![]() | 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. |
Americans of Filipino descent are hugely underrepresented in this article. They are the largest subgroup after Chinese, according to the article. Is there some expert who could fill in more things about Filipino Americans in the article? Chiss Boy 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
actually come people would say Filipinos are the largest sub group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.203.183 ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Visit the
Chinese American Article and the
Filipino American Article... As of the 2007 estimate, there are 4 million filams as oppose to 3.6 M of Chinese descent. --
User:Vivafilipinas
10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The following articles have been designated as Featured content, and so might give us some ideas as to how we can structure this article.
I present this only for ideas and discussion, since we haven't gotten very far just working with what we have. -- Ishu 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the Terminology section. It now begins with a description of the most common official definition. See for yourself. I know that there is significant room for improvement, so please, help out. -- Ishu 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This section should have its sub-heads removed, and possibly be merged with other sections. The long-questionable "Asian Pride" section has not been altered in some time, and the article Asian Pride rests on a single tripod web site. FYI, folks, it's ripe for deletion, though I have no intention of nominating it. The Vincent Chin reference probably belongs in the history section, while the model minority discussion might go with the demographics, or possibly in history. Once again, input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. -- Ishu 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no support for the assertion that stereotyping can harm Asian students' performance. This appears to be just speculation, especially in view of Asians' high performance generally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the extended discussion of Filipino Americans in the Arts & Entertainment section, since three paragraphs is an excessive amount of space to give. We can discuss a few sentences regarding FilAm contributions, provided that there is some relevance to their being Filipino American specifically, rather than Asian American generally. Per previous discussions, we're trying to move away from ethnic identifiers for individuals on this page, except when relevant, and we're trying to avoid having lists of people. -- Ishu 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's also time to create a separate article for Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, or another appropriate title. The Asian Americans today section consistently is dominated by "arts and entertainment" entries, and the topic clearly has its interested editors. I'd be interested to know what people think about this idea, and what would be a suitable title. -- Ishu 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Another possible article would be on Media portrayals of Asian people or something similar. Comments? -- Ishu 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some movement on the history section, so let's see who can help out. We can identify key topics, then create an outline structure to guide development of the section so it doesn't become a hodgepodge of facts and stuff. Important topics
This is just off the top of my head. Suggestions are welcome. -- Ishu 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to continue this topic, I think we should structure the History section around immigration patterns, at least until the mid-20th century. I'd ask for consensus, but nobody posts, so this is my statement of intent-to-edit, unless I hear otherwise. The topics I've sketched out above are probably more appropriate for a separate history article. --
Ishu
12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that two-thirds of Asians are Democratic. Source: http://www.asian-nation.org/politics.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
World book: Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent. They or their ancestors came from Asian countries, particularly Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. More than 10 million people of Asian descent live in the United States. Today, Asians are the country's second fastest-growing minority group, after Hispanic Americans.
Encarta: Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia.
Britannica includes history including non-citizens in Asian Americans: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-78001/United-States United States Asian-Americans Asian-Americans as a group have confounded earlier expectations that they would form an indigestible mass in American society. The Chinese, earliest to arrive (in large numbers from the mid-19th century, principally as labourers, notably on the transcontinental railroad), and the Japanese were long victims of racial discrimination. In 1924 the law barred further entries; those already in the United States had been ineligible for citizenship since the previous year.
No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens.
Some people feel that only citizens and legal residents can be called Americans, but this is not the most common usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bachcell ( talk • contribs) 2007-04-19 20:50:36.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also deleted the "Asians as criminals" section, as none of the three sources provided actually discuss stereotyping itself. You and I may be able to read the first two sources and see that it's laced with stereotypes, but that's original research. We need a source that actually discuss stereotypes if we want a section on Asians being stereotyped as criminals. And the third source, the one about Cho Seung-hui, it's arguable there's even any stereotyping going on. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this at great depth elsewhere. Dictionary definitions of Asian-American.
Oxford Dictionary of American English: "Asian American": an American who is of Asian (chiefly Far Eastern) descent.
Mirriam-Webster: "Asian-American": an American of Asian descent
American Heritage Dictionary: "Asian American": A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent. See Usage Note at Amerasian.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage in their section on "Names and Labels: Social, Racial, and Ethnic Terms" says "An American of Asian descent is an Asian American", and that "hyphenated Americans" refers to "Naturalized immigrants to the United States and their descendants".
It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front of it. If one is not an "American" (i.e. a citizen), one cannot claim to be an "Asian American", "African American", etc.
In addition, I have rounded up a United States Census study published in Feb. 2007, that makes a distinction between Asians and Asian Americans. See the table on page 4. [1] Note that in general, the Census Bureau refrains from using the term "Asian American" when it does a census (using only the term "Asian") because the census includes all peoples regardless of citizenship, and those who are not of American citizenship cannot claim to be "Asian American". So as not to exclude these people, "Asian" is used instead.
Continuing, to comment on the "points" made by Bachcell above:
1) World Book says "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent" begs the question, "what is an American"? Dictionaries and common sense dictate that an American is "someone with American citizenship."
2) Encarta says "Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia." This definition is clearly flawed and too broad-based because it includes people who are clearly NOT Americans, such as illegal aliens (who certainly cannot claim to be Americans since they are deported to their HOME COUNTRY if they are detected).
3) The Brittanica makes absolutely no claims as to what an Asian American is or isn't.
4) "No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens." No proof whatsoever has been shown of this claim, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Canadian history courses, for example, do not limit themselves purely to the history of "CANADIAN PEOPLES". They discuss the British and French (ancestors of today's Canadian peoples) in great length. Asian peoples studied in history courses might very well be considered to be the non-American ancestors of TODAY's Asian-American population. That's certainly the way I see it. Bueller 007 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We could also try to find sources on how Yuji Ichioka meant for the term to be used, since he was the one that coined it. Specifically, did he use the term to refer to non-citizen residents as well? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To the editors just arriving at this article - please leave Cho Seung-hui out of the article unless there are actually sources that discuss the VTech massacre in the context of stereotyping and the model minority myth. Otherwise you are drawing your own conclusions and that would be WP:Original research. Yes, I know what racial implications there are in what he did, but we as WP editors are only supposed to reflect the sources that we find, not insert our own conclusions and judgement of events around the world. I am almost certain that necessary sources will be forthcoming in the weeks to come, but until then, please leave him out of the article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the crime section itself - I don't mind it if there are enough sources for it be expanded upon substantially, but as it stands right now, it was basically created so that Bachcell can include mention of Cho Seung-hui. I would support taking it out unless we can actually expand that article substantially. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
PINOYfilam PINOYfilam Pride]] 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I open this issue to seek consensus about the use of maps on this page. It is my opinion that the maps used should show all of Asia so that it's clear which parts of Asia are being discussed as included or excluded from various definitions of Asian American. The discussion itself is what's most important, and any picture (including a map) is present to assist the discussion, and not as a substitute for the article copy. User:Dark Tea recently changed the map, arguing "removed United Nations map whose significance in this article is questionable. The implication that Asian American is defined by the UN is against WP:NOR" Absent a consensus one way or another, I will not change the map at this time. Input is strongly encouraged. -- Ishu 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
DT: Please relax. Right now, there are three people with three opinions, so no consensus. Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion, either. If we're going to continue this discussion, can we state the pros and cons for different maps? As I stated above, I will not change any map without a consensus. Another reason to include a "full" Asia map is because some folks have argued that this article is "redefining" Asia. Using the "full" map will acknowledge the generally-accepted definitions of geographic Asia while the article copy will specify which groups are included in Asian American. It is not original research to refer to other generally-accepted definitions of Asia. -- Ishu 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lindentree asked: "is there a source on number of EA doctors in the [Chicago] area?" in regards to the comments about East Asian doctors on ER. In fairness, there aren't many obvious East Asian names on the current faculty list of the actual hospital. Also, while there are more East Asians in a recent picture of the real resident training group, it's clear that there are more actual residents than are in the TV show, too. None of which prevents the casting group from finding Asian American actors who are comparable to many of the young actors who've starred on ER, say at someplace like East West Players. -- Ishu 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Dark Tea has added dozens of original research tags, in some cases to entire sections. Can't we just tag the section rather than ugli-fy the article in this way?
Many of these tagged statements are linked to other articles, which to me is a first-line indication of good faith and verifiability. If nothing else, it's a case to allow more vs. less time for the tags to be removed.
I undid the OR tags on the Notable Asian Americans because DT is only challenging the notability of the subjects. This article isn't the place to challenge notability. -- Ishu 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed them from the sections where the tag was basically abused and stuck OR tags at the top of the sections instead. There's really no need to stick an OR tag in every other sentence if you can just stick an OR tag at the top of the section. And I have no idea what Dark Tea finds so difficult about initiating a discussion before making so many changes to this article or placing 50 OR tags in it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
When there are policy questions, it's more productive to open a discussion instead of slapping tags on statements.
Rather than tag items indiscriminately, we should have a discussion about the disputed items. For example, Dark Tea tagged the following sentence as original research:
It would help if DT would discuss which part of this statement might be OR. The verifiability policy states: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged..."
While one might challenge whether the Hart-Celler Act eliminated national origins quotas, this fact is so easily verifiable that I wouldn't call it "likely to be challenged," and it is addressed in its own article. (True, WP itself is not an acceptable source, but it is an indicator of "likelihood to be challenged.") In any event, there is no apparent basis for tagging the statement as original research, especially as part of a wholesale 50-tag edit.
Another tagged statement is:
Later in the article, most if not all of this is demonstrated and referenced. I suppose this sentence could be viewed as a synthesis, but shouldn't that be discussed?
In fact, to encourage discussion on this page, I will be removing nearly all of the remaining OR tags in the article. I'm not claiming that the tagged statements aren't original research, simply that it's reasonable to expect someone to describe why they are. -- Ishu 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I found the codes which say exactly who is counted as an Asian in the US Census. Originally, I thought that it was clear. The US Census clearly did not intend "West Asians" like Iranians, Iraqis, Turkmens, Arabs to be included in the Asian racial category; however, User:Ishu disputed this interpretation. He contended that the three regional definition given on the census was not exhaustive and that those groups were intended to be counted as Asians. Well, I have found the codes for each nationality/ethnic group. here They show that those people are not included as Asians. Now, I can add the map I made back into the article of the three regions and not have to have the 6 regional map placed near it for the sake of WP:NPOV.---- Dark Tea 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A bunch of Ethnicity-American actors categories have been nominated for deletion, for example, Category:Asian American actors, Category:Japanese American actors, etc etc. If you have an opinion on the matter, please comment here - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_25#Category:American_actors_by_ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
is there any reason why there are two NASA astronauts used as the example of asian americas? isnt this a little mis representative / biased? couldn't we use a pop culture example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 ( talk) 2007-06-05 21:40:08
Can we try to understand this logic:
-- JWB 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm including the following link to the Census Bureau's racial statistics branch: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html. This one web page links to many different Census Bureau documents and studies on race. -- Ishu 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see some diversity in the occupations shown. There are plenty of asian american entertainers, actors, nobel laureates / field medaliss, atheletes, business people etc to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.124.215 ( talk) 02:56, 13 June 2007
Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Iranians have a closer cultural relationship to India than it does to the Middle East. So why don't they include Iranians under the definition of Asian American? Or they should just include India and all of Southern Asia as "white", even though most Americans don't consider Indians, Persians, and Arabs as white. Or maybe Western Asians (and Iran) should be included under Asian American.
Persians, like Northern Indians and Kurds, are Indo-Europeans like the Germans, English, Italian or Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, this definition might change soon........who can really be described as Asian American. In common usage Asian refers to East Asian and Southeast Asian Americans.......not to South Asian and Southwest Asian. White usually refers to European American. Perhaps the US census should make South Asians and Southwest Asians into their own ethnic group. Zachorious 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dark Tea here. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is what definition are we using for our wiki article? You don't need citations unless you are trying to push someone else's point of view on who is Asian American. If we were to include all people indigenous to Asia then yes: Persia, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Turkey, and even Russia can be included as Asian Americans. Or we can use the US census definition, which constantly changes regarding groups like South Asians. And Iran is obviously closer to India than it is to the Middle East for the same reason why Pakistan is closer to India than it is to the Middle East. For one.....Iranians are linguistically closer to India sharing the same Indo-Iranian roots. Before the British arrived much of India was connected into Persian territory because of the Mughal Empire.
Why can't the US Census get this right? If this is based on self-classification or the common man's understanding then why don't they get changed accordingly. A lot of the time Americans view "Asian American" as someone who is usually from East Asia or Southeast Asia. Indian Americans are often mistaken for Afghan Americans, Iranian Americans, and Arab Americans. I have never seen or heard of a case where a South Asian was mistaken for an East Asian or Southeast Asian. Zachorious 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If Iran was excluded from being South Asian because it's Muslim, why is Pakistan classified as a South Asian race when they are majority Muslim? Islam isn't what divides South Asia into from the "rest of the world".......a common South Asian cultural area is what unites South Asia. Indo-Iranians (including South Indians who had a lot of interaction with North Indians) have been interacting for a long time. And its not just linguistics; there are many things unique in Indo-Iranian culture that all other regions don't have. That is why the UN includes Iran and Afghanistan...(which has undisputed Hindu origins until Muslims came);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_Asia_%28ed%29.PNG
So if I provide citations on other Asian American definitions of other organizations it will be changed to include or exclude certain groups? I doubt it.......the US census definition seems to be dominate on wiki. This isn't necessarily bad, but more should be mentioned on alternative explanations. And you never know when the US census will change their definition.....as they have so many times in history (especially to Indian Americans).
I'm really not sure what you mean by Indian Americans using the quota system to get into college......Asian Americans are usually considered overrepresented than whites........in fact in many ways Asians have the most disadvantages.
I agree with you that Europe is not a separate continent from Asia (this of course comes from geologists, something far more objective). However if that is the case why use "Asian" to begin with? Or if we are going to use it, why not include all Asian "races" (including Western Asians). Or why can't each region maintain their own region (Europe, East Asia, South Asia, West Asia, ect.).
Or yes, perhaps the Indian subcontinent should be its own region, separate from Asian, Middle Eastern, and White. Though any Southern Asian region should also include Persia and Afghanistan. Zachorious 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea......it does make more sense to further subdivide the categories but I'm not sure whether they will do it. If so they should just have a separate Western Asian and Southern Asian categories but all under the same Asian American category. It doesn't make sense to not to include Western and Central Asians under the Asian category. Zachorious 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I request Filipino Americans be removed from the Asian American section. It's pathetic that more and more self-hating Filipinos would idenitfy themselves as Pacific Islanders and look down their Asian bretheren because they believe that because they're mixed and diverse, they're superior and the idea is why associate with race that's looked down upon and stereotyped along with any other ethnic group. I'm sure Filipinos would be pleased to move this article to the Pacific Islander American section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinZenielPerez1990 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Filipinos are HISPANIC. Hispanic or Latino is not a Race but an Ethnicity and it includes Europeans, South Americans and Asians....Filipinos, mostly Catholics with Spanish names and three centuries of Spanish colony, are Asian HISPANIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Asian Americans and a whole bunch of other lists have been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please vote at the AfD.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 12 for all the lists that have been nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In Britain Asian is used to refer to people who come from (or whose parents came from) the Indian subcontinent, while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/asian?view=uk Iseebias 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
So it looks like the photos of South Asians are going to have to be removed. Iseebias 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to point out:
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why Oxford should even be used as a source if it doesn't define "Asian American". Oxford states the difference between how the word "Asian" is commonly used between the UK and North America. But the US Census specifically defines "Asian American", and the US Census is a reliable source for racial categorisation in the U.S. In fact it's one of the definitive sources for such a task. Iseebias, your idea that Oxford thus states who "Asian Americans" are by its definition of "Asian" is, in fact, original research, as it is your own personal analysis of a source. You are jumping from the usage of the word "Asian" in North America, to the definition of "Asian American". In the lack of other reliable sources, maybe that's passable. But this is not the case. Furthermore, Oxford does not state anything about "Asians in America". It specifically says, "...while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East". It makes no statement about Asians that are in America. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It is unclear whether or not the US Census has scientific racial definitions. I would like them to explicate their reasoning for their racial groupings, but I know that the definition of the Asian race takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry although the specifics of ancestry, culture, and society involved are unclear.----- Dark Tea © 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
All due respect, it doesn't matter what we WP editors think of the sources' approach to racial categorisation, whether or not it's "scientific", "sociological", "geographical", or anything else. We're not supposed to be analysing our sources' methods of research and decide amongst ourselves what to use and what not to use. Are any of us credible anthropologists and sociologists that we can discount sources based on our own personal opinions? Not that I'm aware of. As long as these sources are WP:Reliable sources, we should reflect what they say. There's no doubt that the US Census is a reliable source here. We can add that Oxford dictionary defines North American usage of "Asian" to refer to East Asians only, but Oxford dictionary certainly does not hold the monopoly on what "Asian American" means. Outside the US Census, you'll see that basically all Asian American Studies experts include South Asians as part of the Asian American group. Probably the most cited Asian American literature, Strangers From A Different Shore by Ronald Takaki, most certainly includes South Asians as part of the group. My point? Oxford Dictionary does not trump every other source that contradicts it - and there are many sources that contradicts it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Iseebias, you're really arguing around in circles, just clutching very tightly to the one and only source you have - Oxford. Sorry, but Oxford does not override every other dictionaries out there, especially when there are American dictionaries that contradict it. If I wanted nothing but Oxford, I would have no use for Wikipedia. I'd just look everything up on Oxford's website. Luckily for the world, Wikipedia is not just a mirror site of Oxford's website - Wikipedia actually use any and all sources so long as they are reliable and verifiable. Have you consider that maybe the other dictionaries do not distinguish between British and American usage because they do not define North American usage of "Asian" to exclude South Asians? Regardless, the fact is they do not state that South Asians are excluded in the usage of "Asian". I also just checked out Merriam-Webster Online, it also does not exclude South Asians in its entry for "Asian" [4]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again - it doesn't matter why you think the sources say what they say. What matters is that they do say what they say. Our job as WP editors is not to qualify our sources based on our own personal and amateur opinions of something like racial categorisation. We should just be reflecting what reliable sources say. This is a very basic and fundamental part of editing WP. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet more harping on and on about how Oxford is the one and only source that should be used to define "Asian American". So far you only have empty assertions and one dictionary source. Again, WP:NPOV states we should present different points of views, not eliminate them. And I've shown you how, if anything, Oxford is the minority view given the undue weight here. Again, WP is not a dictionary. Also, are you seriously using a reality TV series as a measuring stick of how far the definition of "Asian American" goes? By the way, the show would seem to contradict Oxford Dictionary in its inclusion of Filipino contestants. And Take a look at some sample course listings at different Asian American Studies programs - Cornell, UCLA, Berkeley, etc. The study of South Asians in the US is included. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Iseebias' Oxford definition makes the claim that the Asian American means Far Eastern Americans. If we're to go along with his definition, anyone who is not a Japanese-, Korean-, (Taiwanese-,) or Chinese-American should not be on this page. The Far East is generally used to mean East Asia if I am not mistaken. Thegreyanomaly 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The problems with that:
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the last lead paragraph is unsubstantiated in terms of saying Asian Americans may include Russians, Iranians, etc. There is not a scholarly consensus on that, so I don't think it belongs in the lead AT ALL. Maybe it should go lower in the article.
I checked the references: #7, the PBS panel, was made up of writers and a journalist, no social historian or any academics, so they were speculating, talking about ideas. The second reference (#8) was one editor's opinion on a website. Neither of these references satisfy Wikipedia guidelines to use scholarly sources that undergo peer review. There is not a consensus on the largest definition of Asian American. I think the editors and article have enough to grapple with using the current US Census definition and trying to cover the array of groups within that. A shift to the larger definition hasn't happened yet, and it isn't even covered in the article, so shouldn't appear in the lead. The speculative topic could be covered more thoroughly below in the article. -- Parkwells 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)--[-- Parkwells ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's odd that the article doesn't mention much about the adoption of Asian religions and spirituality by Americans, but this has been one of the far-reaching impacts of Asian Americans. In addition, there have been studies noting the increase in younger Asian Americans who practice Christianity. For instance, a while ago there was an article about a Christianity group at an Ivy League college (Princeton?) in which almost all the members were Asian Americans. Many communities have Asian American Christian churches, too.
There has been more than one generation to adopt Buddhist practices, beginning with some Beats in the 1950s, and waves of interest in the 1970s (which included more Americans going to Asia to study), especially on the West Coast; and more publicity about Buddhism, Hinduism, and yoga practices in the 1990s and recently. Interest in Buddhism has also related to the appearance of exiled/refugee Vietnamese and Tibetan monks who have lived and worked in the US, as well as earlier Japanese Zen Buddhists who came here to teach.
With interest especially on both the West and East Coasts; establishment of American Buddhist temples and retreat centers in several areas of the country, including the southwest; incorporation of meditation into spiritual and holistic health practices by people who don't belong to any religious institution; and revival of meditation, centering and other related practices in mainstream Christianity; Asian religions have had major cultural influence in the United States. I'll look for some sources, but there has been a lot written on this. Think how the religion section in bookstores has changed, too.-- Parkwells 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is unbalanced. A few people's opinions that Americans don't think Asian Americans "belong" is really not sufficient documentation for general opinion. For people to treat every curious question as somehow questioning their right to be here is oversensitive. When I was growing up in metropolitan NY, kids were always asking each other, "What are you, what are you?". It was a shorthand for saying, "Where did your family come from - that is, where did your first immigrants come from?", whether that was from Greece, England, Poland, Russia, Italy, China, Korea, etc. I guess this was part of the way we learned about nationalities of different names, for one thing. With the waves of new immigrants that have arrived in the US in the last several decades, is it so unnatural for people to continue to ask questions about origin? It's not a question that only means one thing or the most negative thing. -- Parkwells 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
what about M Night Shyamalan, Kal Penn or Naveen Andrews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.224 ( talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
: Good Point. Maybe you can be the one who adds to it? PinoyFilamPride talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd that one of the larger groups isn't represented. There are already 2 Japanese Americans, Onizuka and Shinseki. Furthermore, does everyone in there have to have posed with the American flag? BrokenSphere Msg me 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I think this article needs to be updated. I just read articles Filipino American and Chinese American. 210.4.122.54 ( talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There aren't enough sources for Asian Americans in... (sports, music etc.) Bulk of the sections contain blanket statements such as "Asian Americans are prominent in..." or "Asian Americans have made significant progress in..." with no sources not to mention that sentences with weasel/peacock words should not be in an article in first place. I don't think listing Asian American figures for each section counts as a source. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know an Indian American girl who looks like this tribal indigenous Indian woman? I would prefer we use someone who looks like this in the picture rather than this person ( Image:Kalpana Chawla, NASA photo portrait in orange suit.jpg ) who looks Aryan. I'm sure she could where a hijab, learn Persian and pass as a local in Iran. The US Census specified that Aryans are not Asian in their write-in section and only the people who originate in the original people of the Indian Subcontinent are Asian. I'm tired of periodic vandalism due to some people looking at our picture of Aryan astronaut Kalpana Chawla and then ignorantly writing in "Indians are Caucasian" or accusing us of claiming Caucasians as Asians. I know it is hard to find someone of tribal indigenous real Indian ancestry who has done something encyclopedic due to the discrimination they face in India at the hands of (Aryans) white people and Aryan-Indian-Eurasians who side with Aryans.----- Dark Tea © 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The table headed "Metropolitan Areas with the Highest Proportion of Asian Americans (2000 Census)[19]" doesn't seem to match any of the information in the US Census link at the ref - plus I am suspicious of some recent "correction" edits. Johnbod ( talk) 22:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There are millions of White Asians, most of them Indo-Aryans from Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan and Northern India, Kurdistan etc...and also semites in Israel, Lebanon, Syria etc...and also millions of Turks are White.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So what "Asian" means? Because millions of Northern Indians are Indo-European too, even if it is true the majority of Indians are Dravidian or mixed with Dravidian (similar to the Latinamerican mixture of Indo-Europeans with Natives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Indo-" means Indian (which immediately indicates Asian race in the Census definition) and Indo-Aryan refers to a modern language family including about 3/4 of the population of India, as well as the ancient immigrants supposed to have brought the ancestral language from Central Asia. The hyphenated term is because Aryan in one meaning is a dated term for Indo-European, and much of Indo-European is outside of South Asia. There is no guessing about ancient racial mixture or retracing ancient migrations involved, as this is highly controversial and unnecessary for the Census to get involved in. -- JWB ( talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The section regarding history termed the effects of World War II is very slanted towards one subset of the overall group, that is the Japanese American experience. Although it was arguable the harshest and had many honorable acts relating to it, it does nto show how it effected other asian american groups in the United States and its territories at the time. Furthermore it doesn't go into how those events had a direct influence on later asian american immigrant waves that came from Korea (then a Japanese territory) and Vietnam (then part of the larger French Indochina).-- 207.114.206.48 ( talk) 07:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The right term should be "Yellow Americans" because Asia and Africa are different Continents from America and when somebody says "Asian American" or "African American" while for whites we only use the term "White" that means tha the ONLY AMERICANS are the Whites while the blacks are Africans and the yellows are Asians.
The right term is "Yellow Americans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.28 ( talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Talking about "Asian Pacific Americans" is as ridiculous as saying "European Atlantic Americans" instead of Whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.25 ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Asian Americans are Americans of Asian ancestry. They include sub-ethnic groups such as Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans and others whose national origin is from the Asian continent. In Oxford dictionary, "Asian person" in the United States is sometimes thought of as a person of East Asian descent [1]. In common reference "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian or Vietnamese descent or anyone else of Asian descent with an epicanthic eyefold. [2] This lags behind the US government definition and general usage in many parts of the US and many consider those of East, South or Southeast Asian descent with or without epicanthic eyefolds to be "Asian". [3] [4] [5] In the US Census, people who originate from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are classified as part of the Asian race. | ” |
These are not sources amalgamated to push a position. There are multiple points lined up sequentially
I can reorder the citations and redo the wording if desired, but please do not remove content. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (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. |
Americans of Filipino descent are hugely underrepresented in this article. They are the largest subgroup after Chinese, according to the article. Is there some expert who could fill in more things about Filipino Americans in the article? Chiss Boy 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
actually come people would say Filipinos are the largest sub group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.203.183 ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Visit the
Chinese American Article and the
Filipino American Article... As of the 2007 estimate, there are 4 million filams as oppose to 3.6 M of Chinese descent. --
User:Vivafilipinas
10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The following articles have been designated as Featured content, and so might give us some ideas as to how we can structure this article.
I present this only for ideas and discussion, since we haven't gotten very far just working with what we have. -- Ishu 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the Terminology section. It now begins with a description of the most common official definition. See for yourself. I know that there is significant room for improvement, so please, help out. -- Ishu 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This section should have its sub-heads removed, and possibly be merged with other sections. The long-questionable "Asian Pride" section has not been altered in some time, and the article Asian Pride rests on a single tripod web site. FYI, folks, it's ripe for deletion, though I have no intention of nominating it. The Vincent Chin reference probably belongs in the history section, while the model minority discussion might go with the demographics, or possibly in history. Once again, input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. -- Ishu 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no support for the assertion that stereotyping can harm Asian students' performance. This appears to be just speculation, especially in view of Asians' high performance generally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the extended discussion of Filipino Americans in the Arts & Entertainment section, since three paragraphs is an excessive amount of space to give. We can discuss a few sentences regarding FilAm contributions, provided that there is some relevance to their being Filipino American specifically, rather than Asian American generally. Per previous discussions, we're trying to move away from ethnic identifiers for individuals on this page, except when relevant, and we're trying to avoid having lists of people. -- Ishu 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's also time to create a separate article for Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, or another appropriate title. The Asian Americans today section consistently is dominated by "arts and entertainment" entries, and the topic clearly has its interested editors. I'd be interested to know what people think about this idea, and what would be a suitable title. -- Ishu 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Another possible article would be on Media portrayals of Asian people or something similar. Comments? -- Ishu 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some movement on the history section, so let's see who can help out. We can identify key topics, then create an outline structure to guide development of the section so it doesn't become a hodgepodge of facts and stuff. Important topics
This is just off the top of my head. Suggestions are welcome. -- Ishu 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to continue this topic, I think we should structure the History section around immigration patterns, at least until the mid-20th century. I'd ask for consensus, but nobody posts, so this is my statement of intent-to-edit, unless I hear otherwise. The topics I've sketched out above are probably more appropriate for a separate history article. --
Ishu
12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that two-thirds of Asians are Democratic. Source: http://www.asian-nation.org/politics.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
World book: Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent. They or their ancestors came from Asian countries, particularly Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. More than 10 million people of Asian descent live in the United States. Today, Asians are the country's second fastest-growing minority group, after Hispanic Americans.
Encarta: Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia.
Britannica includes history including non-citizens in Asian Americans: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-78001/United-States United States Asian-Americans Asian-Americans as a group have confounded earlier expectations that they would form an indigestible mass in American society. The Chinese, earliest to arrive (in large numbers from the mid-19th century, principally as labourers, notably on the transcontinental railroad), and the Japanese were long victims of racial discrimination. In 1924 the law barred further entries; those already in the United States had been ineligible for citizenship since the previous year.
No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens.
Some people feel that only citizens and legal residents can be called Americans, but this is not the most common usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bachcell ( talk • contribs) 2007-04-19 20:50:36.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also deleted the "Asians as criminals" section, as none of the three sources provided actually discuss stereotyping itself. You and I may be able to read the first two sources and see that it's laced with stereotypes, but that's original research. We need a source that actually discuss stereotypes if we want a section on Asians being stereotyped as criminals. And the third source, the one about Cho Seung-hui, it's arguable there's even any stereotyping going on. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this at great depth elsewhere. Dictionary definitions of Asian-American.
Oxford Dictionary of American English: "Asian American": an American who is of Asian (chiefly Far Eastern) descent.
Mirriam-Webster: "Asian-American": an American of Asian descent
American Heritage Dictionary: "Asian American": A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent. See Usage Note at Amerasian.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage in their section on "Names and Labels: Social, Racial, and Ethnic Terms" says "An American of Asian descent is an Asian American", and that "hyphenated Americans" refers to "Naturalized immigrants to the United States and their descendants".
It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front of it. If one is not an "American" (i.e. a citizen), one cannot claim to be an "Asian American", "African American", etc.
In addition, I have rounded up a United States Census study published in Feb. 2007, that makes a distinction between Asians and Asian Americans. See the table on page 4. [1] Note that in general, the Census Bureau refrains from using the term "Asian American" when it does a census (using only the term "Asian") because the census includes all peoples regardless of citizenship, and those who are not of American citizenship cannot claim to be "Asian American". So as not to exclude these people, "Asian" is used instead.
Continuing, to comment on the "points" made by Bachcell above:
1) World Book says "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent" begs the question, "what is an American"? Dictionaries and common sense dictate that an American is "someone with American citizenship."
2) Encarta says "Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia." This definition is clearly flawed and too broad-based because it includes people who are clearly NOT Americans, such as illegal aliens (who certainly cannot claim to be Americans since they are deported to their HOME COUNTRY if they are detected).
3) The Brittanica makes absolutely no claims as to what an Asian American is or isn't.
4) "No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens." No proof whatsoever has been shown of this claim, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Canadian history courses, for example, do not limit themselves purely to the history of "CANADIAN PEOPLES". They discuss the British and French (ancestors of today's Canadian peoples) in great length. Asian peoples studied in history courses might very well be considered to be the non-American ancestors of TODAY's Asian-American population. That's certainly the way I see it. Bueller 007 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We could also try to find sources on how Yuji Ichioka meant for the term to be used, since he was the one that coined it. Specifically, did he use the term to refer to non-citizen residents as well? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To the editors just arriving at this article - please leave Cho Seung-hui out of the article unless there are actually sources that discuss the VTech massacre in the context of stereotyping and the model minority myth. Otherwise you are drawing your own conclusions and that would be WP:Original research. Yes, I know what racial implications there are in what he did, but we as WP editors are only supposed to reflect the sources that we find, not insert our own conclusions and judgement of events around the world. I am almost certain that necessary sources will be forthcoming in the weeks to come, but until then, please leave him out of the article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the crime section itself - I don't mind it if there are enough sources for it be expanded upon substantially, but as it stands right now, it was basically created so that Bachcell can include mention of Cho Seung-hui. I would support taking it out unless we can actually expand that article substantially. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
PINOYfilam PINOYfilam Pride]] 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I open this issue to seek consensus about the use of maps on this page. It is my opinion that the maps used should show all of Asia so that it's clear which parts of Asia are being discussed as included or excluded from various definitions of Asian American. The discussion itself is what's most important, and any picture (including a map) is present to assist the discussion, and not as a substitute for the article copy. User:Dark Tea recently changed the map, arguing "removed United Nations map whose significance in this article is questionable. The implication that Asian American is defined by the UN is against WP:NOR" Absent a consensus one way or another, I will not change the map at this time. Input is strongly encouraged. -- Ishu 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
DT: Please relax. Right now, there are three people with three opinions, so no consensus. Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion, either. If we're going to continue this discussion, can we state the pros and cons for different maps? As I stated above, I will not change any map without a consensus. Another reason to include a "full" Asia map is because some folks have argued that this article is "redefining" Asia. Using the "full" map will acknowledge the generally-accepted definitions of geographic Asia while the article copy will specify which groups are included in Asian American. It is not original research to refer to other generally-accepted definitions of Asia. -- Ishu 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lindentree asked: "is there a source on number of EA doctors in the [Chicago] area?" in regards to the comments about East Asian doctors on ER. In fairness, there aren't many obvious East Asian names on the current faculty list of the actual hospital. Also, while there are more East Asians in a recent picture of the real resident training group, it's clear that there are more actual residents than are in the TV show, too. None of which prevents the casting group from finding Asian American actors who are comparable to many of the young actors who've starred on ER, say at someplace like East West Players. -- Ishu 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Dark Tea has added dozens of original research tags, in some cases to entire sections. Can't we just tag the section rather than ugli-fy the article in this way?
Many of these tagged statements are linked to other articles, which to me is a first-line indication of good faith and verifiability. If nothing else, it's a case to allow more vs. less time for the tags to be removed.
I undid the OR tags on the Notable Asian Americans because DT is only challenging the notability of the subjects. This article isn't the place to challenge notability. -- Ishu 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed them from the sections where the tag was basically abused and stuck OR tags at the top of the sections instead. There's really no need to stick an OR tag in every other sentence if you can just stick an OR tag at the top of the section. And I have no idea what Dark Tea finds so difficult about initiating a discussion before making so many changes to this article or placing 50 OR tags in it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
When there are policy questions, it's more productive to open a discussion instead of slapping tags on statements.
Rather than tag items indiscriminately, we should have a discussion about the disputed items. For example, Dark Tea tagged the following sentence as original research:
It would help if DT would discuss which part of this statement might be OR. The verifiability policy states: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged..."
While one might challenge whether the Hart-Celler Act eliminated national origins quotas, this fact is so easily verifiable that I wouldn't call it "likely to be challenged," and it is addressed in its own article. (True, WP itself is not an acceptable source, but it is an indicator of "likelihood to be challenged.") In any event, there is no apparent basis for tagging the statement as original research, especially as part of a wholesale 50-tag edit.
Another tagged statement is:
Later in the article, most if not all of this is demonstrated and referenced. I suppose this sentence could be viewed as a synthesis, but shouldn't that be discussed?
In fact, to encourage discussion on this page, I will be removing nearly all of the remaining OR tags in the article. I'm not claiming that the tagged statements aren't original research, simply that it's reasonable to expect someone to describe why they are. -- Ishu 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I found the codes which say exactly who is counted as an Asian in the US Census. Originally, I thought that it was clear. The US Census clearly did not intend "West Asians" like Iranians, Iraqis, Turkmens, Arabs to be included in the Asian racial category; however, User:Ishu disputed this interpretation. He contended that the three regional definition given on the census was not exhaustive and that those groups were intended to be counted as Asians. Well, I have found the codes for each nationality/ethnic group. here They show that those people are not included as Asians. Now, I can add the map I made back into the article of the three regions and not have to have the 6 regional map placed near it for the sake of WP:NPOV.---- Dark Tea 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A bunch of Ethnicity-American actors categories have been nominated for deletion, for example, Category:Asian American actors, Category:Japanese American actors, etc etc. If you have an opinion on the matter, please comment here - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_25#Category:American_actors_by_ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
is there any reason why there are two NASA astronauts used as the example of asian americas? isnt this a little mis representative / biased? couldn't we use a pop culture example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 ( talk) 2007-06-05 21:40:08
Can we try to understand this logic:
-- JWB 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm including the following link to the Census Bureau's racial statistics branch: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html. This one web page links to many different Census Bureau documents and studies on race. -- Ishu 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see some diversity in the occupations shown. There are plenty of asian american entertainers, actors, nobel laureates / field medaliss, atheletes, business people etc to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.124.215 ( talk) 02:56, 13 June 2007
Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Iranians have a closer cultural relationship to India than it does to the Middle East. So why don't they include Iranians under the definition of Asian American? Or they should just include India and all of Southern Asia as "white", even though most Americans don't consider Indians, Persians, and Arabs as white. Or maybe Western Asians (and Iran) should be included under Asian American.
Persians, like Northern Indians and Kurds, are Indo-Europeans like the Germans, English, Italian or Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, this definition might change soon........who can really be described as Asian American. In common usage Asian refers to East Asian and Southeast Asian Americans.......not to South Asian and Southwest Asian. White usually refers to European American. Perhaps the US census should make South Asians and Southwest Asians into their own ethnic group. Zachorious 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dark Tea here. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is what definition are we using for our wiki article? You don't need citations unless you are trying to push someone else's point of view on who is Asian American. If we were to include all people indigenous to Asia then yes: Persia, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Turkey, and even Russia can be included as Asian Americans. Or we can use the US census definition, which constantly changes regarding groups like South Asians. And Iran is obviously closer to India than it is to the Middle East for the same reason why Pakistan is closer to India than it is to the Middle East. For one.....Iranians are linguistically closer to India sharing the same Indo-Iranian roots. Before the British arrived much of India was connected into Persian territory because of the Mughal Empire.
Why can't the US Census get this right? If this is based on self-classification or the common man's understanding then why don't they get changed accordingly. A lot of the time Americans view "Asian American" as someone who is usually from East Asia or Southeast Asia. Indian Americans are often mistaken for Afghan Americans, Iranian Americans, and Arab Americans. I have never seen or heard of a case where a South Asian was mistaken for an East Asian or Southeast Asian. Zachorious 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If Iran was excluded from being South Asian because it's Muslim, why is Pakistan classified as a South Asian race when they are majority Muslim? Islam isn't what divides South Asia into from the "rest of the world".......a common South Asian cultural area is what unites South Asia. Indo-Iranians (including South Indians who had a lot of interaction with North Indians) have been interacting for a long time. And its not just linguistics; there are many things unique in Indo-Iranian culture that all other regions don't have. That is why the UN includes Iran and Afghanistan...(which has undisputed Hindu origins until Muslims came);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_Asia_%28ed%29.PNG
So if I provide citations on other Asian American definitions of other organizations it will be changed to include or exclude certain groups? I doubt it.......the US census definition seems to be dominate on wiki. This isn't necessarily bad, but more should be mentioned on alternative explanations. And you never know when the US census will change their definition.....as they have so many times in history (especially to Indian Americans).
I'm really not sure what you mean by Indian Americans using the quota system to get into college......Asian Americans are usually considered overrepresented than whites........in fact in many ways Asians have the most disadvantages.
I agree with you that Europe is not a separate continent from Asia (this of course comes from geologists, something far more objective). However if that is the case why use "Asian" to begin with? Or if we are going to use it, why not include all Asian "races" (including Western Asians). Or why can't each region maintain their own region (Europe, East Asia, South Asia, West Asia, ect.).
Or yes, perhaps the Indian subcontinent should be its own region, separate from Asian, Middle Eastern, and White. Though any Southern Asian region should also include Persia and Afghanistan. Zachorious 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea......it does make more sense to further subdivide the categories but I'm not sure whether they will do it. If so they should just have a separate Western Asian and Southern Asian categories but all under the same Asian American category. It doesn't make sense to not to include Western and Central Asians under the Asian category. Zachorious 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I request Filipino Americans be removed from the Asian American section. It's pathetic that more and more self-hating Filipinos would idenitfy themselves as Pacific Islanders and look down their Asian bretheren because they believe that because they're mixed and diverse, they're superior and the idea is why associate with race that's looked down upon and stereotyped along with any other ethnic group. I'm sure Filipinos would be pleased to move this article to the Pacific Islander American section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinZenielPerez1990 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Filipinos are HISPANIC. Hispanic or Latino is not a Race but an Ethnicity and it includes Europeans, South Americans and Asians....Filipinos, mostly Catholics with Spanish names and three centuries of Spanish colony, are Asian HISPANIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Asian Americans and a whole bunch of other lists have been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please vote at the AfD.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 12 for all the lists that have been nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In Britain Asian is used to refer to people who come from (or whose parents came from) the Indian subcontinent, while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/asian?view=uk Iseebias 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
So it looks like the photos of South Asians are going to have to be removed. Iseebias 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to point out:
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why Oxford should even be used as a source if it doesn't define "Asian American". Oxford states the difference between how the word "Asian" is commonly used between the UK and North America. But the US Census specifically defines "Asian American", and the US Census is a reliable source for racial categorisation in the U.S. In fact it's one of the definitive sources for such a task. Iseebias, your idea that Oxford thus states who "Asian Americans" are by its definition of "Asian" is, in fact, original research, as it is your own personal analysis of a source. You are jumping from the usage of the word "Asian" in North America, to the definition of "Asian American". In the lack of other reliable sources, maybe that's passable. But this is not the case. Furthermore, Oxford does not state anything about "Asians in America". It specifically says, "...while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East". It makes no statement about Asians that are in America. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It is unclear whether or not the US Census has scientific racial definitions. I would like them to explicate their reasoning for their racial groupings, but I know that the definition of the Asian race takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry although the specifics of ancestry, culture, and society involved are unclear.----- Dark Tea © 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
All due respect, it doesn't matter what we WP editors think of the sources' approach to racial categorisation, whether or not it's "scientific", "sociological", "geographical", or anything else. We're not supposed to be analysing our sources' methods of research and decide amongst ourselves what to use and what not to use. Are any of us credible anthropologists and sociologists that we can discount sources based on our own personal opinions? Not that I'm aware of. As long as these sources are WP:Reliable sources, we should reflect what they say. There's no doubt that the US Census is a reliable source here. We can add that Oxford dictionary defines North American usage of "Asian" to refer to East Asians only, but Oxford dictionary certainly does not hold the monopoly on what "Asian American" means. Outside the US Census, you'll see that basically all Asian American Studies experts include South Asians as part of the Asian American group. Probably the most cited Asian American literature, Strangers From A Different Shore by Ronald Takaki, most certainly includes South Asians as part of the group. My point? Oxford Dictionary does not trump every other source that contradicts it - and there are many sources that contradicts it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Iseebias, you're really arguing around in circles, just clutching very tightly to the one and only source you have - Oxford. Sorry, but Oxford does not override every other dictionaries out there, especially when there are American dictionaries that contradict it. If I wanted nothing but Oxford, I would have no use for Wikipedia. I'd just look everything up on Oxford's website. Luckily for the world, Wikipedia is not just a mirror site of Oxford's website - Wikipedia actually use any and all sources so long as they are reliable and verifiable. Have you consider that maybe the other dictionaries do not distinguish between British and American usage because they do not define North American usage of "Asian" to exclude South Asians? Regardless, the fact is they do not state that South Asians are excluded in the usage of "Asian". I also just checked out Merriam-Webster Online, it also does not exclude South Asians in its entry for "Asian" [4]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again - it doesn't matter why you think the sources say what they say. What matters is that they do say what they say. Our job as WP editors is not to qualify our sources based on our own personal and amateur opinions of something like racial categorisation. We should just be reflecting what reliable sources say. This is a very basic and fundamental part of editing WP. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet more harping on and on about how Oxford is the one and only source that should be used to define "Asian American". So far you only have empty assertions and one dictionary source. Again, WP:NPOV states we should present different points of views, not eliminate them. And I've shown you how, if anything, Oxford is the minority view given the undue weight here. Again, WP is not a dictionary. Also, are you seriously using a reality TV series as a measuring stick of how far the definition of "Asian American" goes? By the way, the show would seem to contradict Oxford Dictionary in its inclusion of Filipino contestants. And Take a look at some sample course listings at different Asian American Studies programs - Cornell, UCLA, Berkeley, etc. The study of South Asians in the US is included. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Iseebias' Oxford definition makes the claim that the Asian American means Far Eastern Americans. If we're to go along with his definition, anyone who is not a Japanese-, Korean-, (Taiwanese-,) or Chinese-American should not be on this page. The Far East is generally used to mean East Asia if I am not mistaken. Thegreyanomaly 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The problems with that:
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the last lead paragraph is unsubstantiated in terms of saying Asian Americans may include Russians, Iranians, etc. There is not a scholarly consensus on that, so I don't think it belongs in the lead AT ALL. Maybe it should go lower in the article.
I checked the references: #7, the PBS panel, was made up of writers and a journalist, no social historian or any academics, so they were speculating, talking about ideas. The second reference (#8) was one editor's opinion on a website. Neither of these references satisfy Wikipedia guidelines to use scholarly sources that undergo peer review. There is not a consensus on the largest definition of Asian American. I think the editors and article have enough to grapple with using the current US Census definition and trying to cover the array of groups within that. A shift to the larger definition hasn't happened yet, and it isn't even covered in the article, so shouldn't appear in the lead. The speculative topic could be covered more thoroughly below in the article. -- Parkwells 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)--[-- Parkwells ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's odd that the article doesn't mention much about the adoption of Asian religions and spirituality by Americans, but this has been one of the far-reaching impacts of Asian Americans. In addition, there have been studies noting the increase in younger Asian Americans who practice Christianity. For instance, a while ago there was an article about a Christianity group at an Ivy League college (Princeton?) in which almost all the members were Asian Americans. Many communities have Asian American Christian churches, too.
There has been more than one generation to adopt Buddhist practices, beginning with some Beats in the 1950s, and waves of interest in the 1970s (which included more Americans going to Asia to study), especially on the West Coast; and more publicity about Buddhism, Hinduism, and yoga practices in the 1990s and recently. Interest in Buddhism has also related to the appearance of exiled/refugee Vietnamese and Tibetan monks who have lived and worked in the US, as well as earlier Japanese Zen Buddhists who came here to teach.
With interest especially on both the West and East Coasts; establishment of American Buddhist temples and retreat centers in several areas of the country, including the southwest; incorporation of meditation into spiritual and holistic health practices by people who don't belong to any religious institution; and revival of meditation, centering and other related practices in mainstream Christianity; Asian religions have had major cultural influence in the United States. I'll look for some sources, but there has been a lot written on this. Think how the religion section in bookstores has changed, too.-- Parkwells 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is unbalanced. A few people's opinions that Americans don't think Asian Americans "belong" is really not sufficient documentation for general opinion. For people to treat every curious question as somehow questioning their right to be here is oversensitive. When I was growing up in metropolitan NY, kids were always asking each other, "What are you, what are you?". It was a shorthand for saying, "Where did your family come from - that is, where did your first immigrants come from?", whether that was from Greece, England, Poland, Russia, Italy, China, Korea, etc. I guess this was part of the way we learned about nationalities of different names, for one thing. With the waves of new immigrants that have arrived in the US in the last several decades, is it so unnatural for people to continue to ask questions about origin? It's not a question that only means one thing or the most negative thing. -- Parkwells 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
what about M Night Shyamalan, Kal Penn or Naveen Andrews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.224 ( talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
: Good Point. Maybe you can be the one who adds to it? PinoyFilamPride talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd that one of the larger groups isn't represented. There are already 2 Japanese Americans, Onizuka and Shinseki. Furthermore, does everyone in there have to have posed with the American flag? BrokenSphere Msg me 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I think this article needs to be updated. I just read articles Filipino American and Chinese American. 210.4.122.54 ( talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There aren't enough sources for Asian Americans in... (sports, music etc.) Bulk of the sections contain blanket statements such as "Asian Americans are prominent in..." or "Asian Americans have made significant progress in..." with no sources not to mention that sentences with weasel/peacock words should not be in an article in first place. I don't think listing Asian American figures for each section counts as a source. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know an Indian American girl who looks like this tribal indigenous Indian woman? I would prefer we use someone who looks like this in the picture rather than this person ( Image:Kalpana Chawla, NASA photo portrait in orange suit.jpg ) who looks Aryan. I'm sure she could where a hijab, learn Persian and pass as a local in Iran. The US Census specified that Aryans are not Asian in their write-in section and only the people who originate in the original people of the Indian Subcontinent are Asian. I'm tired of periodic vandalism due to some people looking at our picture of Aryan astronaut Kalpana Chawla and then ignorantly writing in "Indians are Caucasian" or accusing us of claiming Caucasians as Asians. I know it is hard to find someone of tribal indigenous real Indian ancestry who has done something encyclopedic due to the discrimination they face in India at the hands of (Aryans) white people and Aryan-Indian-Eurasians who side with Aryans.----- Dark Tea © 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The table headed "Metropolitan Areas with the Highest Proportion of Asian Americans (2000 Census)[19]" doesn't seem to match any of the information in the US Census link at the ref - plus I am suspicious of some recent "correction" edits. Johnbod ( talk) 22:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There are millions of White Asians, most of them Indo-Aryans from Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan and Northern India, Kurdistan etc...and also semites in Israel, Lebanon, Syria etc...and also millions of Turks are White.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So what "Asian" means? Because millions of Northern Indians are Indo-European too, even if it is true the majority of Indians are Dravidian or mixed with Dravidian (similar to the Latinamerican mixture of Indo-Europeans with Natives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Indo-" means Indian (which immediately indicates Asian race in the Census definition) and Indo-Aryan refers to a modern language family including about 3/4 of the population of India, as well as the ancient immigrants supposed to have brought the ancestral language from Central Asia. The hyphenated term is because Aryan in one meaning is a dated term for Indo-European, and much of Indo-European is outside of South Asia. There is no guessing about ancient racial mixture or retracing ancient migrations involved, as this is highly controversial and unnecessary for the Census to get involved in. -- JWB ( talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The section regarding history termed the effects of World War II is very slanted towards one subset of the overall group, that is the Japanese American experience. Although it was arguable the harshest and had many honorable acts relating to it, it does nto show how it effected other asian american groups in the United States and its territories at the time. Furthermore it doesn't go into how those events had a direct influence on later asian american immigrant waves that came from Korea (then a Japanese territory) and Vietnam (then part of the larger French Indochina).-- 207.114.206.48 ( talk) 07:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The right term should be "Yellow Americans" because Asia and Africa are different Continents from America and when somebody says "Asian American" or "African American" while for whites we only use the term "White" that means tha the ONLY AMERICANS are the Whites while the blacks are Africans and the yellows are Asians.
The right term is "Yellow Americans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.28 ( talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Talking about "Asian Pacific Americans" is as ridiculous as saying "European Atlantic Americans" instead of Whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.25 ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Asian Americans are Americans of Asian ancestry. They include sub-ethnic groups such as Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans and others whose national origin is from the Asian continent. In Oxford dictionary, "Asian person" in the United States is sometimes thought of as a person of East Asian descent [1]. In common reference "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian or Vietnamese descent or anyone else of Asian descent with an epicanthic eyefold. [2] This lags behind the US government definition and general usage in many parts of the US and many consider those of East, South or Southeast Asian descent with or without epicanthic eyefolds to be "Asian". [3] [4] [5] In the US Census, people who originate from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are classified as part of the Asian race. | ” |
These are not sources amalgamated to push a position. There are multiple points lined up sequentially
I can reorder the citations and redo the wording if desired, but please do not remove content. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)