Talk:Asian people/Archive 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Asian people → Asians — 'Asian' is the adjective (i.e., the demonym) for people from Asia, not 'Asian people' -- the plural Asians makes more sense and is reflected in article titles for other groups (e.g., Russians). Alternatively, the article can be moved back to Asian (people).  In either case, Asian can be made into a redirect (c.f. American), though I'm unsure why it was moved from 'Asian (people)' to begin with. Corticopia 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Asian people → Asian OR Asian (people) — 'Asian' is the adjective (i.e., the demonym) for people from Asia, not 'Asian people'. As well, 'Asian' currently redirects to 'Asian people', so this move is appropriate and shouldn't be problematic.  Alternatively, the article can be moved back to Asian (people) and Asian made into a redirect (c.f. American), though I'm unsure why it was moved to begin with. Corticopia 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) —Corticopia 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support, as nominator. Corticopia 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * reaffirmed for move to 'Asians'. Corticopia 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this has been moved from Asian to Asian people. This should stay like African people and White people. Asian means it is related to "Asia," and it doesn't really mean it is people. We should be very specific and understandable. That would be nonsense view. Move "white people" to white, move african people to "african", etc. That is nonsense. Extremely oppose. Asian has been changed to be disambiguation page. Good idea67.41.157.5 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Besides the fact that the anonymous editor at this IP address only began editing two days ago, and thus has no real weight herein (and I wonder if it is a regular editor in disguise), there is an alternative to move it to 'Asian (people)', which is also acceptable. Corticopia 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, I have reverted the responsive retrofitting of 'Asian' for now. Besides, 'Asia' does not mean 'Asian'. Corticopia 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon makes a valid point, and you should refrain from being dismissive of editors simply because they appear to be new.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Other points notwithstanding, can you point me to the policy which legitimises assertions from anonymous IPs, and new ones at that? Corticopia 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the anon.user. Coricopia assume good faith. Just because someone is anon. doesn't mean he/she is new. He/she might not have the time to log in. Assume good faith as long as you can. 67.41.157.5 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. Corticopia 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "[Adjective] people" is the standard form on Wikipedia. With regard to the specific proposals, "Asian" is ambiguous and "Asian (people)" simply adds two unnecessary punctuation marks. -- Visviva 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is 'x people' standard; is that prescribed somewhere?  And if 'Asian' is truly ambiguous, I hardly see how the addition of a parenthetic to it would be problematic, particularly if 'Asian' becomes a DAB.  Corticopia 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I forgot that this convention has broken down considerably of late; see Koreans, Russians, etc.
 * Suggest move to Asians, and dabbifying Asian (with links to this article and to Asia, and perhaps others). -- Visviva 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just about to suggest that; I'd support a move to Asians, retrofit Asian as a DAB, and make everything right as rain? If agreeable or if there are no objections, I will nullify this RM, and place another (since we can't just move it there).  Corticopia 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest redirecting "Asians" to "Asian people." Make it similar with the african people and white people articles. Have Asians redirect here 67.41.157.5 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? That seems overly complicated: besides, depending on the context, 'Asian people' is an oxymoron a tautology; 'Asians' really isn't.  I will refactor the RM (or create one anew) as per Visviva.  Corticopia 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move as currently suggested (just for the record). But I wonder if anyone thinks that "Asians" could be seen as pejorative in a way that "Asian people" is not?  Just tossing that out there... -- Visviva 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's an issue (or should be), particularly if a slew of other ethnicities groups are similarly titled (e.g., c.f. Indian/Indians) -- besides, it's merely a plural of a common term e.g., found in dictionaries. Perhaps a move to 'Asian (people)' or just 'Asian' should be reconsidered? ;) I also wonder, though, if your concern can be applied to 'Asian people' too (i.e., treating Asians as objects). Corticopia 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're probably right; it just happened to cross my mind as I was typing. Specifically it occurred to me that it was probably not coincidental that we have an article at African people and not Africans -- but the particularly raw sensitivities in that case probably don't apply here.  -- Visviva 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, Indian/Indians is actually a dab page with the article on the people being something else, quite likely to avoid the perjorative feeling Visviva mentioned. Above you said Asian people was oxymoronic, but I really fail to see what you mean.  Oxymorons are contradictions in terms, there is nothing contradictory or oxymoronic about the phrase Asian people--or are you saying you can't be Asian and a person at the same time?  These days there doesn't seem much consistency (as Visviva points out), so it wouldn't be without precedent to rename it to Asians, but I kind of prefer "X people" since it can work for everything (and just the plural can't, as someone pointed out below) and seems more "encyclopedic." (A quick perusal of other encyclopedias turns up things like "Turkish peoples" but no "Turks," for example.) --Cheers, Komdori 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify: I'm unsure if 'Asian people' is encyclopedic, and perhaps even less so, than 'Asian'. It seems odd, even superfluous, to retain the current title as opposed to 'Asian(s)' alone or 'Asian (people)': I mean, while there are many sorts of people (ethnic and other groups), 'Asians' is clear and not ambiguous.  To rephrase (and I apologise for oxymoronic confusion above, which I've edited): it's analogous to making references to 'American people' or 'European people' or 'Caucasian people', when just the pluralised adjectives (without people, or that in parentheses) would do (but not in the cases of 'Japanese'/'Portuguese' peoples, as DT stated below).  As well, per the common naming convention (and if search enginesare to be trusted or valid), there are 746K instance of 'Asian people' online, as opposed to 11.8M for 'Asians' – a ratio of 1 to 15 in favour of 'Asians'.  Corticopia 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I immediately understood (and agree with) much of your argument based on the edit. It might be good to move this article, but I'm just wondering where the best place for it.  It seems that "Asian peoples" (rather than people) might fix some of the issues (it makes it clear we're talking about the different groups of people who live in Asia).  This goes with the example of Britannica's "peoples" articles.  Encarta comes back with a "People of Asia" article when I searched for Asian people.  I am sure your google result is valid, though I'm not sure if we should base it completely on that.  I kind of think "White people" and "Black people" are probably good titles, and it's kind of nice to match those (even though there are many more examples of "Whites" and "Blacks" than "White people" and "Black people.") I don't like to "bind" page moves together, but it might help me know what your philosophy on this move: would you suggest those articles be moved to Whites and Blacks respectively (there is really no dab issue with those, either, Blacks for example redirects directly to the Black people page with no dab page)? --Cheers, Komdori 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, wonder about the ideal location for this and similar articles. I don't think moves to 'Whites' and 'Blacks' would be prudent: the singular and plural forms might be unclear without any modifiers, whereas 'Asians' and similar demonyms are not.  That being said, I don't like inconsistency; however, I really don't like 'x people' in this particular instance either, for reasons stated above -- basically, it reads wrong.  However, it sounds right when applied to 'White people' or 'Black people'.  I guess that's why I had initially suggested moving the article to 'Asian (people)' (how about 'Asian (demonym)'?) -- that format can be replicated for any number of groups, without worrying about if the term itself is correct or unclear on its own (e.g., 'Black (people)' which DABs 'black').  Or maybe, as per this RM, 'xs' if the demonym is unambiguous ('e.g., 'Asians', 'Americans'), but 'x (people}' if it is ambiguous (e.g., 'Portuguese (people)', 'Black (people)').  I hope this makes sense. :) Corticopia 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a against "Asian (demonym)" title because it does not seem to be the common term which is prefered by Naming conventions.Dark Tea 08:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I take it you wouldn't oppose Asian (people), since the current term is relatively uncommon as opposed to Asians or those from any number of Asian subregions? Corticopia 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The present name makes it very clear that the article refers to people from the whole of Asia, but "Asians" on its own has different popular meanings in different parts of the world, ie it refers primarily to South Asians in the UK and to East Asians in the U.S. Nothing is gained by introducing this ambiguity, indeed it creates issues that need to be dealt with in the article, but would clutter it up. Beorhtric 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This ambiguity is not mitigated through the title's current location, but in fact is complicated by it. First, it doesn't conform to the common naming convention.  Second, a major function of this article already is to distinguish different reckonings of the term Asian(s) in different parts of the world.  Dictionaries invariably list these definitions under Asian.  I mean, even in your commentary above, you did not once refer to Asian people, South Asian people, or East Asian people but to "South Asians" and "East Asians".  Retaining the current title conflates a notion and term that should be fairly simple. Corticopia 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * East Asians and South Asians can be clear without Asian itself being clear... he does have a point that those in the US instinctively picture those from the East and the UK often the South when presented with an unqualified term. I'm not sure if that should affect the naming or not. --Cheers, Komdori 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. In the context of the proposed move, this is somewhat of a non sequitur: the distinction of usage/understanding of Asian is not really a matter of debate -- even the OED indicates this dichotomy in the UK and US regarding Asian.  To put it another way, this would have to be dealt with regardless if the article was entitled Asian, Asians, Asian (people(s)), et al.  Alternatively, Asian people does not any more clarify that dichotomy of usage -- say, an American, upon visiting this page, may not actually know what to expect with the current title (as opposed to Asian(s)).  Corticopia 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Nonsense if we move this. We are talking about "Asian" and "people," not just "Asian." That is confusing with things that are Asian. Nonsense! 67.41.157.5 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I believe this objection applies only to the previous proposal. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Opposse DAB"A disambigulation would be unsuitable for the term "Asian" because none of the disambigulation links are framed by the concept of "Asian"; they are all framed by the concept of "Asia". If the disambigulation went to Asians, Asian culture, Asian language, and Asian religion, then it would be fine.  On the contrary, the only similar articles are culture of Asia, Languages of Asia and  Religion in Asia.  The "culture in Asia" article includes Middle Eastern and Armenian culture which would not be called Asian culture.  The religion in Asia says nothing because the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions come from 6 region Asia.  The relevant article would be Eastern philosophy which shows a map of the Dharmic religions of 3 region Asia.  This is what people in the US would be refering to if they say "Asian religion".  The Languages of Asia article again includes non-Asian people who wouldn't be refered to as speaking an Asian language.  Basically, the term Asian doesn't disambigulate to the "of Asia" articles.  Since "Asian" won't disambigulate to any suitable articles, it shouldn't become a disambigulation page.Dark Tea  12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand... "X in/of Asia" and "Asian X" should generally have the same scope, I would think.  If there are problems with the scope of those articles, those problems should be addressed, but needn't affect this present discussion.  -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Through multiple entries/senses for 'Asian', for instance, dictionaries illustrate the validity of retrofitting it into a DAB. I think 'Asian' would DAB to all applicable spots -- including those peoples in particular subregions.  And, as we all know, the scope of the concept of 'Asia' is much wider than stated above. Corticopia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The term "Asian" should redirect to the "Asians" article and not be a disambigulation page. That dictionary's format for organizing its article has no bearing on Wikipedia. Their entry is also overly simplified, labeling the "Asian" as something coming from Asia.  The current citations in this article from reliable-source sociologists indicate that there are more intricacies than that simple definition.  In the US, the term "Asian" does not refer to Middle Easterners.  Since the "of Asia" e.g. "Religions of Asia" articles are not organized around the Asian ethnic group, a disambigulation of the term "Asian" to them would not be fitting.Dark Tea  09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Comment" "Asian people" can change its name to Asians. Many other ethnic articles to this.  The ones that don't like Japanese people don't do this because they have no plural/singular distinction.Dark Tea  12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point about Japanese, et al., in which case 'x people' or 'x (people)' would be more appropriate (compare with related languages). Corticopia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Welty's cultural information
User:Flyrs claims that s/he is removing the Welty section on culture per WP:WEIGHT, but I believe Welty's view point is not already in the article. The 3-region POV is already in the article under governmental definitions, but Welty's POV is a sociologist POV. Even if these two POVs should be grouped together, allowing for their separate attribution, the information Welty provides on culture is not already in the article. Welty's cultural definition is mostly not written using the singular debatable Asian category; although some of his cultural definitions are written under the singular Asian category, most of his cultural description is done for each of the 3 regions. Regardless of the contentious definition of Asian we use, the three regions are in almost all conceivable definitions, so the removal of his cultural description is unwarranted. The ethnicity information box is cited with Welty as the WP:RS who claims Asians are culture. I do not understand User:Flyrs reasoning for removing this citation yet so she should respond here.Dark Tea 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation was not removed, it was condensed to two sentences. Five paragraphs using one source is a little excessive. Also, Welty does not claim that there is an Asian ethnic group, he claims that there are cultural similarities. At any rate, that template design for Wikipedia is used for ethnic groups specifically; not in broad groupings of people such as White people. It would even contradict itself within the article in such sentences as In Malaysia and Singapore, their three largest ethnic groups, Malays, Chinese, and Indians, are all considered Asian. A template also clearly excludes and includes certain peoples, which can only represent one view, meaning that a template can not represent a global view on the subject. Flyrs 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The ethnicity template is inappropriate for this contentious issue because it only takes a single POV. It should not be in the article where multiple POVs exist.Dark Tea  00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Flyrs 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why you disagree with Welty's synopsis of the internal cultural similarities in each Asian region. A cultural description of each region does not have to take a stance on the Asian definition.  When we find a cultural overview of Central Asia, we can add it and the cultural section will be complete.  It will then show all the cultural regions without taking a stance on the definition of Asians.  I do not see why one source cannot be used as a citation for multiple paragraphs like you claim.  Is there a Wikipedia Policy that advises this?Dark Tea  00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree or agree with his synopsis, it was more the format in which it was presented. It seems to me that a paragraph saying Welty saw three distinct cultural regions etc. is all that is needed. At any rate, I haven't removed it, but it does seem a little one-source heavy (no idea if there's a Wikipedia Policy either). Flyrs 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deamericanized
this article needs to be deamericanized because there is already an article for Asian American. Muntuwandi 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the protection of the page by accident
However, I reverted it so it's ok now. but why is this protected anyway? I'm still not familiar with the rules and policies of wikipedia and I'm learning it in the process. thanks. If you would be so kind. And I know how to protect and unprotect a page now. so thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs).
 * The template doesn't actually affect protection, it only lets users know about it. Only admins can protect and unprotect pages, and it's normally requested at WP:RFPP. It was semi-protected because it's a common target for vandalism. The protection log is here. I could try unprotecting it if anyone's interested. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy
"Korea and Japan As early as 1920, Japanese and Korean elites had a conception of Asia as the civilization of the East in contrast to Europe." Who in the world posted this ridiculous sentence?

Japanese people generally do not consider themselves to be "Asian people." "Asian people" in Japan refers to people from the Asian continent, and especially those from Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand.
 * That quote is cited from an WP:RS. I'm sure that not all Japanese residents share this view, but I don't think the author of the paper made this up.Dark</i> Tea  09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just connotation vs. denotation. The use of "Asian" as "foreign Asian" or "Southeast Asian" is for convenience, similar to "Asian" as shorthand for East Asian in the US and South Asian in Britain, and does not mean Japan is actually outside of Asia. --JWB 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

More specific name

 * This article deals primarily or exclusively with the definition of Asian in English-speaking countries, mainly referring to immigrants or descendants of immigrants living therein.

Synonyms include Asiatic, or Asian Continental Ancestry Group.

This indicates a more specific title is needed. Most of the conflict here seems to be because of the natural expectation that an article with a general title will have broad content and definitions. Here are some suggestions:

--JWB 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Asian minorities in English-speaking countries
 * Asian Continental Ancestry Group (US Census)

I'm unsure of this: even my volume of the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Asian' (roughly) as a demonym for people of Asia and, depending on locale (UK or US), people of different subregions of the continent (Southern and Eastern Asia respectively). There are also usage guides and entries,, solely devoted to this different usage.Corticopia 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're unsure of? --JWB 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto -- my point: if a more precise article title is needed, it needn't be one of the (tortuous) names you propose but something far simpler (per the common naming convention): Asian, Asians, Asian (people), Asian people, Asian peoples, etc. Is there a reason why the above noted groups/names cannot be dealt with in such an article?  I think the multinomial terms/constituencies you've indicated above can be equitably dealt with in said article, if not already.  If you mean something else, though, then I truly am unsure what you mean.  Corticopia 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The current article seems to be narrowly focused on Asian-origin people in other parts of the world, particularly the US and governmental classifications there. Either the article should have a more accurate title, or focus should be expanded. Editors most active on this article seem to favor the narrow focus. Expanding the focus raises all these questions of what belongs in "Asia" articles and what in "Asian" articles. --JWB 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel the proposed titles of "Asian minorities in English-speaking countries" and "Asian Continental Ancestry Group (US Census)" would violate the WP:NAMING condition by not being names "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize".<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 09:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NAMING says to use an unambiguous title rather than just the simplest possible one. (By the way, Naming_conflict also says to use a historically correct title rather than anachronistically simplifying to a current term.)
 * Asians in English-speaking countries and Asians (US Census) are simpler and still unambiguous. Asian diaspora is also not taken and is comparable to African diaspora, etc. --JWB 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMING also says to name articles "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", meaning that unwieldy titles such as "Asians in English-speaking countries" shouldn't be the title name. In this case, WP:NAMING does not apply to "Asians", because "Asians"  clearly means the Asian race.  I think "Asians" is the best title.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  07:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like the best solution is simply to expand the scope of this article. We should have an article on Asian people, and I can't think where else it would go.-- Visviva 11:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that recent edits have moved the focus of the article away from the topic in favour of a narrow viewpoint (namely Welty). The title of the article as it is would have been sufficient in its previous format (circa March 2007), with definitions listed by country. As it is, either the content or the title should be changed as they are somewhat inconsistent. Flyrs 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also believe that the scope of this article should be expanded -- after all, this is an encyclopedia, which should contain comprehensive treatments of topic matter. Corticopia 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well a lot of encyclopedias tend to make the the two topics a bit more distinct. The two topics might be worth separating--"People of Asia" describing the people who live in Asia, perhaps regardless of their race, and "Asian minorities outside Asia" being a quite different topic.  I think that's how the people from India are treated (if I'm not mistaken, it's split into two such articles). --Cheers, Komdori 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is still entirely "Asians outside Asia" and very minimal background about Asia. In light of the above discussion, I'd like to suggest that the current Dark Tea-authored article text on that subject be moved to a new article with that title, and maybe creation of an infobox on Asian minorities; and that we revert this article to the previous state circa March 2007 which the other editors in the discussion prefer. --JWB 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good start but could be better
I am surprised that no one has drawn on the vast scholarly literature on Asian nations and ethnic groups. Has anyone read Thongchai's Siam Mapped, Duara's Rescuing History from the Nation, or Chatterjee's The Nation and its Fragments? These would be good starts. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

American bias
User:Padishah5000 feels that the classification of Asians by individuals is biased to the United States perspective, but most of its sources are not from the United States. Only Paul Welty is in the United States. Keith Lowe is in Canada. Sudra Ramachandran is in India. I would like Padishah5000 to explain her/his self.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea &#169;  01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul Welty, a largely unknown scholar, represents a very singular and American viewpoint, and reflects undo weight in the article. Padi 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You said he represents a "singular" viewpoint. Yes, he is the only American out of the three.  He is also a notable scholar whose work is incorporated into California universities' libraries.  Your accusations have no merit.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  &#169;  20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A simple google search reveals that Welty is a virtual unknown as an academic, and as a result, his input into this article is unequally weighted in accordance with his stature as a scholar. Welty also reflects a notion of Asia and "being" Asian which is not generally understood and acknowledged outside of the United States, and one that is also open to much controversy. Padi 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar Search shows exactly 4 references. The only one of those references whose text is available online includes Iranian-Americans among Asian-American groups, contradicting the definition of Asia that DT claims is in Welty's book. (As noted earlier, Welty is only defining the scope of his book and not trying to propound a general redefinition of Asia.) The other stuff referenced to Welty is extremely simple, practically cliche statements that could be referenced from almost anywhere. Some of it (eating wheat, extended families, literacy and scholarship) could apply to people in many other parts of the world, and at least one statement is obsolete since many countries other than Japan are now urbanized. --JWB 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very interesting, and seems to contradict the manor in which Welty's work is presented in the article. Padi 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in Wong and Hines' essay do they cite or discuss Welty?<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea &#169;  04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google HTML rendition cuts off the bibliography. Follow the link at the top to the original PDF and Welty is cited in the bibliography on page 115. --JWB 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Welty says multiple times the extent of Asia and the Asian people. "It is the great merit of 'The Asians' that is puts main emphasis...for the main areas of Asia from Pakistan round to Japan."(Foreward, IX), "...it has become customary to group the Asian people into the three regions of South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia..."(Prologue, pp. 3)  "The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia."  The map of Asia on page 23 labeled the "Population of Asian Countries" does not include Iran.  Similarly, the map of the "South Asian Subcontinent" on page 28 does not include Iran along with the written description, "South Asia includes the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Maldives and Bhutan."(Welty, pp. 58)<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  &#169;  23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "main areas of Asia from Pakistan to Japan" does not exclude the possibility of non-main areas not in that range. The others all relate to the scope of his book as we went over earlier. The use of "Asia" and "Asian" in his book is synecdoche, no different than British use of Asian as shorthand for South Asian or US use of Asian as shorthand for East Asian. It sounds like he is also leaving Central Asia and Siberia out of the scope of his book. --JWB 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that if Welty said that the "main areas of Asia [are] from Pakistan to Japan" that he may be including Russia or the Arabian peninsula as minor areas?<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea &#169;  02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The most heavily populated areas are within the triangle formed by Pakistan, Japan and Java. These are the most economically and politically important areas. They might also be most typically Asian if you view the characteristics of these densely populated societies as typical, but they are not all of Asia. --JWB 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote from DT's own website pushing the original concept of "Tripartite Asia" along with a blizzard of other neologisms: 'The statements made here may be at odds with the common understanding of the term "Asian"'. --JWB 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In contrast to neologisms and redefinitions, Welty claims that his definition of the Asian "has become customary", implying that he's expounding the characteristics of the common definition of Asian.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea &#169;  02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote you give above says that it has become customary to categorize S, E, and SE Asians. It does not mention the less populated areas of SW Asia, Central Asia, and North Asia, so it is not clear whether he is really excluding them, or just neglecting them in the context of this discussion (the obvious conclusion considering the declared scope of his book). As usual, you are citing a sentence that does not directly state what you want to prove, but might possibly be interpreted to imply it as a side effect.
 * Another note, Welty also wrote textbooks covering other regions, such as the Middle East. Excluding Iran and west, and what was the Soviet Union at the time, from this book may simply be avoiding double coverage. --JWB 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Central Asian people
I am from Central Asia (and I am a Turkic, and I am from the Former Soviet Union), and I could say that we conisder ourselves as Asians (defintely not as white, the logic is "I am not white nor black, so I am asian"). So I have a question if I in United States is not condisdred as Asian, how I considered? the article has no iformation 'bout that :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.67 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I also see no link in the article to mongoloids, however we were ruled by descendants of Genghis Khan, and we proud of our history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.156 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Turks are classified as part of the white race by the US Census. Although you may like being associated with the Mongols due to your presumed Mongol ancestry, there does not exist any special affinity of the other Asians for the Mongols.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  &#169;  17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)




 * Wouldn't it rather be Anatolian Turks who are classified as white? Central Asian Turks, like Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Kazakhs, probably wouldn't be classified as white. Turkic peoples are very heterogeneous. Funkynusayri 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In United States, most people will not know how to consider you. The good news is, you can tell them whatever you want. :)

A Kazakh guy I knew looked like Americans of half European and half East Asian descent, which is a common combination in some areas of the US.

US Census codes the 5 Central Asian republics as Asian countries (so are Turkey and Israel), however the 3 Caucasus republics are coded as European. 

US Census records most people in US who were born in 4 of 5 Central Asian republics (no data on Turkmenistan) as white (around 85%) with most of rest as Asian or "Two or more races".     However, most emigrants from the Central Asian republics are from the European nationalities there, and there are no separate figures for people who were registered with Central Asian nationality in the former USSR. (For that matter, Census records 11% of people in US born in Asia as white ) --JWB 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * he-he I know a guy who's father is white (a russian), and his mother is an asian (a korean) - when he lived in Kazakhstan he always, people who met him first time always thinked that he is a kazakh :-)
 * however I've seen about 15 chinese girls (Han-people - ethnic chinese) and one of 'em (from the North China) is really often confused with kazakhs even when she silent  (she lived in Kazakhstan the most of her life and when she speaks rusain or kazakhs her pronciantion is not a pronciation of a foreigner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.160 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I add?

 * click the [edit] button, just in case you haven't figured it out yet..... Randolf+slayer (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity template
I have serious doubt and confusion about the ethnicity template on the right. It should be like white people article and get rid of that template. Asian people are very diverse. It should encompass worldwide view. "Asian people" is not "asian" in some parts of the world. I have serious reservation about this template. It would be far easier to put that template on white people though. Please discuss this and get rid of it. 71.208.117.226 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is cited. Sociologist Paul Thomas Welty claims that the East, South and Southeast Asians are an ethnic group.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You will have to elaborate on that, since I do not see how "Asian people" can be considered as a single ethnic group, or how the opinion of a single sociologist should carry the weight of an entire article. Padishah5000 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although Welty does not a clear argument for the Asian ethnic group, his expert sociologist opinion is WP:RS and can be WP:V.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The one quote you have presented so far deals with the scope of Welty's book, not with any definition of a single "Asian" ethnic group. --JWB 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are central Asian countries completely omitted here?
 * Simple. This article uses the U.S governments concept of an Asian identity, which excludes Middle Eastern and Central Asian peoples from the definition of "Asian", even if they come from the continent of Asia. Therefore, people from the Middle East and Central Asia are considered and counted as "white". Padishah5000 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Welty says that they are Middle Eastern in his book. Welty does not consider Middle Easterners to be Asian people in his book.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, then where does Welty draw the line? Does in place the borders of Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan as the borders between Asia and...What? Europe? Does he try and event a continent called the "Middle East"? Padishah5000 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a hack like Welty even mentioned in the article? Does anyone else not find his work ignorant and amateurish? Ive got an idea. Lets call Indonoesia part of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines part of Western Europe too. While we're at it, lets give Welty the Starbucks Coffee award for Cultural Awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.193.156 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

English-speaking countries? Immigrants? That's it?
I am also troubled by the subtitle of the article:

"This article deals primarily or exclusively with the definition of Asian in English-speaking countries, mainly referring to immigrants or descendants of immigrants living therein."

I understand we are dealing with the use of the word in the English *language*, however it serves no purpose to solely focus on the use of the term in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. There are English-speakers in other parts of the world, you know.

And why the term should chiefly refer to immigrants, I have not the faintest idea.

The article completely ignores the use of the term by the entire body of English-language media and scholarship in South Asia, as well as all other parts of Asia and the world.

Splitpeasoup 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should the most populous continent in the world be defined by english speaking nations and the few immigrants who have travelled to these countries. Readers want to know about people from Asia more than they want to know about Asian immigrants. Maybe a separate article can be made for immigrants to english speaking countries. I find this notion to be too US-centric.Muntuwandi 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the English Wiki is just the English Wiki, they only care about the English-speaking world, the rest of the world should just be omitted. From my point of view, when people from different sub-regions of Asia meet each other, Southern and Western Asians usually depict themselves as "Brown" and the rest as "yellow" (alongside American Aborigines).Derekjoe (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the criticism of focus
I agree with those who say this article is off-target. It seems to be an article describing "Western" views of what constitutes "Asian People". That is a side issue. Shouldn't the main question be how Asian People living in Asia view the subject? I assume the people of Japan, Korea and (northern) China view themselves as one group, while Indians and Southeast Asians view themselves differently? Isn't that the real question? Geographically speaking, aren't Russians also Asian? Do we not have enough information from Asian sources on this subject, or are people just too lazy to research it?

Even leaving out the philosophical musings of "what constitutes Asian-ness", shouldn't the article primarily discuss the various regions, peoples and cultures of the continent? That's the kind of overview I would expect from an encyclopedia. The information is probably already on Wikipedia in various forms, in entries about specific countries. This article is no good at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.183.166 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much philosophy required. Really. Asia is a place. People live in Asia. Those people are Asian. Confused? The problem is when uncultured ninnies attempt to conjure up "races" and artificial "boundaries" out of thin air.

There are really three main groups here. Indo-Aryan/Dravidians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians. Of these groups southeast asians are physically like east asians for the most part but have been influenced by Indian culture to some extent. East asians and southeast asians would be lumped together if the general "race" definitions like "white", "black", etc.. mean anything. The most accurate race definition would be something like this :

- Mongoloid - White - Indo Aryan / Dravidian - Arab - Black

These are the main groups on the planet. Of these groups if one wants to define something meaningless like "Asian people" then you can pick and choose as you wish as they are all in asia.


 * This IS a philosophically tricky topic. Up above we have "Asia is a place. People live in Asia. Those people are Asian. Confused? The problem is when uncultured ninnies attempt to conjure up "races" and artificial "boundaries" out of thin air."


 * If all we wanted to do was say that anyone who lives in Asia is an Asian, and nothing more, it would be a very short article. Maybe we could have such a simple article, but also have another one that attempts to address how the term "Asian" is used in different place around the world, even by uncultured ninnies.


 * I teach teenagers in Australia. It's probably fair to say that many are as yet uncultured (we're working on that!), but most are not ninnies. We have a diverse, multicultural population, including many kids with Asian ancestry (in the simple geographic sense). The kids I know like to play with racial (not racist) labels, with no more intention of causing offence than normal teenagers. In a class recently the self-proclaimed non Asians wanted to describe as Asian some other students with backgrounds from Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. I knew those detailed backgrounds. The kids didn't.


 * An here's the brutal bit. I see the word "Asian" in Australia as the word that is used to describe people with slanty eyes. If I ask kids "What do you mean by Asian?", and really push for an answer, that's where we end up. The kids don't know exactly where those they are describing that way are from. It's all based on what they look like.


 * I believe the word "Asian" fills the same niche in Australian English as "Chinese" did up until the Vietnam War. Then the insulting "slope" and "gook" took over. Then we wanted to welcome the post war Vietnamese refugees, so the current usage of the more politically correct but geographically sloppy "Asian" arose. It's a word based mostly on looks, not geography. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny
As an Asian living in [{Asia]], I totally agree with the article. I don't get why people on the outside looking in don't get it. The question people should be asking is "Why Europe is a continent?".--23prootie (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You agree with the article? All it talks about is how different countries outside of Asia use the term "Asian". That makes no sense. Define what countries are in Asia, then describe the different kinds of people who live in those countries. That's what the article should be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.138 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I complete agree with what you wrote.This article is total bullshit and needs to be rewritten!! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]

"As an Asian living in Asia.." how on earth you feel like you can claim to represent an entire continent of people most of who are likely nothing like you, is beyond me. By the way I represent the west side of the earth, call me.

Midddle Easterners are also Asian, even if not considered so by US census
We partake in all Asian sport events, and there is no such thing as an Asian race. Asia has many races.There is a tendency to paint the Middle East "white" due to ongoing warfare, occupation and the presence of Israel.Is the US census setting the standards of who is Asian and who is not? Please! If thats the case, then there is no neutrality!Neither are Central Asians "Middle Easterners". They are Central Asians, and will remain Central Asians.And Middle Easterners are Southwest Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.125.130 (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where you have confusion between race and residence. The people of the Middle East (Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc.) are Caucasians, as are the people of India. It seems to me that "Asian People", if defining race, should be referring primarily to the people of East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam, etc.) who share certain physical characteristics (facial features, hair color, etc). If it refers to residency, then it's merely a question of where the boundaries of the continent of Asia lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.183.166 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! It seems to you and other simpletons that "Asian people" may define a race, but that's where you are completely wrong! It is actually total ignorance and please stop spreading it! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]


 * There is no such thing as "Asian race" and Middle Eastern people are not Caucasian with the exception of maybe Turkish people. And you also claim Indians are Caucasian?! Some Indians are Mongoloid so how can that be? AyanP (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Ayan
 * Ethnic Iranians of Northern and Central Iran are Aryan/Indo-European and white. So are most Armenians. Some Turkish people (mostly not mixed with Aryan but are mediterranean) are white also, except the few, like some in Eastern Iran who are Mongolian or Mongolian-Euro mix. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Asians can be "causcasian" or "white" as well as black or oriental.and they still remain Asians.Actually people settled Central Asia and Europe from the Middle East and not vice versa. Arabs and Iranians, even if they have a different colour of skin, are both Asian. There is no such thing as one Asian Race. Or "Asiatic".These are racialist ideas from an era gone by! All obsolete terms.This article needs to be completely rewritten as it gets too much involved with "what is considered Asian" in certain race census statistics. The original people of Asia are the Asian people.They can be Negrito, Arab, Persian, Kazakh, Chinese, Indian, Turk, Japanese, Mizrahi Jew, Papuan, Malay, Thai, Tibetan, Armenian, Azeri, Phillipino, Yakut....etc. This article just describes some racialist cliché of what is considered "Asian" by some fools! If you live in a racialist country please stop publishing racialist views on wikipedia as encyclopedic fact! 95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]


 * That's right, there are negritos in thailand and Tajiks in China who would most likely be classified as "African" and "Caucasian" respectively if they resided in the US. Therefore the word "Asian Race" is a misnomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Asians were not the first immigrants
The following line is in the article and needs clarification / correction: "This is due to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants being the first immigrants into the United States"

American-Indians were the first immigrants, then there were the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.17.220 (talk) 22:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the sentence to say, "first Asian immigrants". Now it is a true statement.<i style="color:darkslateblue;">Dark</i> Tea  &#169;  22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or possibly not, since American Indians entered America from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.163.185 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the United States when they crossed the Strait... --Kurtle (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

British "Asians" and "Orientals"
The term is used prescriptively in Britain to refer to people of the Indian subcontinent, just as it is used in the USA to refer to East Asians. The article states that Indians fought to be recognised as Asians (in census data at least), and that the term "Oriental" has no negative conotations in Britain (and is therefore appropriately used to denote non Pakistani/Indian/Bengali Asians). I'm not sure what this assumption is based on, have non-Indian subcontinent Asians in the UK ever been consulted about this term? In the USA, Indians feel similarly overlooked vis the popular usage of the term "Asian", although they seem to have lobbied more robustly to challenge the approved census taxonomy when compared to British "Orientals". These are terms applied to (and then "fought" over by) entire continents of people by people not originating from those continents.

As someone has rightly pointed out, a lot of the uncertainty over Asian identity stems from its imagined origin outside of Asia, and the weak cultural and "racial" ties between say, Indians and Chinese, when compared to the strong historical, religious and "racial" ties of the (especially western) Europeans. The middle-east was once described as the Orient, until the west discovered that east was further than they imagined. The same applies to the term Asian, so I would say that it is a Euro-centric term rather than a US centric one.

If the accusation of US centricity is valid, based on a US view of which nations are part of Asia, what can we make of the UK centric view, which hardly recognises the billions of Asians who are not inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.79.67.151.181 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * British Census forms list Asian (meaning Subcontinental, as well as going into specifics), Chinese and Other Asian (I think) - There is no term in the UK meaning just mongoloids, so Oriental is used, probably as they Tthey are the furthest Eastern peoples going by the idea of the vague 3-5 races (going from Greenwich at least). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and perspective
Race classifications in the US are unfortunately little more than political and social hackery. Groups seem to be divided along such inconsistent and arbitrary lines. If we are to believe this system then are we also to believe that Osama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers were a bunch of white guys that attacked the US? The middle east for example is a diverse population gene pool with many different "races". Why then are we all to see the middle east as "white", when it most certainly is not? I think US-Israel relations and the European-American Christian right have much more to do with that classification than anything else. The term 'Asian' is an excellent example of this hocus-pocus as well. How on earth people can classify someone from a country like India and someone from a country like China as the same race is beyond most peoples logic. A major problem with all this is that the classifications in the US census contribute to the already oversimplified and monolithic worldview most Americans have. Americans are not solely to blame for this and calling the American worldview oversimplified and monolithic is not a dead horse that I am interested in beating. There are many factors that contribute to the American perspective including a relatively insular geography, special interest groups, and a highly controlled media. The major issue here is that these types of povs are not only intellectually dishonest but also dangerous in world that demands people be cultured and aware of those around them. The US census specifically defines race as not "scientific" or "genetic" but if we are to accept this definition on face value then what exactly is the purpose of having such a census?


 * You raise a good question, and believe it or not, many conservatives in the US are opposed to the inclusion of race on the census altogether. It is used by the left to dole out favors to special interest groups. On the other hand, you are completely wrong about the Middle East. Scientifically speaking, in terms of genetics and ancestry, Turks, Arabs, Persians and so forth are Caucasians. Sorry if you prefer to view it otherwise, but Middle Easterners are "white".

Special interest groups do have far too much sway when it comes to this issue. My fundamental point though is that the classifications themselves are incorrect. I am making the distinction because I am not as opposed to special interest groups as I am to mis-information. I am not sure why you would disagree with my argument that that the middle east should not be classified as white. I dont disagree with you in the sense that there are people who would be considered white in the middle east (your "white list" is silly). I am only pointing out that the region also has people who normally would not be considered white, except on paper. This again goes back to my original contention that the world is not monolithic and such a classification would be absurd. It also goes back to my questioning the basic purpose of a race census when it is not accurate. Another important notion is that of subjectivity vs objectivity. If you are willing to describe the "genetics and ancestory" of people then what is your threshold? Your threshold is subjective. Not objective.

Actually "White" is often used to mean more specifically people of Germanic/Celtic decent and such. The US Caucasian idea lumps in Asian Subcontinentals, Middle Easterners & Europeans, that doesn't make Indians white... White is often seen as within caucasian, like humans being within mammals --Kurtle (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional information to add to United States section
71.77.60.153Randall Tallent, May 4th

According to the US Census Bureau, natives of the Indian Subcontinent are considered both "White" and Caucasian.

Isn't it meant to be West India, Pakistan etc caucasian? East India, Bangladesh are meant to be something else but not caucasian... I'm using this term in the original context. East Indians, Bangladeshis, filipinos, chinese etc are of the Mongoloid race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.99.14 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias throughout all Wikipedia. Very important!
Why is it that since the U.S. citizens most commonly use "Asian" to refer to east Asians, that it is taken as word of God here in Wikipedia with obvious bias favoring their form of naming East Asians. In articles ranging from East Asians in Mexico to E. Asians in Brazil, all of them use "Asian" to refer to East Asians, always excluding Oriental, despite the fact that it's not offensive in the British English. Alot of these "Asian" articles don't deal with the U.S. or other countries that call E. Asians "Asian", and they even exclude Middle Easterners many times, for example on one article says "Asian, African, and Middle Eastern" despite the fact that Middle East is Asia (and Africa depending on definition), and another article said "White, Black, Asian". These "Asian" articles should be renamed using an ethnonym appropriate for East/Southeast Asians. I say its biased towards U.S. ways of race-naming because you won't see "Asian" in most of the "Asian" articles refering to South Asians (British race-naming style) (or West Asians). Plus, this has spilled over to Spanish & Portuguese wiki, where users (many from the U.S.) are using "Asiático" (meaning "Asian" in both languages) to refer to E. Asians, instead of the general term of "Oriental" or even "amarillo" (meaning "yellow") in Spanish (which is not offensive in said language) and "amarelo" (meaning "yellow") in Portuguese (which again, isn't considered offensive in that language). It seems that the word "Asian" in most Wikipedia articles is being used exclusively in bias towards how U.S. English speakers would use it and is being employed in other language wikis which don't even use "Asian" to refer to East/Southeast Asians. I think Wikipedia should use another ethnonym to refer to East Asians, as a matter of fact, "Asian" shouldn't be used at all as a race name, except when mentioning "Asians" in the U.S. race-related articles.--Fernirm (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having articles written and edited from too much of a US centric perspective is a constant danger on Wikipedia. It is usually done by accident and sometimes out of ignorance, rather than as a deliberate attempt to bias an article. There simply are a lot of American editors. Some will get it wrong. As a non-American I do my best to make the emphasis in articles a little more global. I recommend that you take that path too. As for Asian being used as an adjective (or even a noun) in articles outside this one, I too abhor it. It's rarely a precise description in all forms of English. I try hard to avoid it even though many of my countrymen would choose to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, edits like this are nonsense and require consensus. It has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In New England and Southeastern Canada, "Oriental" is still used to describe people of Far East Asia, and not in a derogatory way, at all. It's better to call a Korean person "Oriental" than to call them "Chinese".76.127.241.68 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of quotation marks in this article
Every second word is quoted. This a very badly written article. Requires a serious re-write. - 124.190.161.99 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotes add credibility to the words, because they let the reader know exactly what the reliable source said, adding credibility to the article.--Ephert (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that quotes are seriously overused. For example, one part of the article I found particularly difficult to read was: "...greater "recognition" of "Caucasian" than "Asian faces", indicating the "other-race effect" of "face recognition" remains "plastic" in "childhood".[48]" Trying to read this short phrase is made difficult by the quotation marks; quoting single words and short phrases distracts the reader and adds nothing to the reliability of the article, nor is it necessary to credit the sources (just because this article uses, say, the word "childhood" does not mean that every time I use it I am quoting this article). This article is not written in encyclopedic style, and I think an experienced editor should go through and remove most of the quotation marks. - 174.69.108.130 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's unnecessary to quote exact words from the source to the degree done here. Sources should not be listed within the text, but provided as citations. As long as it's verifiable, it should be fine. In this section, the quotation marks aren't even matched: (an "absent" or "scanty" "beard", a "brachycephalic" skull, "prominent" "cheek bones" and a "broad" face.) I appreciate the very thorough citing, though, Ephert. -- Josephers (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

'Subraces' section
I have deleted this - its only sources date from 1905 and 1890. These 'racial' classifications are no longer remotely accepted my the mainstream scientific community, and as such have no business being in the article. Much the same could be said for other parts of the article, but for now I've just removed the worst of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012
Please correct the "University of California Berkley" and change to "University of California, Berkeley"

67.180.29.172 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Central Asia of FSU
Central Asian natives in FSU Turkic Rebulics indentify them-selves as Asians. E.g. the local police describes people appereance as: Asians (гражданин азиатской национальности citizen of asian ethnic group: Kazakhs, Kirghizs, Uzbeks, Uigurs, Kara-kalpaks, Turkmen, Koreans, ru:дунгане, etc.), Europeans (гражданин европейской национальности citizen of european ethnic group: Russians, Germans, etc.), and Caucasians (гражданин кавказской национальности citizen of caucasian ethnic group: Caucas peoples and Anatolian Turks).


 * I don't see this info in the Russian counterpart of this article ru:Азиаты, which also seems to concentrate on definitions of "Asian" in Western countries. --JWB (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ru:Азиаты: Азиаты — собирательное название для обозначения коренного населения Азии... В России азиатами обычно обозначают всех неевропейских/небелых жителей азиатского континета it's briefly mentioned, 'coz it's that everybody knows in FSU (Idot (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
 * may you look in google "гражданин азиатской национальности", "гражданин европейской национальности", "гражданин кавказской национальности" ? (Idot (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

the following: Definitions of whiteness in the United States: People who reported their race as the following religions Muslim, Shi'ite, Sunni or Zoroastrianism in the "Some other race" section are automatically categorized as whites in the 2000 US Census.(Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 US Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics. 2007. May 21, 2007) is quite idiotic :-( Idot (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Following up the reference given there, it is not directly about the US Census, but is directions for a cancer epidemiological study. It says that study will guess at people's race if given no other info, and refers to the Census categories, but does not affect the Census itself. --JWB (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * watching Muhteşem Yüzyıl, I have found that Filiz Ahmet ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2898497/ ) looks like a Cetral Asian (look at her eyes at "Muhteşem Yüzyıl") Idot (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)