dictionary seems to have quite a support for the census definition. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 22:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with South Asians being considered Asian if West Asians are also considered Asian. Mainstream definitions (dictionaries) either consider Asian to be a racial term or a geographic term.  If it's a racial term, then only East Asians and possibly south-east asians are asian.  However if it's a geographic term, then everyone from Asia is included including West Asians.  The problem with the census definition is that it includes all Asians except West Asians.  This doesn't make sense geographically because West Asia is in Asia.  It also doesn't make sense racially because South Asians look very much like West Asians and not at all like East Asians or south-east Asians.  The census definition is not coherent on any level, which is why it has never gained enough traction to enter dictionaries.  And yet a tiny group of people with very loud voices is determined to push this incoherent definition as the primary definition, and treat mainstream views as ignorant.  The article can either choose to empower this odd agenda, or it can be a balanced article with a neutral POV. Saturdayseven (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy would dictate that the census definition should be only a tiny section of the article because it's such a minority view. Can you find a source that says the U.S. Census bureau is the minority view? I'm not buying the dictionary argument. To my understanding based on arguments is that Asian American = any person of Asian descent in terms of who considers what. Wouldn't the Oxford dictionary definition be considered the minority view as well based on your argument that since it's like the only dictionary (at least that I found) that states that East Asians = Asian American? The slang dictionary has support for the census definition (I am assuming this based on their examples). It would appear then that the Oxford view is the most minority view. A big point I'm making is that the statements you've been making, South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans and The cenus might classify them as such, but they are not regarded as Asian Americans in common useage. Fareed Zakaria is not considered Asian in common useage. haven't been supported very well. Only Oxford says this the other source you added Colorq.org has been found to be unreliable. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The undue tag has been up for just a few hours under a week. No one other than Saturdayseven came forward supporting it. I am removing it for the reasons above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding new table
In a recent edit a large amount of new data referenced to the 2010 census was put up. I have few questions I see that not all states are included, is that because not all data is presently available? Are the numbers for one race only, or for all asians (one race, multi-racial, Latino/Hispanic Asians)? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The following reply to these questions was left in my talk page, so I shall provide them here"

Hi,

The information is incomplete because the data for the other states has not been released. The information is for Asian alone (or Asian Indian alone, Chinese alone etc)

Rahulk.cmc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulk.cmc (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that this is not all the data, that the data is incomplete. I have already added such a note.
 * To exclude some Asians, and only including those who are Asian alone is exclusionary, and does not provide an accurate size of the population(s) given the scope of this article. There has been consensus in the past to also include Multiracial Asian Americans within the scope of thise article. Perhaps we should hold off on this until the full data set comes out?
 * Either way, first let me say that this goes a signifcant way to increasing the accuracy of this article, and therefore, the edit is, IMHO, good faith one. I am just wondering if we should be providing incomplete data at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplication
Text has recently been duplicated at the article Demographics of Asian Americans. Perhaps this data should be kept at only one location? I shall wait a given period of time (7 days (29MAY11)), if I don't hear objection, then I shall remove the data due to WP:LENGTH. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recently added a template to the section in discussion. I should have done that back on 22 May. Therefore, I shall wait until7 days, 4JUN11, to make the move unless there is objection.

Furthermore, I have found that the text was also duplicated at List of U.S. states by Asian American population, I have tagged that for merge as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

With no objection received, I will merge the content as proposed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in content between Filipino American & Indian American articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

My table on Asian American Population growth is getting deleted
I had recently included a table on Asian American population growth. The table also had references to back the data. I would like to know why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.92.239 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see consensus found here. Perhaps the population growth data would be better located at Demographics of Asian Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this data is re-added, please provide a note of its lack of inclusion of Multiracial Asian Americans, and thus possibly factually inaccurate/misleading information, when all Asian Americans are taken into account. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I shall re-add this data and add a note about the non-inclusion of Multiracial Asian Americans. --76.218.92.239 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to Demographics of Asian Americans
Perhaps the new table would be better placed in the article Demographics of Asian Americans. This article has had multiple sub-articles created due to its article size, and addition of new content that can be placed in one of those sub-articles perhaps should be considered. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is objection to the move, I will carry out the move on 19JUN11. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Without hearing objection, I shall commence the move. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The new table has a column named "Decadal Growth" where it compares two categories analogous to comparing the number of apples to oranges. I have changed the table in such a manner that only the Asians Alone categories are compared as it makes more sense.76.218.92.239 (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New table on Asian American Population growth
The new table on Asian American Population growth attempts to provide data regarding "Decadal Growth" while comparing two very different numbers. (Asians Alone (2010) vs Asians alone or in any combination (2000)) This is highly inaccurate and confuses many readers as they are shocked by the massive drop in the number of Japanese Americans (more than 300,000 people !). Hence I have altered the table to reflect the true situation as of 2010 by comparing only the numbers in the Asian alone category and mentioned that the data for Multi-racial Americans has not yet been made available.76.218.92.239 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge section to main article - Demographics
The article Demographics of Asian Americans was spun out initially in March 2007. Overtime through good faith efforts, including my own, the section has expanded beyond the summary that should be left (or placed) in this article with the main content in the sub-article. Therefore, as was done recently with Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, I propose that the information in the Demographics section be merged with the sub-article.

Unless there is an objection by 4 July 2011, I shall conduct the merger. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Without objection, I shall begin the process. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Images in infobox proposal
I recently reverted the images in the infobox to one that is more representative of the different ethnicities that make up the Asian American group, furthermore the previous images had consensus whereas the new images did not. I have since changed the order of the images to reflect new population numbers from the 2010 United States Census. That being said, having 10, in rows of 3 (1,3,3,3) appears odd to me. Therefore, I propose that we include in the infobox representatives from the next to largest Asian American ethncities based on figures from the 2010 census; these whould be the Laotians & Taiwanese. If there are no objections by 8JAN12, I will be bold and begin the process, as was done before, to propose representatives of these two ethnicities. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone find the IP address of the person who posted the "Squinty-Eyed" slur?
I am only an occasional Wikipedia editor, but I was shocked to see that slur used in the second sentence of the main article, while dishonestly claiming it came from the U.S. Census. I deleted the reference, but I'd say whoever wrote it was a racist vandal and should have their IP address banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.85.14 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting the vandalism. I will keep a closer look on this page, and have warned the offending editor appropriately. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category upmerge discussion taking place
For anyone interested, there is a proposal to remove the "Category:American sportspeople of X descent" subcategories of "American sportspeople of Asian descent", where "X" corresponds to various Asian American groups (i.e., Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, etc). This appears to be an attempt to establish precedent, after which the other Asian American subcategories of "Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation" can be expected to be nominated for deletion. If you wish to participate in the discussion, it is taking place at: Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27 &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Young Oak Kim
Please stop adding content not supported by the reference. The reference only speaks about the 442nd Infantry Regiment. Content regarding COL Kim, information about him can already be found (that content is referenced there), in the sub article Military history of Asian Americans. You can find that content here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, expansion of content regarding the Military history of Asian Americans should be kept to the subarticle. Content specifically about the subject Young Oak Kim, should remain on the subject's biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, while looking at the reference, I'm not sure http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/100-442in.htm is reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Globalsecurity.org has been discussed at RSN multiple times, and generally found to be a reliable source. See the discussion here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)