![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Criminal issues section reads:
It is common practice not to present disaggregated data (in this case "Asian-specific") where the percentage is very small. The wording of the article ("In fact;" "such a small percentage") makes it sound as though non-disaggregation is a special privilege for non-criminal Asians. Apologies, but I find it easier to write this critique than to reword. -- ishu 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Tried to make it more inclusive and give it a heavy dose of Asian American Studies 101. Still rather rough, but a lot of the immigration stuff is in -- left out a lot, potential focuses are now like legal, media, labor, women's issues -- you name it! Zhongyi
Asian Pacific American redirects here. There is no mention of the Pacific Islanders in this article. -- Jia ng
I am Dark Tichondrias and I would like to point out that on the 2000 US Census Pacific Islanders self-defined themselves to be their own race, because they felt like they lacked similarity with the Asian Americans.
The strong POV in this article is really disturbing. Open debates are presented as fact. The question of whether or not oriential refered to a "colonial" notion has nothing to do with the term's modern-day applicability, for example. See also the labor shortage point, which is an economic issue that is just stated as a given.
I removed the following:
since the proportion of Asian Americans is much higher than 3% at many institutions that do practice Affirmative Action, Harvard being only one example. We can discuss admissions practices that appear to put a "ceiling" on Asian populations, but the removed statement implies a lot of cause and effect that is highly controversial. -- ishu 05:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following:
I don't think that 'Asian American' is, or was intended to be, a synonym for 'oriental'. The idea is that the term 'Oriental' is imprecise due to its complicated and convoluted etymology. At different times it has to the Ottoman Empire and its descendants, and everything east to the Pacific Ocean. The usage in the U.S. during the mid- to late-20th century was narrower, but ill-defined. The other objection has been its colonial origin and associated connotations, referencing "east" relative to Europe. Asia is a defined land mass. On it are reasonably well-defined political states. There are somewhat well-defined ethnic groups within/across those. The reference is clear and more precise. -- ishu 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This an informative Asian American website made by me Dark Tichondrias
www.asianracedefinition.zoomshare.com
(originally posted on
User_talk:J3ff:)
Hello Jeff! You just reinserted the link that i had deleted from
Asian American. My intention was not to gloss over this ugly part of history, but rather to put it in the correct context. There are many aspects of Asian-American history, and i believe it is better to group them together than to pick the one of them that is an
ethnic slur to represent all of Asian-American history in that section. The article was already in
Category:Chinese American history and i added it to
Category:Japanese American history, which both can be found via the new
Category:Asian American-related topics. It felt a bit odd to assign it to these two particular groups - as if other groups were not harrased. Maybe we should create a
Category:Asian American history and link to it directly from
Asian American – that would remove one mouseclick on the way to the
Yellow Peril article. What do you think? —
Sebastian (
留言) 19:48, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
(replying to first, less clear version of the above statement:)
Yes, I agree this was an ugly part of American history. However, I feel it should be included along with Model Minority. Model Minority may seem to be a "positive stereotype", but it is nontheless as racist as Yellow Peril. I do not feel Wikipedia should be censored in anyway. Feel free to leave any questions or comments on my talk page. —
J3ff 19:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(after clarification of above statement:)
That's a good idea for creating an Asian American history category. However, I still think the link to Yellow Peril should remain in the article
Asian American. —
J3ff 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
----
I understand that you want to keep the balance. And i am not generally opposed to mentioning that period of history in an article about Asian Americans. But i think there are better models:
— Sebastian ( 留言) 20:29, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
I agree that Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article. Until someone adds a section in the article describing Yellow Peril, I think it should be left as a link under "See also". — J3ff 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that "Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article". Please reread my first bullet point. (Maybe I should highlight the second half.) — Sebastian ( 留言) 21:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Am I mistaken? I thought you meant that Yellow Peril should be included in a history section (a section that currently doesn't exist). I'm saying that it should be kept as a link until such a section is created. — J3ff 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's what i meant – iff we had one. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to cherry pick a particular part of history and present it on a prominent place outside of historical context. The "See also" section of this article is prime advertizing space for all things Asian American. Bear in mind that i just agreed with Nectarflowed to remove Wing Luke Asian Museum from this list for this reason. — Sebastian ( 留言) 21:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
That's it. I give up. I tried my best to convince you with rational arguments, but you just ignore or distort them. Policies are beside the point. I never said there was a policy for my way, but there is none for your way, either. This is something that rational people should be able to solve by listening to each other's arguments. I understand that you personally are very attached to this link. If your happiness depends on putting it there, be my guest. I can live with it. — Sebastian ( 留言) 22:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Thank you, Nectarflowed, for adding the history section – you did the right thing, where we two knuckleheads couldn't agree. — Sebastian ( 留言) 00:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
Why isn't the definition simply, "an American of Asian ancestry or an Asian immigrant to the United States"? Someone who was born in the United States is not necessarily an American.
That's a good question. Any objection to changing it? — Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I've expanded upon that article a bit, about the South Asian subgroup as a whole, so South Asian American probably shouldn't be merged in here. Arun 10:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the reference to the Philppine-American War to "also see" since the existing sentence implied that immigration to the U.S. was a result of the Philippine-American War. The annexation (or whatever we choose to call it) of the Philippines is what enabled the immigration, not the ensuing insurrection. -- ishu 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the link to www.selectiveasia.com because it clearly does not add anything to the article. -- vaeiou 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the demographics section is getting too mired in minutiae.
I changed the reference to East Brunswick, New Jersey back to Cherry Hill, New Jersey because of the earlier reference to Philadelphia, not because I think Cherry Hill is more important than East Brunswick. I appended "of these cities" to "suburbs" to clarify this relationship and hopefully prevent link-creep to an endless list of suburbs. For Pete's sake, if we must reference Middlesex County, then a better candidate is adjacent Edison Township, which has twice as many Asian Americans and is well known in the region for the South Asian district there, as well as a significant Chinese American population. But the suburbs of New York are better known as enclaves for Asian Americans; those of Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston less so, which is the reason for the original reference to Cherry Hill.
Unfortunately, once something goes in an entry (e.g., this suburbs discussion), it's hard to take it out. This might be a good case for reduction, or moving to another section. The proportion of Filipinos to Chamorros is not irrelevant, but it isn't quite on-point with respect to aggregate demographics of Asian Americans. For example, the specific ethnicities within any particular state are not discussed in this section, and are more appropriate topics for the individual state articles. -- ishu 07:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Are Ichiro Suzuki and Yao Ming, two people who are Japanese and Chinese citizens respectively, considered "Asian Americans?" I think they should be omitted from this article, as they are not "American citizens with Asian ancestry", unlike Michelle Kwan. I have a feeling that a few other people mentioned in this article are not Asian Americans, although I haven't checked this. I would really appreciate some input.-- Xmts 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think most the pictures and images are really appropriate for the article. Photos of real people should be used instead, and the first image 1) doesn't really seem necessary and 2) is of poor quality. Anyone else agree? -- Lukobe 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I re-deleted them after they were re-added. Haven't had the time yet to add images of real people, but I really don't think the pictures belong in the article. Can the editor who re-added them comment here? -- Lukobe 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article asserts that:
1. " "Asia" consists of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. " (for the purposes of this term)
Question: How can Asia be redefined ? It is geographically clear what Asia is. This statement is surely a nonsense.
2. " Asian-American replaces Oriental "
Question: Surely (assuming the absurd redefinition in 1 is applied) Asian American includes and replaces Oriental as well as including persons from SE Asia and south Asia ?
Is this article a true representation of what Americans believe this term to mean ? If this is so, then the answers to the above two points need to be discussed, as to non Americans, this seems like the article is a nonsense in these two respects.
In addition, what about central Asians, Israelis and Turks - shouldn't descendents of these peoples be Asian Americans too - if not then this article should make clear what US hyphernated American label is applied to these people. And what about Russians (from Vladivistok for instance) - if, as many are, they are of East Asian appearance - are they Asian Americans if their descendants emigrate to the USA ? Is a person emigrated to the USA from Uganda an Asian American if he is of Indian appearance (after Idi Amin booted Indian descendants out) ? Or are they African Americans ? Or neither ? Many Pashtuns have pale skin and blue eyes, and many have often been mistaken as being of traditionally European appearance, but under this definition, such peoples descendants in the USA would be Asian Americans. However, perhaps it is fortunate that the redefinition of Asia is applied as if it were not then descendants of Cypriot Greeks in the USA would also be Asian Americans - after all Cyprus is in geographic Asia, even though it is now in the European Union.
These questions do not need answering here, of course. But they serve to demonstrate that this article is poor as it asserts the term Asian American as if it has true meaning, whereas meaning is surely subjective to the user. Therefore the subjectivism of the term and its use should also be discussed. What the term means is surely the first purpose of this article (the matter is glossed over in the "Definition" paragraph) before going on to list people and history as if the term is defined and clear.
Thoughts ? I am not American and am merely confused as to the use of this term, if anyone thinks I am trying to make a major point of US use of American hyphernated identity (a point which I am not attempting to make)--jrleighton 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No offense to anybody here, but I think this discussion of "Redefinition" pretty much belongs here instead: Asian. It seems the discussion centers around what is considered "Asian" and not so much Americans of Asian descent, or Asian Americans. As far as definition and usage goes, the important issue is covered at the above "Definition" section of this Talk.
But I am of the opinion that this entry needs to be expanded anyway, so we can add texts concerning how the US government defines "Asian American" for the census, and also texts concerning self-identification. Hong Qi Gong 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed a section to make Asians be compared to Whites as a group with different physical and cultural traits. Before it was being compared with Hispanic. Hispanic is not a 2000 US Census race. I felt Asian should be compared with a 2000 US Census race. Whites as defined by the 2000 US Census to be Middle Eastern, European, and North African do have dissimilar physical traits and culture. I made the comparison between Asians and Whites to compare to more similar terms people can grasp.-- Dark Tichondrias
It seems like people just basically drop any site in the External Links section that's related to Asian Americans. It's getting a little cluttered. Perhaps there is a way to categorise the links listed there? Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the list of high schools with "high" Asian populations as it reached nine, with no end in sight. Users are invited to create a page "High schools with significant Asian American populations" or similar. -- ishu 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the drawings I drew are better than real pictures of Asian Americans. I spent twelve months, going once per week to an Asian-Indian club. I did this to find out how to draw South Asians. I asked "Who is the most Indian-looking?" I modeled my pictures after their descriptions. I also feel my pictures allowed me to choose pictures of Asians who looked like the average face instead of the "prettiest" face. Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page. -- Dark Tichondrias 1:00 February 25 2006
I feel that real-life pictures are okay as long as they are balanced. There should be equal amounts of men and women portrayed and equal amounts of East, Southeast, and South Asians. Please, find two Southeast Asian faces and a South Asian woman for the Asian page.Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page.
Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent.
Hey, you guys forgot to put Hargobind Khorana (India) who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the genetic code. He worked in the US and in Canada (at UBC).
My concern is one of wording rather than fact. Americans' newfound appreciation for south and central Asia (vis-a-vis Afghanistan) has been significantly upgraded. On the one hand, I think that it remains generally true that Central Asian ethnics are not considered to be Asian American. On the other hand, increasingly Indians and Pakistanis are included. Since many Americans now recognize the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, central Asians may be included; alternatively, the ethnic groups might affiliate themselves in a new sub group. Just Talk:ing "out loud."-- ishu 12:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I had problems with trying to figure out whether "Indian American" was a correct term, and whether this included Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. I'm not sure they would appreciate being referred to as "Indian" anything. - Fuzheado 06:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN SHOULD BE BECOME A SUB-CATEGORY OF ASIAN AMERICAN AND INDIAN, BANGLADESHI, PAKISTANI, BHUTANESE, AND NEPALI CAN BE SUB-CATEGORIES OF SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN.
I took a stab at reworking the Definition section Here's a run-down of the edits and to-dos.
Needed:
-- ishu 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding text placed on User talk:Ishu by Dark Tichondrias at 03:51, 1 June 2006
Moving "West Asian" out of Asian American
West Asians do not identify as Asian. They identify as Middle Eastern in the USA. They are not officially part of the Asian race with the US Census Bureau. They are only included as part of Asia in some maps because Asia has been defined as the non-European part of Eurasia. -- Dark Tichondrias
Three relevant issues contribute to the definition:
The article discusses the interrelation. First, people self-identified as 'Asian American'. Limited formal (academic) use followed. Formal (geographic) use of 'Asia' has long defined the entire continent, but formal (social science) use has expanded over time. Common usage has lagged formal usage. There are gaps in the formal (social science) uses vs. common and geographic usage. For example, is Afghanistan more like Pakistan ("South Asia") or more like Iran ("white" "Middle East")? What about the Central Asian states, particularly those just west of China?
I think we should keep the "all Asia" map--it's more inclusive, and--with appropriate captions--won't send the "wrong message" about what the article says.
-- ishu 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reworking the article header, but I'm putting my start on Talk as a scratch area. All are free to make edits and offer improvements (and/or move to the main article). I'm keeping it out of the main article for now because I'd prefer to keep it tight, and the article itself isn't very tight right now. Also, working here on Talk will allow discussion as to pros and cons without risking revert wars and other unpleasantries.
So here is my second (not so rough) draft:
Somewhere in the article itself should be a discussion of Pacific Islanders.
-- ishu 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Updated by ishu 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm going to promote this to the main article -- ishu 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention of the demands that thousands of Asian American children place on the nation's public school systems and social service networks w/regard to ESL programs, etc. The section treating immigration is hopelessly outdated. It doesn't treat the many thousands of Asians smuggled into the U.S. annually, and the criminal activity associated with this activity. The section on crime is also pretty thin, considering the increasing incidence of prostitution rings, sexual slavery and gangs in the U.S. See the following sources for more information:
At a website called the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women - U.S. [2]:
Chinese women and girls in domestic and sexual slavery in the U.S. is on the rise with illegal immigration. [3]
Tong and other Asian gangs are active and spreading in a number of cities across the U.S. -- notably in Maryland, Virginia, Chicago and New York. [4]
Lest raising of these issues be interpreted as arising from anti-immigrant bias, let me say flat out that is not the case. In comparing the seeming endless, ad nauseam examination of issues related to African-Americans in African American and a companion article -- yes, an entire article -- African American contemporary issues -- I see no parallel examination of such issues in articles treating other ethnic groups in the nation -- and none here. Balance. deeceevoice 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
need to clean them out or at least organize them.-- Dangerous-Boy 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-- ishu 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've retitled this section as Page Clean-up, since the links are one of many to-dos. Let's try to maintain a list of to-dos here. So, in keeping with this "list" spirit:
I envision we'll eventually come up with a template like the one that exists for African American topics: Template:African American topics sidebar. Hong Qi Gong 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the recently added paragraph about Wang Lee Hom as an Asian American entertainer that's gained fame in Asia, basically because that would have been the start of a very long list. There are a lot of entertainers in Asia that are actually Asian American. This is worth noting, of course, but not in a one-by-one manner like the Wang Lee Hom reference that I deleted. Hong Qi Gong 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Criminal issues section reads:
It is common practice not to present disaggregated data (in this case "Asian-specific") where the percentage is very small. The wording of the article ("In fact;" "such a small percentage") makes it sound as though non-disaggregation is a special privilege for non-criminal Asians. Apologies, but I find it easier to write this critique than to reword. -- ishu 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Tried to make it more inclusive and give it a heavy dose of Asian American Studies 101. Still rather rough, but a lot of the immigration stuff is in -- left out a lot, potential focuses are now like legal, media, labor, women's issues -- you name it! Zhongyi
Asian Pacific American redirects here. There is no mention of the Pacific Islanders in this article. -- Jia ng
I am Dark Tichondrias and I would like to point out that on the 2000 US Census Pacific Islanders self-defined themselves to be their own race, because they felt like they lacked similarity with the Asian Americans.
The strong POV in this article is really disturbing. Open debates are presented as fact. The question of whether or not oriential refered to a "colonial" notion has nothing to do with the term's modern-day applicability, for example. See also the labor shortage point, which is an economic issue that is just stated as a given.
I removed the following:
since the proportion of Asian Americans is much higher than 3% at many institutions that do practice Affirmative Action, Harvard being only one example. We can discuss admissions practices that appear to put a "ceiling" on Asian populations, but the removed statement implies a lot of cause and effect that is highly controversial. -- ishu 05:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following:
I don't think that 'Asian American' is, or was intended to be, a synonym for 'oriental'. The idea is that the term 'Oriental' is imprecise due to its complicated and convoluted etymology. At different times it has to the Ottoman Empire and its descendants, and everything east to the Pacific Ocean. The usage in the U.S. during the mid- to late-20th century was narrower, but ill-defined. The other objection has been its colonial origin and associated connotations, referencing "east" relative to Europe. Asia is a defined land mass. On it are reasonably well-defined political states. There are somewhat well-defined ethnic groups within/across those. The reference is clear and more precise. -- ishu 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This an informative Asian American website made by me Dark Tichondrias
www.asianracedefinition.zoomshare.com
(originally posted on
User_talk:J3ff:)
Hello Jeff! You just reinserted the link that i had deleted from
Asian American. My intention was not to gloss over this ugly part of history, but rather to put it in the correct context. There are many aspects of Asian-American history, and i believe it is better to group them together than to pick the one of them that is an
ethnic slur to represent all of Asian-American history in that section. The article was already in
Category:Chinese American history and i added it to
Category:Japanese American history, which both can be found via the new
Category:Asian American-related topics. It felt a bit odd to assign it to these two particular groups - as if other groups were not harrased. Maybe we should create a
Category:Asian American history and link to it directly from
Asian American – that would remove one mouseclick on the way to the
Yellow Peril article. What do you think? —
Sebastian (
留言) 19:48, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
(replying to first, less clear version of the above statement:)
Yes, I agree this was an ugly part of American history. However, I feel it should be included along with Model Minority. Model Minority may seem to be a "positive stereotype", but it is nontheless as racist as Yellow Peril. I do not feel Wikipedia should be censored in anyway. Feel free to leave any questions or comments on my talk page. —
J3ff 19:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(after clarification of above statement:)
That's a good idea for creating an Asian American history category. However, I still think the link to Yellow Peril should remain in the article
Asian American. —
J3ff 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
----
I understand that you want to keep the balance. And i am not generally opposed to mentioning that period of history in an article about Asian Americans. But i think there are better models:
— Sebastian ( 留言) 20:29, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
I agree that Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article. Until someone adds a section in the article describing Yellow Peril, I think it should be left as a link under "See also". — J3ff 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that "Yellow Peril should be mentioned in the text of the article". Please reread my first bullet point. (Maybe I should highlight the second half.) — Sebastian ( 留言) 21:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Am I mistaken? I thought you meant that Yellow Peril should be included in a history section (a section that currently doesn't exist). I'm saying that it should be kept as a link until such a section is created. — J3ff 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's what i meant – iff we had one. I certainly don't think it's a good idea to cherry pick a particular part of history and present it on a prominent place outside of historical context. The "See also" section of this article is prime advertizing space for all things Asian American. Bear in mind that i just agreed with Nectarflowed to remove Wing Luke Asian Museum from this list for this reason. — Sebastian ( 留言) 21:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
That's it. I give up. I tried my best to convince you with rational arguments, but you just ignore or distort them. Policies are beside the point. I never said there was a policy for my way, but there is none for your way, either. This is something that rational people should be able to solve by listening to each other's arguments. I understand that you personally are very attached to this link. If your happiness depends on putting it there, be my guest. I can live with it. — Sebastian ( 留言) 22:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Thank you, Nectarflowed, for adding the history section – you did the right thing, where we two knuckleheads couldn't agree. — Sebastian ( 留言) 00:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
Why isn't the definition simply, "an American of Asian ancestry or an Asian immigrant to the United States"? Someone who was born in the United States is not necessarily an American.
That's a good question. Any objection to changing it? — Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I've expanded upon that article a bit, about the South Asian subgroup as a whole, so South Asian American probably shouldn't be merged in here. Arun 10:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the reference to the Philppine-American War to "also see" since the existing sentence implied that immigration to the U.S. was a result of the Philippine-American War. The annexation (or whatever we choose to call it) of the Philippines is what enabled the immigration, not the ensuing insurrection. -- ishu 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the link to www.selectiveasia.com because it clearly does not add anything to the article. -- vaeiou 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the demographics section is getting too mired in minutiae.
I changed the reference to East Brunswick, New Jersey back to Cherry Hill, New Jersey because of the earlier reference to Philadelphia, not because I think Cherry Hill is more important than East Brunswick. I appended "of these cities" to "suburbs" to clarify this relationship and hopefully prevent link-creep to an endless list of suburbs. For Pete's sake, if we must reference Middlesex County, then a better candidate is adjacent Edison Township, which has twice as many Asian Americans and is well known in the region for the South Asian district there, as well as a significant Chinese American population. But the suburbs of New York are better known as enclaves for Asian Americans; those of Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston less so, which is the reason for the original reference to Cherry Hill.
Unfortunately, once something goes in an entry (e.g., this suburbs discussion), it's hard to take it out. This might be a good case for reduction, or moving to another section. The proportion of Filipinos to Chamorros is not irrelevant, but it isn't quite on-point with respect to aggregate demographics of Asian Americans. For example, the specific ethnicities within any particular state are not discussed in this section, and are more appropriate topics for the individual state articles. -- ishu 07:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Are Ichiro Suzuki and Yao Ming, two people who are Japanese and Chinese citizens respectively, considered "Asian Americans?" I think they should be omitted from this article, as they are not "American citizens with Asian ancestry", unlike Michelle Kwan. I have a feeling that a few other people mentioned in this article are not Asian Americans, although I haven't checked this. I would really appreciate some input.-- Xmts 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think most the pictures and images are really appropriate for the article. Photos of real people should be used instead, and the first image 1) doesn't really seem necessary and 2) is of poor quality. Anyone else agree? -- Lukobe 05:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I re-deleted them after they were re-added. Haven't had the time yet to add images of real people, but I really don't think the pictures belong in the article. Can the editor who re-added them comment here? -- Lukobe 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article asserts that:
1. " "Asia" consists of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. " (for the purposes of this term)
Question: How can Asia be redefined ? It is geographically clear what Asia is. This statement is surely a nonsense.
2. " Asian-American replaces Oriental "
Question: Surely (assuming the absurd redefinition in 1 is applied) Asian American includes and replaces Oriental as well as including persons from SE Asia and south Asia ?
Is this article a true representation of what Americans believe this term to mean ? If this is so, then the answers to the above two points need to be discussed, as to non Americans, this seems like the article is a nonsense in these two respects.
In addition, what about central Asians, Israelis and Turks - shouldn't descendents of these peoples be Asian Americans too - if not then this article should make clear what US hyphernated American label is applied to these people. And what about Russians (from Vladivistok for instance) - if, as many are, they are of East Asian appearance - are they Asian Americans if their descendants emigrate to the USA ? Is a person emigrated to the USA from Uganda an Asian American if he is of Indian appearance (after Idi Amin booted Indian descendants out) ? Or are they African Americans ? Or neither ? Many Pashtuns have pale skin and blue eyes, and many have often been mistaken as being of traditionally European appearance, but under this definition, such peoples descendants in the USA would be Asian Americans. However, perhaps it is fortunate that the redefinition of Asia is applied as if it were not then descendants of Cypriot Greeks in the USA would also be Asian Americans - after all Cyprus is in geographic Asia, even though it is now in the European Union.
These questions do not need answering here, of course. But they serve to demonstrate that this article is poor as it asserts the term Asian American as if it has true meaning, whereas meaning is surely subjective to the user. Therefore the subjectivism of the term and its use should also be discussed. What the term means is surely the first purpose of this article (the matter is glossed over in the "Definition" paragraph) before going on to list people and history as if the term is defined and clear.
Thoughts ? I am not American and am merely confused as to the use of this term, if anyone thinks I am trying to make a major point of US use of American hyphernated identity (a point which I am not attempting to make)--jrleighton 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No offense to anybody here, but I think this discussion of "Redefinition" pretty much belongs here instead: Asian. It seems the discussion centers around what is considered "Asian" and not so much Americans of Asian descent, or Asian Americans. As far as definition and usage goes, the important issue is covered at the above "Definition" section of this Talk.
But I am of the opinion that this entry needs to be expanded anyway, so we can add texts concerning how the US government defines "Asian American" for the census, and also texts concerning self-identification. Hong Qi Gong 05:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed a section to make Asians be compared to Whites as a group with different physical and cultural traits. Before it was being compared with Hispanic. Hispanic is not a 2000 US Census race. I felt Asian should be compared with a 2000 US Census race. Whites as defined by the 2000 US Census to be Middle Eastern, European, and North African do have dissimilar physical traits and culture. I made the comparison between Asians and Whites to compare to more similar terms people can grasp.-- Dark Tichondrias
It seems like people just basically drop any site in the External Links section that's related to Asian Americans. It's getting a little cluttered. Perhaps there is a way to categorise the links listed there? Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the list of high schools with "high" Asian populations as it reached nine, with no end in sight. Users are invited to create a page "High schools with significant Asian American populations" or similar. -- ishu 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the drawings I drew are better than real pictures of Asian Americans. I spent twelve months, going once per week to an Asian-Indian club. I did this to find out how to draw South Asians. I asked "Who is the most Indian-looking?" I modeled my pictures after their descriptions. I also feel my pictures allowed me to choose pictures of Asians who looked like the average face instead of the "prettiest" face. Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page. -- Dark Tichondrias 1:00 February 25 2006
I feel that real-life pictures are okay as long as they are balanced. There should be equal amounts of men and women portrayed and equal amounts of East, Southeast, and South Asians. Please, find two Southeast Asian faces and a South Asian woman for the Asian page.Please write an agreement if you agree that my pictures should be on the page.
Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Asian faces which represent the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent.
Hey, you guys forgot to put Hargobind Khorana (India) who won a Nobel Prize for his work on the genetic code. He worked in the US and in Canada (at UBC).
My concern is one of wording rather than fact. Americans' newfound appreciation for south and central Asia (vis-a-vis Afghanistan) has been significantly upgraded. On the one hand, I think that it remains generally true that Central Asian ethnics are not considered to be Asian American. On the other hand, increasingly Indians and Pakistanis are included. Since many Americans now recognize the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, central Asians may be included; alternatively, the ethnic groups might affiliate themselves in a new sub group. Just Talk:ing "out loud."-- ishu 12:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I had problems with trying to figure out whether "Indian American" was a correct term, and whether this included Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. I'm not sure they would appreciate being referred to as "Indian" anything. - Fuzheado 06:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN SHOULD BE BECOME A SUB-CATEGORY OF ASIAN AMERICAN AND INDIAN, BANGLADESHI, PAKISTANI, BHUTANESE, AND NEPALI CAN BE SUB-CATEGORIES OF SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN.
I took a stab at reworking the Definition section Here's a run-down of the edits and to-dos.
Needed:
-- ishu 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding text placed on User talk:Ishu by Dark Tichondrias at 03:51, 1 June 2006
Moving "West Asian" out of Asian American
West Asians do not identify as Asian. They identify as Middle Eastern in the USA. They are not officially part of the Asian race with the US Census Bureau. They are only included as part of Asia in some maps because Asia has been defined as the non-European part of Eurasia. -- Dark Tichondrias
Three relevant issues contribute to the definition:
The article discusses the interrelation. First, people self-identified as 'Asian American'. Limited formal (academic) use followed. Formal (geographic) use of 'Asia' has long defined the entire continent, but formal (social science) use has expanded over time. Common usage has lagged formal usage. There are gaps in the formal (social science) uses vs. common and geographic usage. For example, is Afghanistan more like Pakistan ("South Asia") or more like Iran ("white" "Middle East")? What about the Central Asian states, particularly those just west of China?
I think we should keep the "all Asia" map--it's more inclusive, and--with appropriate captions--won't send the "wrong message" about what the article says.
-- ishu 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reworking the article header, but I'm putting my start on Talk as a scratch area. All are free to make edits and offer improvements (and/or move to the main article). I'm keeping it out of the main article for now because I'd prefer to keep it tight, and the article itself isn't very tight right now. Also, working here on Talk will allow discussion as to pros and cons without risking revert wars and other unpleasantries.
So here is my second (not so rough) draft:
Somewhere in the article itself should be a discussion of Pacific Islanders.
-- ishu 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Updated by ishu 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm going to promote this to the main article -- ishu 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention of the demands that thousands of Asian American children place on the nation's public school systems and social service networks w/regard to ESL programs, etc. The section treating immigration is hopelessly outdated. It doesn't treat the many thousands of Asians smuggled into the U.S. annually, and the criminal activity associated with this activity. The section on crime is also pretty thin, considering the increasing incidence of prostitution rings, sexual slavery and gangs in the U.S. See the following sources for more information:
At a website called the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women - U.S. [2]:
Chinese women and girls in domestic and sexual slavery in the U.S. is on the rise with illegal immigration. [3]
Tong and other Asian gangs are active and spreading in a number of cities across the U.S. -- notably in Maryland, Virginia, Chicago and New York. [4]
Lest raising of these issues be interpreted as arising from anti-immigrant bias, let me say flat out that is not the case. In comparing the seeming endless, ad nauseam examination of issues related to African-Americans in African American and a companion article -- yes, an entire article -- African American contemporary issues -- I see no parallel examination of such issues in articles treating other ethnic groups in the nation -- and none here. Balance. deeceevoice 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
need to clean them out or at least organize them.-- Dangerous-Boy 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-- ishu 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've retitled this section as Page Clean-up, since the links are one of many to-dos. Let's try to maintain a list of to-dos here. So, in keeping with this "list" spirit:
I envision we'll eventually come up with a template like the one that exists for African American topics: Template:African American topics sidebar. Hong Qi Gong 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the recently added paragraph about Wang Lee Hom as an Asian American entertainer that's gained fame in Asia, basically because that would have been the start of a very long list. There are a lot of entertainers in Asia that are actually Asian American. This is worth noting, of course, but not in a one-by-one manner like the Wang Lee Hom reference that I deleted. Hong Qi Gong 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)