Talk:Chinese Americans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Honorary Aryans Redux?

Current lede text says that

" Like the Europeans, Chinese people were some of the earliest immigrants to live in the U.S."

after saying that the first Chinese arrived in 1820. What is the sense of this? The European settlement of the Americas began in the 16th century, what would become the US in the early 17th. What is this about? Lycurgus (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I came to the discussion board just for that statement. It is quite ridiculous. I'll delete it if I can. It's part of that having your "cake and eating it too" thing that ethnic groups have in this country. They want to be seen as here since the beginning but then retain a fierce allegiance to their ethnic culture. Can't have it both ways that is why places like California are ethnically a mess. Asians live in San Jose, whites in the suburbs, blacks in Oakland, etc. You either have to assimilate or not, and if you choose not to like most Asians then you can't claim some "originalist" position on being there from the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.145.35 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Er, that doesn't make sense. One can assimilate from the beginning and the statement would be perfectly valid. On the other hand, the original point was nonsensical since the Chinese were only "some of the earliest immigrants to live in the US" for very peculiar and self-serving values of "some". The idea is obviously to promote them relative to other ethnic groups; even unjustifiably lumping all Europeans into a single group, the Chinese arrived later than immigrants from Central America, South America, and Africa. Even within Asia, they arrived much later than the Indians. — LlywelynII 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

citizenship section

I think the data that I added is more appropriate and relevant than the one that was previously there. 71.251.46.27 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the section still needs to explain whether Chinese Americans have dual citizenship, and there's a difference between those from the PRC versus the ROC. (Details for those from HK/Macau and other SE Asia countries can be considered.) Dual is relevant because people now migrate both ways. Additionally, settling in the US and becoming US citizens aren't as notable except for the percentage in the population. HkCaGu (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
One should look at citizenship laws for respective countries for finding out that information. It would not make sense to list citizenship laws for every single country. Regarding your comment about migrating both ways, I think Chinese Americans are different than American Chinese. 71.251.46.27 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that after some edit warring over the relevance of some sentences, the data of the paragraph below in the current article was changed to the incorrect one. 71.251.41.219 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So WP:3RR it and bring your evidence to the ref? — LlywelynII 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Why are citizenship laws for individual countries in the article? This article is about an ethnic group, not nationals. 174.252.23.157 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Nationals whose ethnic group dominates two particular countries, as it has since the beginning of civilization there. It's quite justified, although it needs to note any peculiarities with HK and Macao natives relative to the bulk PRC population. — LlywelynII 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

I've open a Sockpuppet investigations on recent flood of various similar Ips that has been disrupting this article. For all those who are involved, please submit your opinion/comments in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC. Much appreciated~! --LLTimes (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Does the lead image - a collage of celebrities - represent a neutral point of view of the topic? --Elekhh (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you state specifically what you find non neutral about it. Would you like more pictures of ordinary no-name folks (this is actually what's done at Japanese people)? More pictures of murderers, porn stars, and used-car salesmen? No pictures at all? cab (call) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved in this article, or similar articles, just came here as a reader, and I found the collection of celebrities in the infobox to be an illustration of a rather narrow section of the topic. Visually isn't very appealing to me either. Regarding your suggestions, I find the infobox illustration of the Japanese people article more balanced, and no picture would be an improvement as well IMHO. But as I said I just wanted to start the discussion about this, since most readers will be affected by what they see first. --Elekhh (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a very interesting point...it seems the other ethnic pages tend to use celebrities and popular icons as well. It's probably not the most balanced approach and lends itself very easily to cherry picking. You could justifiably put up pictures of criminals, terrorists, and other unsavory types instead of popular actors, athletes, and philanthropists. I definitely feel this warrants a wider discussion, including editors from all of the other ethnic pages. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese translation for Chinese American

Just curious where you got these terms. My Chinese is far from fluent but neither in Cantonese or Mandarin have I heard Chinese Americans refer to themselves or others refer to them as Měi​jí Huá​rén. I know it means someone of Chinese descent with US citizenship but is this the commonly used term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wushudao (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not as commonly used even here in China, but it's still there. You're right that it could do with some usage notes, or even move the less-common term to a < ref > footnote: Also known as... — LlywelynII 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Total Population

In instances in the U.S., multiracial individuals are classified within specific ethnic groups. For example people with 1/8 (I think this is the number, can't remember) Native American ancestry are considered Native American and historically due to the One-drop rule or ideas similar to the one-drop rule, African Americans who have Caucasian/White ancestry are still considered African Americans despite having Caucasian/White ancestry. To reflect this, I have changed the population in the infobox from the 2010 census to the 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates published by the census bureau. The census data so far does not include individuals who are of multiple ancestries. Elockid (Talk) 22:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In a recent edit I tagged the article due to differing population counts in the infobox and the Statistics of the Chinese population in the United States (1840–2010) section. Which is valid?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No one 'classifies' individuals in the United States with a mDNA kit. It's all self-classification anyway. If it's so important to you to know who is "pure" Chinese, report whichever cited stat in addition; but the accurate numbers here are the total census returns identifying as solely Chinese and as Chinese with others (if they didn't consider themselves Chinese at all, the 2000 and 2010 census had "multiracial" categories they could opt for instead). — LlywelynII 00:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:JeremyLin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JeremyLin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JeremyLin.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in source

In February I tagged a source that does not support the content. The content in question is as follows:

They make up at least 25% of the undergraduate student body at UC Berkeley while making less than 2% of the American population, and are more likely to attend college, go to graduate school, and earn higher income than most ethnic groups in the United States.

The source as presently formatted is as follows:

Stoops, Niacole. "Educational Attainment in the United States, 2003." U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports publication P20-550, June 2004. Accessed 16 Feb 2007.

I have read the source and it is not supported, and thus I tagged it as failing verification. No where in the article does it state that Chinese Americans make up 25% of the undergraduate student body at University of California, Berkeley. It further does support the rest of the statement. It was later removed without giving a reason, and new content that fails WP:BURDEN lacking any reliable sources was added. I have since re-added the tag, and added a new ones for newly added content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh, if it's not in the source and dubious, just remove the entire thing and bring it here for people to reinclude appropriately later if the source material is found. — LlywelynII 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Significant Urban Population list needs redo

Right now, there's an unsourced list of Chinese American population centers that ranks Honolulu's 30k-odd as more "significant" than New York's nearly half a million.

A) That's nuts. A list of significant US Chinese-American population centers should be based on actual population, particularly since the % Chinese can be sorted on its own by those curious for that list.

B) Worse, the current info's unsourced and dubious. It lists a few thousand people in Riverside, while excluding areas mentioned elsewhere in the article as major centers of Chinese population such as Washington and Las Vegas. If there are tens of thousands in those cities, that's more important than whatever difference may be apparent between their 0.85% Asian demographic versus Riverside's 1.00% Asian demographic. — LlywelynII 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm... tried a compromise solution of inserting a second set of ranks of population from New York to Sacramento. (The cut-off for any further ranking without a new source was 14,500 – 1.00% of Phoenix, Arizona, the largest US city not included on this list already.)
Problem is, my Wikifu is lacking: I can't get the table to sort properly. If I make the table as a whole sortable, it makes "Rank" and "Chinese American" sort instead of the second tier; if I try in-line class="sortable", it does nothing. Obviously I'm missing something. — LlywelynII 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Chinese-American category

The categories involving Chinese American actors and actresses are being proposed for deletion. If you have an opinion, either way, you can post your comment at:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Category:American actors of Chinese descent
Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese American ≠ Asian American

Although Chinese Americans are probably the largest subgroup of Asian Americans, the two categories are not identical. Whether due to bad editing or frank confusion, the categories are conflated in some parts of the article, including references that do not back up what is said in the text here. The distinction needs to be carefully and clearly made, to avoid misleading readers. Reify-tech (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Irony Alert: I'm a vigorous advocate of avoiding editors who mislead readers. But readers who mislead themselves, or third parties, without editing, are a problem whose correction is simply beyond our capabilities!
--Jerzy•t 23:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved I guess, unopposed for over two weeks. But could you stop trying to move these piecemeal George? It's pretty unproductive. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Chinese American → Chinese Americans – Per WP:NCET, either form is okay. Should become plural (per Talk:Korean Americans and WP:PLURAL) or stay singular (per Talk:African American). As for consistency, I will propose changes to "<demonym> Americans" in the future. Note: "WP:SINGLE" redirects to WP:WikiProject Songs, so don't use that redirect. Propose changing its redirect target if you insist. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:PLURAL and WP:NCET. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we have some sort of broad RfC for this issue? Running every single articles like this, of which there are thousands, through RM is an incredible waste of the community's time. Jenks24 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinese Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinese Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Americans/Archive_2&oldid=1076348031"