Talk:Asian American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This Article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • John Feehery (2010-10-25). "The Asian-American Republicans". The Hill. Retrieved 2011-03-25. According to Wikipedia: “As of 2008, Asian Americans had the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial demographic in the country, and the highest median personal income overall.”  (details)

The "epicanthic eyefolds" again[edit]

I previously deleted any mentions about epicanthic eyefolds, but someone put it back again.

The sources are false and misquoted, but most importantly, not all East Asians have epicanthic eyefolds. Many don't, and they don't hesitate to pay money for a plastic operation which artificially creates them.

Maybe someone sought a more polite term for "chinky eyes", but it's not entirely correct. The people have "chinky eyes" with or without epicantus, epicanthus just makes them look more "chinky."

So I propose either to delete all mentions about epicanthus, or to use a more precise terminology, calling East and Southeast Asians "Mongoloid," which also includes various other facial characteristics. The only problem is that the term is not very politically correct nowadays.--Kohelet (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is an Asian American?[edit]

I understand that this article hews to the U.S. Census definition of "Asian" meaning heritage from Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. But on Wikipedia, "Asian" categories also include Central Asia and North Asia (areas of the former USSR) and the Middle East. Since many of these categories are organized according to region (either nation or continent), where should these countries be placed if not under "Asia"?

See Category:Lists of American people of Asian descent for examples of what I'm asking about. Either this article of what constitutes "Asian" identity needs to be broadened or Wikipedia needs to find a new term for people from the Central and Western Asia other than "Asian". Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Help at Template talk:Asian Americans[edit]

User:Isinbill has been making lots of strange irrelevant edits to the template associated with this page (just look at its page history). I have reverted it to a more sensible form a couple times now most recently today [1]. I was wondering if more people from here (the page which the template is most associated with) give more input on the template. Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind this, the matter has been settled. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Asian Americans[edit]

looking at the history section of the page, I feel that it is lacking in the subject on Chinese americans immigrating and working as labors on Gold mines and Transcontinental Railroad. I was wondering if it would be possible to if I could add something to provide a more detailed account on these events.

here is my proposal: I would change the second sentence of the last paragraph in the history section.

In 1847, due to crisis and rebellions in Guangdong, Chinese citizens started to immigrate out of China to places such as Australia. After hearing stories of incredible wealth in California's Gum Shan or Gold Mountain, Chine se started to immigrate to California. During the early 1850s, around 85% of the Chinese immigrants in California were involved in the mining business. [1] By 1852, the number of Chinese immigrants in San Francisco had jumped to more than twenty thousand. The next big thing that attracted Chinese immigrants was the construction of the transcontinental railroad. In 1862, the construction of the Railroad started in Sacramento; this caused another Chinese movement. When the Gold Rush hype had died down, Chinese immigrants became unemployed. When the Railroad construction began, Chinese slowly migrated inland to work as construction workers. [1]


Reference

  1. ^ a b Chang, Iris (2003). The Chinese in America : a narrative history. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03123-2. 

Dawei95130 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories[edit]

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

More discussion on Epicanthal Eyefolds[edit]

This discussion has been on-and-off, but I think it's worthwhile, so here's some more information to consider. There seems to be agreement on what is an epicanthic eyefold. What I don't see is substantiation for the main sentence for epicanthic eyefolds:

In vernacular usage, "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian descent or anyone else of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds.

To be fair, there are two citations for this statement:

  1. A MedLine reference that reads "An epicanthal fold is normal in people of Asian descent."
  2. A general reference to a book chapter. As of this writing, you can view the Kawamura reference in Google Books. The only quotation referring to epicanthic eyelids is as follows:

    "For Asians, especially those from central Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, and China, common physical features often include epicanthic eyefold, a broad, flat nose, and yellowish skin pigmentation." (pp. 231-232)

My view is the logic here borders on original research. Here is my thinking for your consideration.

  1. The MedLine citation seems to create a circular definition for the purposes of the Asian American page, since the MedLine reference does not specify what it means by 'Asian'. Additionally, the citation includes an WP:OR comment (provided by a WP editor): "assuming it the norm for all Asians." There's a difference between a "norm" and "all." Also, MedLine is a medical reference, but it's being used to support "common" (vernacular) usage of the term 'Asian'. In a medical context, I believe "normal" is used in the context of disease and pathology and not in the context of frequency. Red hair is "normal" (not a disease), but not universal, or even common. Compare the usage of 'normal' in the MedLine definition for Turner Syndrome, one of the conditions associated with epicanthal folds per the MedLine definition of epicanthal folds. In other words: Turner Syndrome is a disease, but the epicanthal eyefold is normal (i.e., healthy) for Asian people, so look for other signs of the disease in this population.
  2. The Kawamura reference has two problems: (1) there are no citations to its declaration about the "common physical features;" and (2) Kawamura's work is in the field of Clinical Psychology, and so I don't consider it to be definitive or authoritative on the subject of racial classifications and definitions. Kawamura provides absolutely no basis for her claim. In academic writing, that's acceptable if the statement is considered to be common knowledge. But if it is common knowledge, then we ought to be able to find citations for this claim in multiple works across academic fields more relevant to the subject than clinical psychology. (To be clear, I'm not criticizing clinical psychologists for not being physical anthropologists. I am saying their contributions to the field should be held to the same standards. I'm also saying I don't see evidence this application of the epicanthal eyelid is widely-held.) [NOTE: The Google Books images are from the 2011 2nd edition; I could not find the 2004 1st edition. The provided citation unhelpfully cites the entire article from the 2004 edition, and offers no sense of the relevant quotation.]

Bottom line: I don't think these references are sufficient. If we have to interpret a citation, then I question whether it can support the statement in the article. Academic writing isn't valid just because it's published--there are evidence standards in academic writing, too. Part of an editor's job is to do some checking on references. And the more we have to interpret the citations, the closer we get to original research.

Ishu (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should remove the "assuming it the norm for all Asians" as that is OR, however, the reliable sources still stand on their face, and a neutral POV is maintained by a counter statement backed by more reliable sources. If anything to exclude it does less to support the cause of saying that epicenthal eyefolds are not required. By leaving it, it confronts the issue head on, in a neutral POV way. It provides both points of view, favoring neither one or another, and allowing the reliable sources speak for themselves. Therefore, I agree with removing the OR statement added by an WP editor from within the ref tags, but I disagree with removing it all together. The content supported by the two reliable sources (regardless of my own view (not attempting to interject by own POV)) accurately summarizes the reliable sources, and the content is not given undue weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, too many people misuse the term "epicanthic eyefold", but we cannot assume that everyone always does so. Compare Epicanthic fold#Geographic distribution, along with the minimal references in that article section. But...no WP:OR tag is needed here. Nevertheless, it seems doubtful that discussing the matter at this article actually serves the typical Wikipedia reader.→gab 24dot grab← 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely remove if those are the only references for them. Those aren't legitimate citations for that claim. The citations in no shape or form claim that people who have epicanthal eyes are referred to as Asian, they say that people who are Asian frequently have epicanthal eyes. A implies B does not mean B implies A. Transcendence (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of historical geography as it is expressed in British English, and other global forms of English. In the UK today the term Asian is applied 1) to anybody of origin in Asia 2)Mainly to people from South Asia as they form the majority of people of Asian origin 3) in Academic circles to anybody or anything originating in the continent of Asia. The initial Geographical Greco-Roman term Asia was applied to what is now Western Turkey (and Africa was only the coast of Libya/Tunisia. Later Western European Geographers saw Asia as a "continent" separated from Europe by the Bosporus and Caucasus Mountains. Twentieth Century Geographers have defined a continent as a landmass almost of completely separated by water. The Suez and Panama canals therefore make North America, South America and Africa distinct continents, so what happens to Europe and Asia? In the Soviet Union the term is "Eurasia" as one continental mass, divided culturally into Europe and Asia. The Asia is then subdivided into Western, Central and Eastern. This is the geographical definition that has been adopted by the Royal Geographical Society in London. Note that such terms as "Middle East" and "Far East" are Eurocentric terms, as is the term West Indies. To this end people of the Caribbean now prefer to be called Afro-Caribbean, Native Caribbean or Indo-Caribbean as opposed to West Indians, East Indian etc. Sadly the usage of Asians has been somewhat skewered in North America. The term East Indian is commonly used in Canada for people from South Asia - ironically if your in Vancouver as India is to the West! But this too is Eurocentric term. Similarly the term Asian is more usually applied to East Asians (i.e. Chinese, Japanese, Korean) as they are the overwhelming majority of people from Asia. In East Africa, "Asian" generally means South Asian (Muhindi in Kiswahili) . In todays world of increasing trans-national identities, it is the geographically-based terms that have started to take the lead. So people of Punjabi origin in British Columbia are increasingly identifying themselves as South Asian, this is also the trend in the UK. Racial features, whether skin color, eye type or color and hair type, are increasingly seen as lesser features of identity. After all Nepalese or Indians from Assam look strikingly similar to Filipinos, or Thais and a Tamil can be as dark as an Tanzanian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffordPereira (talkcontribs) 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your large block of text does not address the question posed in this question, specifically whether or not the citations support the clause: "anyone else of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds" in the statement

In vernacular usage, "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian descent or anyone else of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds.

Transcendence (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
For additional reference, the guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS reads, in part:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

But also see WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:RS/AC.
Ishu (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies Ishu. Citation 1 Is not entirely correct as epicanthic eyefolds are not restricted to people of Asian descent. Certain groups from Southern Africa (including Nelson Mandela) have epicanthic eyefolds, as have many Native Americans. Also the presence of epicanthic eyefolds does not define Asians, since Asia is the major part of Eurasia and includes many peoples and varied racial features from Turkey to the Philippines. It may be fair to state that "epicanthic eyefolds are common to East Asians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliffordPereira (talkcontribs) 01:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well there are other references to this, are there not?
and others that can be found on Google Books. While I agree that one need not have Epicanthal Eyefolds to be Asian, it was at one point from the American POV, historically, seen as a defining characteristics of the people who are the subject of this article. Since this is in the terminology section, a history of the terminology is covered in this section, and should be included, even if briefly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
My view is the book chapter is somewhat better than the references in the article today. For the record, the relevant quotation is:

We may also think of Latinos and Asians as racial groups rather than multiethnic groupings within the United States because the physical appearance of some Latinos (dark hair, brown skin, facial and body structure suggestive of indigenous background) and Asians (epicanthic eye folds, light skin) are similar, even though in both groups, histories, languages… and other aspects of their cultures may be very different, just as for Blacks. (p. 206)

I'd cite as Lewis, Linwood J. (2010) "Honoring Diversity: Cultural Competence in Genetic Counseling" in Bonnie S. LeRoy, Patricia McCarthy Veach, and Dianne M. Bartels (eds.), Genetic Counseling Practice: Advanced Concepts and Skills.
The Tribune article almost raises more questions than it answers. Specifically, it reads:

In addition, he says epicanthic fold is not limited to Asians. ``John F. Kennedy had a variance of the fold and it is found among Europeans, especially the Irish,`` he said. ``It`s just less prevalent.`` The fold is also found among infants worldwide.

I don't think regular folks talk about epicanthic eyefolds, and I'm not sure that the epicanthic is really what makes an eye "Asian" or "chinky" or whatever to the person-on-the-street. I'm not sure that Dr. Lewis is the right authority to support the statement "In vernacular usage, Asian is often used to refer to [a person] of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds." But in fairness, I'm not sure we'll ever find a reference that is 100% on-point. And either way, I'm not going to toss the statement about epicanthic eyefolds by myself. Ishu (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can strengthen the statement by adding the Genetic Counseling Practice: Advanced Concepts and Skills reference to the article, while continuing to show how the definition of Asian American has moved beyond that one facial physical feature. It would, allow to show that it was once a definition used (more widely than today), and is no longer used today.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm indifferent, honestly. I have a hard time believing the idea that "one facial physical feature" is really what makes people say someone "looks Asian." As I note above, I just don't believe that the "average person" differentiates solely on the epicanthic eyefold. Maybe they really do and I just don't understand. But for the article, the most important thing is finding sources to support statements. I don't believe the existing sources support the statements. How do we get aligned between non-academic, non-census definitions of Asian and the everyday experiences of "who is Asian" (i.e., "you're not Asian, you're _____"). Maybe we can't because there aren't good sources? Ishu (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The presence of the epicanthic eyefold isn't unique to East Asia. Epicanthic eyefolds are also common in Turks and transitions to a lesser degree as you move west into Europe. But some Turkish people and Russians also have Epicanthic eyefolds, albeit not at the same degree of strength produced in East Asian people.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with RightCowLeftCoast's citations is that they have the same problem where they claim that Asians have epicanthal eyefolds, not that that is what causes people to call a person Asian. They still don't support that statement at the top of this section. Transcendence (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There are other references if one bothers to look, such as these references in this book. Again, like I said I don't support the idea that one must have eyefolds to be considered Asian, but for us to not include that there was a historical way of thinking from non-Asians that it was a defining characteristic in the United States of Asians, would be a disservice to the reader. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, if one bothers to read those citations, they never say anything that supports the statement in question for this section. In particular, the book you cited talks about a distinction between the "true Mongolian eye" epicanthic eyefolds and other kinds of epicanthic eyefolds. Nowhere does it talk about, or even broach the topic of, referring to someone as Asian (or any kind of Asian) just through epicanthic eyefolds. It is not incumbent upon editors to derive further implications of what these authors are saying, which is what I think you are doing. I refer you to WP:OR, which specifically states:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

Transcendence (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I refer the above editor to the term "Mongoloid", another historical term applied to the subject of this article. Again, I am not advocating that these be used in every day practice, I am saying that we should for sake of the readers and providing them a complete history of terminology, that these past terms be stated clearly in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what significance term "Mongoloid" has on the existence of citations that support the statement in question. I'm all for including the statement in question if sources that support it exist. But as far as I can tell, all citations brought up here, and on a cursory google search, support the logical statement:

If Asian then (probably) has epicanthic eyefolds

, not

If has epicanthic eyefolds, then called Asian

.Transcendence (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It was but another term used to refer to Asians in America in the past, including in the United States Congress, and in the courts. That doesn't make it right in modern normal usage, but it was used.
As for the topic at hand, the first statement you used in your last posting, is more true than the later. That being said, the connect of the non-Asian POV that one is very closely tied to the the subject of this article, should not be removed outright IMHO, and should be preserved in some way, for the sake of neutrality regarding the topic. Although it is a minority view today, it once was not, and thus why it is racially insensitive for people to make fake slanted eyes today.
Here's an interesting reliable source that might be relevant. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we have more people in this discussion. A consensus may form out of this discussion.
The article already references archaic terms like Oriental, Asiatic, and Mongoloid. My view is that these terms are outdated exactly because they cannot be defined in a coherent manner. Isn't it enough to note that, in the past, one or more groups of people now called Asian were referred to by one of these archaic terms (as this section already does)? I just don't understand the need for us to engage in the (futile) attempt to define terms that are archaic because they lacked scientific and logical coherence. My view is that introducing the epicanthic concept here doesn't clarify anything at all, either. Ishu (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here is a possible solution, rather than saying Asian referred to East Asians and other Asians with EEs, perhaps it can be reduced in stature in saying that, perhaps in a different section such as in Stereotypes that EEs were at a time associated with Asians, and link to the Epicanthal Eyefolds section, and use all the references here to verify that moved content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've summed up the dilemma here. I've tried to demonstrate that the current references do not support the statement "Epicanthic eyefolds were at one time associated with Asians." I've given a cursory review of your references (above), and I don't see them as being qualitatively different from the references in the article today. These references state that a particular anatomical feature is "normal" or "common" among certain populations of people. Additionally, most of the references use qualifying words such as often (Kawamura), and some (Lewis). Only MedLine uses broader language, and I've argued that MedLine is a specialized reference, in which normal has a specialized meaning. I haven't seen any references that say that people notice the EE, nor that upon seeing an EE, people think "that's an [Asian | Oriental | Asiatic | etc.] person." --Ishu (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I would hate to see all these good references go to waste, perhaps they can be used at the Epicanthic fold article? I still think there is a place for it, even if a minor one, somewhere in this article, but if the references here are moved to the article primarily about that subject, than all our hard research would not be for not.
Also a reason for why it should be included in the stereotype section, could be seen in this source, and this source about "yellowfacing".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The first reference, Fluehr-Lobban, is closer, as it's in anthropology. At least that's closer than counseling psychology. But Fluehr-Lobban doesn't reference her claims, either. The best quotation is:

The strongest phenotypic marker for westerners identifying Asians is eye shape--an almond shape--resulting from an extra fold of skin above the eye called the "epicanthic fold."… In racist parlance [these] people are described as "slant-eyed"

Question: How do we connect the EE with the "almond shape" and/or the "slant-eyed" designation? We're still stuck there.
The Kang reference, however, is almost squarely on point. For reference, the key quotation is:

[Eugene Franklin Wong characterized] the epicanthic fold as the primary corporeal signifier in film make-up.

Kang then provides a quotation from Wong, and re-quotes a primary source that is 100% on-point. The primary source is a film make-up technique manual, which says "The eyefold, or epicanthic fold, of the Mongolian race is one of the basic facial differences which must be created with make-up when a Caucasian type is to look Mongolian." (Kang, p. 105)
So what if we say something like In the American context, "Asian" is often used as a substitute for "Oriental," which is associated with East Asian people. In particular, the epicanthic eyefold is viewed as a key marker of "Oriental people."
--Ishu (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems fair to me. There are a lot of sources that are brought up here that can verify that content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd prefer to get closer to consensus than two people. Is anyone out there who'll weigh in? While we're at it, my view is that it's unnecessary to have exhaustive lists like the current article does. So below is my effort to de-clutter this one corner. Meaning, I rewrote the entire paragraph.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Asian person" in the United States is sometimes thought of as a person of East Asian descent.[1][2] In vernacular usage, "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian descent or anyone else of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds.[3][4] This differs from the U.S. Census definition[5][6] and the Asian American Studies departments of many universities consider those of East, South or Southeast Asian descent with or without epicanthic eyefolds to be "Asian".[7] In the US Census, people who originate from the indigenous peoples of the Far East,[8][9] Indian subcontinent,[8][9] and Southeast Asia[8][9] are classified as part of the Asian race;[9] while those who originate from the indigenous peoples of North Asia (Russians, Siberians), Central Asia (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens etc.), the Middle East (diaspora Jews, Persians, West Asian Arabs etc.), and the Caucasus (Turks, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris) are classified as "White".[10]
In the American context, "Asian" is often used as a substitute for "Oriental," which is associated with East Asian people. In particular, the epicanthic eyefold is viewed as a key marker of "Oriental people." This definition differs from the US Census, which classifies Asians as people with ancestors from East Asia,[8][9] the Indian subcontinent,[8][9] and Southeast Asia[8][9]. [9] In contrast, people from other regions of Asia are classified as "white" such as people of ancestry from North Asia (eastern Russia) Central Asia (e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan), the Middle East (e.g., Iran, Iraq), and the Caucasus (e.g., Turkey, Georgia, Armenia).[11]
--Ishu (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I say keep as many sources as possible, but use [[WP:CITEBUNDLE|the ability to have multiple reliable sources, within a single footnote connection. Also I see the RSs were accidentally forgotten after the first two sentences.
Why exclude the definitions of Asian Americans used by Asian American studies departments and Universities?
Also I think part of the reason why those groups were specified in the last sentence was because past attempts to edit the article and add those populations underneath this article. This isn't in the lead of the article, but in the body of the article, that allows the text to go into more detail. Now if there was another sub-article created about this subject, summarization would be necessary. That is a possibility per WP:TOOLONG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to make any changes unilaterally. I may do nothing because nobody else is participating in this discussion.
Second, I omitted some references only because I noticed that they were being populated at the bottom of this talk page. Sorry if it seems I'm kicking them to the curb. That's why I posted the draft here instead of just making the edits.
The university references are a different matter. It is true that universities' departments have courses that reference various groups. But do those particular facts add value to the article? To me the key point is this: In the past "Asian" meant "Oriental" or "Asiatic" and referred to East Asian people, but today "Asian Americans" refers to certain people from Asia (East, SE, South) but not others (North, ME, etc.). We have one authoritative source that supports this statement--the census bureau, and I haven't seen any academic, legal, or official sources that would dispute this view.
I don't think this or that university's course listings stands on its own as a useful reference because they don't provide actual interpretive statements. They only provide a loose collection of facts. WP:SECONDARY says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Lists of courses don't have a named author, and don't provide statements of thought.
As for listing ethnicities, there should be an "evolutionary" view that ties to the immigration history (i.e., heavy Japanese and Chinese in the early 20th century leading up to the "Asian" census category; then rapid diversification post-1965, with many ethnicities reaching a "critical mass" during the 1990s). I don't have time to write that. Just presenting a laundry list of ethnicities is not encyclopedic.
What to do? I've articulated my view. Do the "university courses" sources stand on their own? I don't think they do. Do they enhance the discussion? I don't think they do. There doesn't appear to be a consensus for this view, so I'm not going to push it. And a larger rewrite requires more people as I can't and won't do it alone. Ideally it would be tied to a broader restructuring of the article. --Ishu (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I see your primary point, at the same time, since the more encompassing term of Asian American originated from early Asian American Studies programs, I think a small sentence showing that Universities and the U.S. Census bureau differ from the older "Oriental"/East Asian = Asian, usage should be kept in some form. I would also not oppose addition to this article about the evolution of the term Asian in the United States, as that is what the terminology section is focused on, and explaining why certain peoples from the Asian continent are included, and some are not included would help to educate the potential reader.
As for the 20th century being primarily Japanese and Chinese, that is more of a 19th century immigration wave, where as early 20th century was more Filipino due to the Immigration Act of 1917, until the late 1940s onward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not feeling WP:BOLD, and I don't think it's warranted to be bold here. Neither do I see any consensus, only you and me. Separately, I was sloppy in my reference to "immigration history." Immigration isn't the only thing. I meant that family formation is also important (and shame on me for not writing what I meant). But yes, growth 1920-1940 was nearly all FilAm, preceded by Japanese American growth, and followed by growth-for-all post-1940. However you sum it up, the Asian American "pie" has changed, and the meaning of its "names" (Oriental, Asiatic, etc.) have changed along with the "pie." A good article ought to reflect those changes without being a laundry list of facts.
My last comment: Other fields have a good model for discussing mixed definitions. For example, Littoral zone references the varying definitions in the lead section, and then has subsections for each usage. This points to a "definition of Asian American" article (ugh), but it's a useful model.
That'll end my contributions to this discussion, as there's no consensus and I'm not motivated to discuss any further. --Ishu (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "Asian American". Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 29, 2011. 
  2. ^ "Asian". AskOxford.com. Archived from the original on April 15, 2008. Retrieved September 29, 2007. [broken citation]
  3. ^ Epicanthal folds: MedicinePlus Medical Encyclopedia states that "The presence of an epicanthal fold is normal in people of Asiatic descent" assuming it the norm for all Asians
  4. ^ Kathleen Kawamura (2004). "Chapter 28. Asian American Body Images". In Thomas F. Cash; Thomas Pruzinsky. Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. Guilford Press. pp. 243–249. ISBN 978-1-59385-015-9. 
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference centech was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ U.S. Census data on ancestry is based on self-identification; the data on ancestry represent self-classification by people according to the ancestry group(s) with which they most closely identify."American Community Survey; Puerto Rico Community Survey; 2007 Subject Definitions". U.S. Census Bureau. p. 31. [dead link]
    "American Community Survey; Puerto Rico Community Survey; 2007 Subject Definitions". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 11, 2011. 
  7. ^ Cornell Asian American Studies[dead link]; contains mentions to South Asians
    UC Berkeley – General Catalog – Asian American Studies Courses; South and Southeast Asian courses are present
    "Asian American Studies". 2009–2011 Undergraduate Catalog. University of Illinois at Chicago. 2009. Retrieved April 11, 2011. 
    "Welcome to Asian American Studies". Asian American Studies. California State University, Fullerton. 2003. Retrieved April 11, 2011. 
    "Program". Asian American Studies. Stanford University. Retrieved April 11, 2011. 
    "About Us". Asian American Studies. Ohio State University. 2007. Retrieved April 11, 2011.  [dead link][dead link]
    "Welcome". Asian and Asian American Studies Certificate Program. University of Massachusetts Amherst. 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2011. 
    "Overview". Cornell University Asian American Studies Program. Cornell University. 2007. Retrieved April 11, 2011. [dead link]
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference c2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h "State & County QuickFacts: Race". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved August 31, 2009. 
  10. ^ "COMPARATIVE ENROLLMENT BY RACE/ETHNIC ORIGIN". Diversity and Inclusion Office. Ferris State University. Retrieved 9 August 2014. original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. 
    "Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience". Arab American Institute. Arab Americans by the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University. 4 April 1997. Retrieved 9 August 2014. 
    Ian Haney Lopez (1996). "How the U.S. Courts Established the White Race". Model Minority. New York University Press. Retrieved 9 August 2014. 
    "Race". United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. Retrieved 9 August 2014. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian. 
  11. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C2010br-02.pdf.  Missing or empty |title= (help)

Proposed change.[edit]

The article is very male dominated. needs more women in the infobox if possible.NBAkid (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The individuals in the infobox were chosen after a long process of finding consensus, and represent the nine largest Asian American ethnicities, as well as one political left representative, one political right representative, and one non-left/right political representative. Everyone can see the discussion that occurred here. I think it matters more that each of the largest Asian American ethnicities are represented, with an individual of that ethnicity, regardless of their sex, whom have received a consensus, than the infobox be sexually balanced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, representing each of the ethnicities does not prevent having a mix of both men and women. In particular, I refer to MOS:IMAGES, "editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted." (my emphasis). Transcendence (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If we want to take a new poll regarding the representatives of the nine largest Asian American populations, and the three political representatives, we can. However, just because one ethnicity chose someone of a particular sex, shouldn't exclude another ethnicity from choosing someone of the same sex. That was the case when the consensus was created. The edit by the starting editor of this thread replaced a Cambodian with a second Korean, creating an unbalanced infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

just because one ethnicity chose someone of a particular sex, shouldn't exclude another ethnicity from choosing someone of the same sex

I again disagree, MOS:IMAGES is quite clear, "editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted.". If one gender is chosen for a particular ethnicity, editors are encouraged to choose another gender for another ethnicity. Transcendence (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is encouraged but not required. That being said, when the consensus was built, as seen in Archive 7, I did offer up the solution that each ethnicity have a male and female representative, but I believe that did not have consensus (and I am sure if MOS:IMAGES had been established when that consensus was built, so might have been created before that MOS was written). Therefore, a compromise would be to see about adding the male and female rep for the top 9 largest Asian American ethnicities, and Left, Right, and non-left/right political representatives. That can be done, but would bring the count of people in the infobox to 24 individuals.
If this compromise is acceptable, we can follow the straw poll seen in Archive 7, to determine who the other sex should be; or skipping a new straw poll, we can look at the old straw poll, and go down each category voted there and choose the highest supported other sex that wasn't chosen from that straw poll.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. Transcendence (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Americans has 6x6=36 portraits. Hispanic and Latino Americans seems to have good balance with a 9x9 3x3=9 (but generally poor representation across Latin American ethnicities). English people has 3x9, and I-don't-know how good representation (but everybody is white...).
Compare with British people which has no portraits in its infobox, only a table of regional populations. Maybe it'd be better to go that route vs. serving up a "balanced" but ridiculously-large array of 24 portraits that is unlikely to end this debate.
I don't believe anything will end the debate. Call me a pessimist if you choose. A search of the archives shows the first discussion in 2007, and again in 2009, 2011, and twice in 2013. Ishu (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that is why the consensus back when the portraits were chosen, were for one individual per ethnicity, and not one from each sex. Furthermore, if others come around and demand LGBTQ individuals, the list gets even larger. We can always go no portraits, and instead leave the portraits to the different ethnicity.
One observation, whenever images end up in infoboxes they often lead to edit wars, and long drawn out debates. That is not to say we cannot form a consensus here, but just saying for observation sake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Opposite sex Asian American ethnicity and political representatives[edit]

I believe we had worked towards a consensus of increasing a opposite sex representative for each of the nine-largest Asian American ethnicities (by population + multiracial members of the ethnicity)(Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong) and the three political spectrum (Left/Democrat, Right/Republican, Other) in the infobox. As such we should take nominations as to whom the opposite sex representatives could be than begin a poll after a reasonable nomination period (say a month). Does this sound reasonable to everyone? If it does we can follow the same format as done in previous consensus building polls here, on this discussion page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical infobox changes[edit]

@115ash: Please do not begin an edit war regarding the infobox images. Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD
The images in the infobox were selected using consensus building several years ago, as seen in this archived discussion: Talk:Asian American/Archive 7#Infobox ethnicity representatives. The reason why as the edit summary sued by 115ash

too much images on people of Indochinese ancestry. Furthermore, unexplained removal of asian americans subdivision

is due to the population sizes of each Asian American ethnicity according to the 2010 U.S. Census. While there are multiple Indochinese individuals in the infobox it is due to the consensus created at the time that the individuals in the infobox should be from the nine largest ethnicities of Asian Americans, and three political alignments (Left, Right, non-Left/Right).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@115ash: I have again reverted an unexplained change to the lead and infobox that goes against long established consensus. Please stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast, look there are many differences among these [2], [3] and [4]. At least the "1" should be ok. After my last edit, the infobox still contains more Indochinese' images than others. Furthermore, why did you remove Pakistanis and Bangladeshis from it? 115ash→(☏) 10:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make this into a slow moving edit war. I have reverted another series change to the lead section and infobox, that was done without building a consensus on the change. I kindly ask the editor making the change to see WP:BRD. I kindly ask others to join us in our conversation, namely administrator @Wtmitchell:, and @Palmeira:, who made comments on @115ash:'s talk page regarding this subject.
As I stated on 115ash's talk page, the consensus for the format of the infobox was created several years ago, and I provided a link to the archived discussion that created that consensus in the opening paragraph of this talk page section. There has been a consensus, seen in the discussion section above this one, to increase the number of individuals in the talk page, to include opposite sex representatives of the Asian American ethnicities presently represented in the talk page. No poll has yet been opened to take candidates. (Note: I tried to do this previously in 2009)
115ash, has on numerous occasions changed the infobox to include more individuals whose ethnicities originate from the India Sub-continent. The reasoning behind the individuals in the infobox as it was based on, as I stated in the opening paragraph of this section, on the populations of the Asian American ethnicites at the time of the 2010 United States Census, plus three political individuals (one left, one right, one non-Democrat or Republican(left/right))(this was to abide by WP:BALANCE).
I am unaware of a change of consensus to remove the individuals in the infobox and replace five of them with South Asians.
As I stated on 115ash's talk page that mention of the ethnicities that the subject has placed in the lead are mentioned in the sub-article Demographics of Asian Americans. Furthermore, they are mentioned in this article in the demographics section. To mention them in the lead it is subject to WP:BURDEN, and WP:UNDUE. The lead section is taken largely from this source, which reads, on page 3:

It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “Asian” or reported entries such as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provided other detailed Asian responses.

As we can see, the order was changed to match the population sizes of the six largest Asian American ethnicities. I would be OK with changing the lead to the exact quote. Some research finds that this lead in some form similar to the present one goes back to 2007.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I have notified individuals involved in the October 2012 discussion linked in the opening paragraph of this discussion section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
(responding as one of the previous participants in the discussion) There was a lot of effort and consensus building based upon sources and NPOV that went into the previous discussion and selection. Changes should not be made without effort to generate a similar level of consensus. I am not seeing a new widely held consensus for any changes nor even any effort to generate one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears that a possible (I maybe wrong) single purpose editor, has reverted my reversion. Per WP:3RR I will wait an appropriate time before making the change again. I will invite the editor to this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop doing this. You're exaggerating 115ash→(☏) 09:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@115ash:
Please stop, the above editor placed a false message on my talk page.
The above editor has been asked, repeatedly as shown by @Wtmitchell: on the above editors talk page, to achieve consensus prior to making changes to the article page, and has made the change again, without showing that there has been a a change of consensus as stated by @TheRedPenOfDoom:.
The editor has not stated a good reason why the introbox should have a significant number of South Asian Americans. This gives undue weight to populations that do not have a significant population within the scope of this article.
The editor above has not explained why the previous consensus should not be maintained.
Assistance from other editors is requested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have placed an undue tag on the article.
The edits by made by editor @115ash: creates an infobox that gives undue weight to ethnicities whose population are not significant within the scope of this article, it also removes ethnicities who have significant populations, and whose previous infobox representatives were keeping with their population (as stated above the first 9 individuals in the infobox each represented the 9 largest Asian American ethnicities according to the 2010 Census)
The editor added RDML Ali S. Khan, a Pakistani American, Fazlur Khan, a Bangaldeshi American, Kiran Chetry, a Nepali American, Salman Khan, a Bangaladeshi & Indian American, Subir Chowdhury, a Bangaldeshi American, and Satya Nadella, a Indian American.
According to the content on Demographics of Asian Americans#With multiracial identifiers, which is verified by this reliable source, Bangaldeshi Americans, and Nepali Americans are not within the top 9 largest Asian American ethnicities.
Prior to the change there was already a single Indian American and a single Pakistani American out of the first 9 in the infobox. I am not against giving Asian American ethnicities due weight in the infobox, however I am against the infobox giving undue weight to certain smaller populations.
If we are to include a Bangladeshi American representative in the infobox, we would need to reach consensus on who should represent in the infobox larger populations than the Bangladeshi, which would include Thai Americans and Taiwanese Americans. If we include a Nepali American representative in the infobox, we would need to include a Burmese American and an Indonesian American in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: & @Wtmitchell:, would it be possible to fully protect this article for a period of two weeks? This would allow a cool down period for all editors involved in this discussion, and stop any changes to the lead and the infobox until a consensus can be reached whether there is support for the changes that have been made and reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed Nadia Ali, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Bobby Jindal by adding others. Kiran Chetry and Satya Nadella weren't added by me. Now I just added Richard Aoki by removing Satya Nadella. Currently the infobox contains 7 East Asian.115ash→(☏) 09:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the number of East Asians, or Southeast Asians, or South Asians. Please stop changing the infobox without first building consensus. Please adhere to WP:BRD. The above editor made a change, it was reverted. The proper thing to do is to stop editing, and attempt to create a consensus to support a change to the area of the article in question; this was not done.
User:TheRedPenOfDoom also stated the same on this talk page.
Therefore I am reverting this change.
As the above user has continued to not to attempt to make changes to the lead section of this article, without first achieving consensus, or without first showing that consensus has changed, I will take this to WP:DRN as suggested by User:Wtmitchell.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A link to this discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Your comments don't make any sense. At the end I've just added "one more South Asian". Does this take fire? Should I remove a South Asian? Afterwards, will you be happy? 115ash→(☏) 15:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This is only not about the number of South Asians, or the number of Southeast Asians, or the number of East Asians, this is about consensus. There is no consensus to change the individuals in the infobox. There is a consensus, see the discussion above, about including opposite sex representatives for each of the 9 largest Asian American ethnicities in the infobox and the 3 political representatives, increasing the infobox count to 24, but there is no consensus for the changes that have been boldly made, and reverted per WP:BRD.
Per BRD the proper thing to do is to discuss the requested change and see if there is support for it. If there isn't WP:DROPTHESTICK, move on. Visit the proposal later.
The most previous bold edit which has been reverted, displaced the Indian American representative with a Pakistani American, displaced the Korean American representative with a Bangladeshi American (using a non-free image without a fair use reasoning), replaced the Japanese American representative with a Nepali American, replaced the Pakistani American representative with a Bangladeshi/Indian American, and replaced the Right/conservative representative with a non-political Bangladeshi American.
This edit created an unbalanced infobox that flys in the face of a central pillar of the community, WP:NEU. It gives undue weight to smaller population ethnicities within the scope of this article, and makes the infobox lead to the left/liberal spectrum.
Therefore, please stop editing this article space. The above user has not shown that consensus has changed to modify the lead section and infbox as devised by the significant consensus building process done in 2012. Perhaps this infobox can be revisited after the next census in 2020, and in regards to including gender balance (as there is consensus for), but not now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, the Nepali one wasn't added by me. I already removed three South Asians by adding others. 115ash→(☏) 10:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet in your most recent edit, you re-added the individual to the infobox. With no sound reasoning for the reversion.
Your edit was reverted. There is no consensus for the changes made. We have asked you to discuss any changes and achieved consensus to see if your edits are supported before making the change, and you have not. You have not responded to the points stated by other editors, and have continued to attempt to force your version of the infobox. Please stop. Please see WP:BRD.
You have been asked by an administrators to stop as well, and you have not.
Therefore, I will take additional steps. I did not want to do this, but you're forcing me to by your actions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Race relations[edit]

Some content was added then removed by the adding editor in late December 2014, regarding race relations between Asian Americans and African Americans. The edit provided reliable sources (albeit not formatted). Perhaps this article is not the place, for it, perhaps it is. Lets look at this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

History[edit]

@Rjensen:, please stop boldly deleting verified to reliable source(s) content regarding the history of Asians in the United States, to include the first times Filipinos and Indians were documented in what is now the United States of America. Please receive consensus for the bold change prior to carrying out the change again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A visiting person from Asia who spends a few hours in territory that centuries later became the United States of America can hardly be called an "Asian American"--- likewise the millions of visitors every year from Japan China India etc. to not become "Asian Americans" With the tourist trip, Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that Asian Americans must be more than just visitors the history of Asian Americans includes those Asians who have come to the United States, where the individual must have allegiance to the nation, just as how the history of Filipino Americans includes the history of the "Luzon indios" (additional references: 1, 2, 3, etc.) who came to California, and Jose Rizal's visit to the United States in the late 19th century, the history of Asian Americans, which include within the racial categorization Filipino Americans, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans, etc. as it is part of the history of the ethnicities, it is part of the history of the racial grouping/social construct. The references include it, therefore we include it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)