Talk:History of Asian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States History (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Politics[edit]

Does this article really need a politics section? This is very well covered in the main article, seeing as how this is a sub-article. Furthermore, the way it is presently written, it has a slight POV issue, that it is slightly slanted towards being pro-democratic party. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, consensus against doing so. —James (TalkContribs)3:43pm 05:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Asian-American historyAsian American history — Request reversion of article name change due to lack of consensus prior to change being made. Other articles about ethnic groups who are American citiens/nationals/residents have had the hyphen removed in previous name changes; furthermore not having the hyphen is keeping with similar naming convention listed at WP:EGRS. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose: "Asian-American" is a compound modifier and therefore should be hyphenated when used as an adjective (hence the term, "hyphenated American"). –CWenger (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If this were the case then all X American, ethnic groups would then have to have the hyphen reinserted into the article name, as well as the wikiproject that this article is associated with should have its name changed as well.
There was a large push a few years back to remove all these hyphens. What is being proposed in this name change, and by the reasoning given by CWenger, is a very wide sweeping proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between Asian American (noun) and Asian-American (adjective) person. As an adjective (as in this article title) it should be hyphenated, but as a noun it should not. Can you point me to the move to remove these hyphens a few years back that you mentioned? As I look around I see some inconsistency (particularly category names), but not too much. –CWenger (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me search related article histories. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I may have been wrong on previous discussion statement; however, majority of hyphenated american article names for Asian Americans (examples Filipino-American, Japanese-American, Chinese-American, Indian-American, Vietnamese-American) are redirects to the non hyphenated article name. More importantly Asian-American is a redirect. Therefore, for my initial reasoning to stand Asian American is also a noun, creating a compound noun Asian American history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"Asian-American" has always been treated as a compound modifier of "history", and as such should be hyphenated. I highly doubt it could be considered a compound noun, but I admit I am not an expert here. –CWenger (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the places where I have placed a pls see template is to an active editor who is a published historian. Hopefully this individual responds and joins this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have used the pls see template at related wikiprojects to invite other editors to discuss this proposed name change. I have also placed aforementioned template on two active editors of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the indexes and abstracts for scholarly articles and books on Asian American topics published by leading journals and academic presses in the last 20 years to see how the leading writers and editors actually handle the matter. The great majority -- nine in ten-- do NOT use a hyphen. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings either way, but User:CWenger is certainly correct that "Asian-American" is used as an adjective in this article's title. As such, use of hyphenation is consistent with the statements in Hyphenated American#In American English and (for example) [1]. — Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
However, given WP:UNC, and based on the statement by Rjensen (someone who could potentially be considered an expert in the field which this article falls within), should the move of this article be reverted? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Rjensen is correct, the Google Books results almost as predominately do not use a hyphen. I am little unsure of what to do when reliable sources do not use standard grammar. –CWenger (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
when we see that the great majority of professional editors, scholars, writers and publishers use form XYZ, that's strong evidence that XYZ is NOT some sort of grammatical error. Wiki rule is that we must follow the RS--actual publications, not so-called "rules" that we editors may be misinterpreting.Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I would guess it is just a case of when something is hyphenated long enough, people tend to stop hyphenating it because they assume everybody understands what they mean. –CWenger (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the new information, does user CWenger drop their opposition to the move? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any "overwhelming" here. Two of the first page are false positives (books which use "Asians in American history" in their titles, or some such) and the rest are divided. Let's have a dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am certainly less opposed after seeing the Google Books results, but still a little unsure. I cannot find an official answer about whether or not WP:COMMONNAME includes punctuation. If so, keep in mind that the use of hyphens and dashes seems to differ in various fields. So would it be a problem if some articles use spaces, some use hyphens, some use dashes, and some use nothing for the exact same usage? Also, would we treat the content of articles differently from the titles? –CWenger (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CWenger. Here "Asian-American" is an compound adjective and thus should be hyphenated as all compound adjectives are. Asian-American (adjective) history, but Asian Americans (noun). There's also the alternative of "History of Asian Americans", which would be unhyphenated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • support Wiki requires us to follow the RS, which overwhelmingly reject the hyphen. Rjensen (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from the manifest factual and analytical errors I find above, this matter needs to be handled centrally, at WT:MOS. There is current discussion at WT:MOS that affects thousands of articles with hyphens, spaces, or en dashes in premodifiers. To grind through all this article by far-flung article is ridiculously inefficient.–¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 12:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we see clearer reliable sources. The OED has no separate listing for Asian-American, but it has over a dozen listings for African-American, so spelt. Only two use a space; the rest use a hyphen. Furthermore, one of the exceptions is Theodore Parker's coinage from 1855. Why should Asian-American be different? (Ideally, all such matters should be resolved from dictionaries of the relevant national dialect; we should not invent usage.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that there were no exceptions to hyphenation attested by the OED if we consider attributive phrases, as here. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Noetica. I would accept an argument that the capitalization makes hyphenation unnecessary, if that's what the community decides. But there should be a centralized discussion, which should be added to the ethnicity-naming convention so that we don't keep repeating ourselves. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Data[edit]

Look at the recent books by major publishers--no hyphens:
  1. . The Scott & Laurie Oki Series in Asian American Studies, book series by U of Washington Press
  2. . Asian American History and Culture, book series by Temple U Press
  3. . Ends of Empire: Asian American Critique and the Cold War by Jodi Kim (univ Of Minnesota Press, 2010)
  4. . The Columbia Guide to Asian American History by Gary Y. Okihiro (Columbia U Prss, 2005)
  5. . Asian American Experience (book series U of Illinois Press)
  6. . Major Problems in Asian American History: Documents and Essays by Lon Kurashige et al. (2002)
  7. . Rethinking the Asian American Movement by Daryl Maeda (Routledge, 2011)
  8. . Camp Harmony: Japanese American Internment and the Puyallup Assembly Center by Louis Fiset (U Illinois, 2009)
  9. . The Columbia Documentary History of the Asian American Experience by Franklin Odo (Columbia UP 2002)
  10. . Asian American Studies Now: A Critical Reader by Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (Rutgers University Press, 2010)
  11. . Asian American History and Culture: An Encylopedia (Sharpe Reference, 2010) Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
And how many with hyphens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Of the first page of hits for "Asian(-)American" on GoogleBooks, all use spaces for attributive use, though sometimes with hyphens mixed in. I assume the latter are simply editorial oversights. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look hard you can find books with hyphens in the title--using Amazon I find in its first 40 listings only one hyphen--and it's in broken English:
  1. My Mom is a Fob: Earnest Advice in Broken English from Your Asian-American Mom by Teresa Wu and Serena Wu (2011) Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - There appears to be no consensus here, and the move itself was made without consensus, therefore, I propose that WP:IAR be implemented to revert the move. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fold into main "Asian American" article for now?[edit]

Take note that the Asian American article has only seven paragraphs in its History section. Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate our efforts on developing that section more fully? Frappyjohn (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This article was split from the Asian American article a long time ago due to the length/size of the aforementioned article. This article needs major improvement, however, I don't think a re-merger into its parent article would be a solution. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

East Indian Slave[edit]

I have reverted a good faith change to the content by RegentsPark. The Indian Current source stating:

A 2003 study prepared by Martha W. McCartney, a project historian for the National Park Service’s Jamestown Archaeological Assessment reveals that Captain George Menefie, who was assigned 1,200 acres of land in Jamestown in 1624 and used "Tony, an East Indian," as a headright.

The NPS study is the first source listed in the article, and apparently the Indian Current source got the date wrong as the statement regarding "Tony, and East Indian" is as follows:

Richard Bennett, who prior to 1655 leased Bay 2 of the Ludwell Statehouse Group (a rowhouse unit that stood upon Study Unit 4 Tract U Lot A), listed “Augt. a negro” as a headright in a June 1635 patent. A month later, George Menefie, who by 1624 had patented Study Unit 4 Tract L Lot F upon the waterfront and in 1640 patented Study Unit 1 Tract D Lot C on the Back Street, used “Tony, an East Indian” as a headright. In 1638 when he claimed some additional acreage, he cited (but did not enumerate) certain “negroes brought out of England.” In 1635 when Charles and Ann Soothey Harmer renewed a patent, they cited the importation of eight Africans: Polonia, Jane, Palatia, Alexander, Anthony, Sebastian, Cassanga, and John. Ann was the daughter and surviving heir of Henry and Elizabeth Soothey of Study Unit 2 Tract V and inherited their land (Nugent 1969-1979:I:23- 24, 28, 118).

and is within the section titled Jamestown Island Landowners in Possession of African Workers. That same study goes on to list Tony as a slave on page 238. Therefore to state that Tony is an indentured servant is not verified by the reliable sources available to confirm Tony lived in Jamestown.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding indentured servants, the table that list slaves, and free blacks, does not have a list for indentured servants, and those entries about indentured servants are listed in the subject column, which the row about Menefie, George dated 1635/1638 does not list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, headrights could be either indentured servants or slaves. In the early part of the 17th century, they were more likely to be indentured servants. But, you're right, we just don't know what Tony was from either of the two sources. Not sure how to phrase this but slave is not the right word here. Perhaps "The presence of an East Indian was documented as a 'headright' (an indentured servant or a slave)"?--regentspark (comment) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If we want to avoid the slave statement, we can bypass it and state that an East Indian was claimed as a headright, but P. 238 does list Tony as a slave, as unfortunate as that is. Would it be in the best interest of our readers to not include that, or is that something that we can let them decide for themselves by provided the NPS as is the case now?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I see now where you're coming from. But note that though the table column is headed 'slaves' the document is the same as the one in the other reference and the nps document is very careful not to refer to Tony as a slave in the text. I think it is too little to go on. He might or might not have been a slave but I don't think we have enough to reliably identify him as one. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, there is not enough to state that the individual was an indentured servant either, leaving us with only being able to state that someone claimed an East Indian as a headright in the articlespace, with a wikilink to what a headright is. I am fine with that; this way the reader can look at the references themselves, and decide on their own.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair comment. Apparently, even a servant (not necessarily indentured) could be claimed as a headright so we really don't know what Tony was. --regentspark (comment) 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)