Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of Asian Americans

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

{{split article|from=Demographics of Asian Americans|to=Asian Pacific American|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Asian_Americans&diff=532488698&oldid=53241462 3-6-22|date=6,JANUARY 2022.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Atantoco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Hi all. FYI, I removed the following from the article:

"Such trends [high median income] are less common among Asians emigrating to the United States from southeast Asian countries such as Laos and Cambodia, among others. Many of these immigrants can be considered refugees from Communist and totalitarian states and often do not have the educational or socioeconomic advantages of other Asian Americans."

I removed this because most immigrants who come from Southeast Asia are in fact not coming from totalitarian regimes as e.g. Cambodia is a parliamentary democracy and so are many other SE Asian countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc. Many Nothern Asian countries, e.g. China and North Korea, are totalitarian and communist. So I removed the part above because it is factually incorrect. If you have any objections, please bring it up here.

Knowledge-is-power (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Cambodia reference is regarding those who immigrated to the United States as refugees during the Khmer Rouge period of its history. Furthermore, many Southeast Asians have migrated to the United States as refugees from the former Republic of Vietnam and Laos. Although the inclusion of all Southeast Asia as under communist or totalitarian states is perhaps to inclusionary, perhaps the content can be reworded, and then re-added to the article. The simple fact, which is easily cite-able, that the growth of Southeast Asians in America due to a large part of those refugees resettling in the United States, should be mentioned. Furthermore, a quick search of the article finds no mention of this. Of course it can be also argued that this content can be moved to a more appropriate article, such as the immigration trends section of the Asian American article, especially seeing how this article appears to be a sub-article of the aforementioned article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-inclusive population figures

[edit]

There is a dispute regarding the accuracy of data found in the section List of US States by Population of Asian Americans, the dispute is related to other content found on the Filipino American, Indian American, Chinese American, and Asian American articles; a discussion regarding this disputed content can be found here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear from RightCowLeftCoast his/her reason for claiming that the data on the table is factually inaccurate. The table has been compiled from data sourced from a US Census Website. A caveat stating that data for Multi-Racial Asian Americans have not been included in the table has been added below the table. Please let me know what exactly you are referring to when you claim the data to be "factually inaccurate". --76.218.92.239 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion regarding the disputed content at the linked discussion regarding the disputed content found: here. Repeat of dispute unnecessary on this article's talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Demographics of Asian Americans

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Demographics of Asian Americans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "c2010":

  • From White American: 2010 United States Census statistics
  • From White Hispanic and Latino Americans: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010
  • From Hispanic and Latino Americans: Humes, Karen R.; Jones, Nicholas A.; Ramirez, Roberto R. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2011-03-28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a new 2010 Asian population percentage map yet?

[edit]

The one on the page is a bit outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.81.235 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is and can be found here in this document on page 10. I, or someone else, need to find a way to copy the map onto an image file so it can be used here and on other related articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Sushieater2 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

I have reverted a removal of verified content that is supported by a reliable source. There was no edit summary left, and there was not reason given why it falls outside of the scope of the article, and ask that a consensus be reached before it is removed. If one wishes others may use Template:Please see in accordance with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification to notify others such as past editors of this article, related wikiprojects, etc.

In defense of the content, it is my opinion that the content falls within the scope of this article. The source speaks broadly about Asian Americans and is as relative to it, demographically, as the religious affiliation of Asian Americans. Removal should not be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this content either. As stated in my edit summary when I removed it. There are several problems with the content:
(1) It's trivial and undue weight would apply here (2) the source is not a serious study of the subject matter and definitely not a scientific study, but is instead a Gallop Poll which can have high deviations and (3) there is not a complete enough analysis of "Sexuality" to justify a section (again undue weight on one study). It's very troubling to base the conclusions of such a matter one a single poll. Karipens393 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the bold removal of verified content per WP:BRD. blanking verified content can be considered vandalism. The source is a reliable source, and the content is worded neutrally. It falls within the scope of this sub-article, in that it is a demographic of Asian Americans. As far as weight, it is listed lower in the article, and is worded in a brief and summarized manor, so I do not agree that it has been given undue weight. Perhaps WP:LGBT may be interested in this.
I will notify appropriate wikiprojects per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please notify the appropriate wikiprojects as I would like to hear input from others on this. And it's not vandalism as I did give several relevant thoughts to consider. Please see the above. I would like to hear some discussion against or for the points I made in order to determine whether this content belongs in the article. Karipens393 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the source (Archive). It explicitly says "4.3 percent of Asians" identify as LGBT, and that should be noted in the Wikipedia article. The news article from WTOP makes no other statements about Asians who identify as LGBT. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is also true and another problem with the content. An editor to this article wrote "this is greater than the estimated 3.4 percent of American adults that self identify as LGBT in the total population" however the source states " 4.6 percent of African-Americans identify as LGBT, 4 percent of Hispanics, 4.3 percent of Asians and 3.2 percent of whites." So really, every population except for whites is greater than the estimated 3.4 percent who identify as LGBT in the general population which makes not just the statement questionable but also the poll's sampling methods as well. Karipens393 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both statements are true based on what the source says:

A new Gallup survey, touted as the largest of its kind, estimates that 3.4 percent of American adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

According to the survey, which was conducted between June and September, 4.6 percent of African-Americans identify as LGBT, 4 percent of Hispanics, 4.3 percent of Asians and 3.2 percent of whites.

Are we actually questioning that 4.3 is greater than 3.4?
While it is true that non-white demographic groups have a higher percentage of individuals who identify as LGBT than the total estimated population, the non-white non-hispanic population do make up a minority of the population. If we want we can use the direct source information instead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume you have no problem with adding the other percentages to put this in context, since the article already does that with other statistics. Karipens393 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical percentages

[edit]

I have boldly moved the historical percentages content to the Asian Pacific American article. The diffs can be seen here:

The reasoning for this is, since the subject of the table is Asian Pacific Islanders, the content should be in that article, rather than this article whose primary subject is Asian Americans, and is a sub-article of the article of that subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Demographics of Asian Americans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 11:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

[edit]

Nice article!

I'd be happy to try to learn enough to fix this myself, but the caption on the first map really doesn't say specifically say that the shadings represent. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to have a lead which summarizes the article. Right now the lead has only two sentences. One defines the subject, and one makes a comment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My general impression is that this will need a bit of work to meet GA, the kind that is typically accomplish-able during the review process. It is also starting to appear that nobody is involved here to the point of that type of participation. Even though I'm ready to help, I don't see where it can pass without that level of involvement/participation by someone. I'm going to be barely on wiki for the next 2 days and then off for about 9 days. If nobody shows up here in that role within another approx. 11 days, I'll be non-passing it due to the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

[edit]

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Result

[edit]

I am forced to non-pass this article for the reason described in my October 10th post. In short, despite being a pretty good article, it would need to have an involved editor to get to the point of passage, and there is no involved editor. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post closure discussion

[edit]

@North8000: Sorry that I went on a Wikibreak after nominating this article. I have since returned, and have created the lead section requested. Please let me know what else I need to do before renominating this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Welcome back! I did a quick look @RightCowLeftCoast: Welcome back! I did a quick look. Each reviewer is different, and a reviewer will look at in more depth. A few quick thoughts: Looks like the "lack of a lead" problem is solved. So these are just a few thoughts after a quick look.

The lead should summarize what's in the body. The first paragraph has three references that are not used in the body and that basic intro seems yp be missing from the body. Like: who is considered to be Asian American?

Has maps and charts but no images. Maybe a couple images would be nice. (?)

Overall, it looks goof to me.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000:Well my initial reply was deleted, due to a server restart, so let me start over.
The reason for the three sources which are used in the lead section only, is to verify who the subjects of the article are. That is because this article is a spin out article of the parent article, Asian Americans; if need me I can include a summary of the parent article's "terminology" section, in order to justify the lead sentence. If this is needed, just ask, and I will begin to work on that.
As for lack of images, this is due to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The parent article use utilize multiple images, including group images, which were relevant to the article, that is until that MOS was created. I was not involved in the RfCs which established this.
If there is anything else I can do to improve the content of this article, please let me know.

un-removed table

[edit]

Per WP:BRD I have unremoved a table. Content appears to be from Table A-1 from pages 29-33 from this source. There is more up to date information here, but this is an abstract, with links to more detailed information. Also there is this source which we should look at.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to WP:V, the data in the table is not in that source. If that is indeed the source, then it is WP:SYNTHESIS to extract raw data and present it in the voice of wikipedia. If a secondary source cannot be found which highlights that specific family of data, then it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing per policy concerns above. aprock (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from the U.S. Government making it public domain, and the verifying source is clearly provided by the footnote. Therefore, there is no policy issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted several times, the data in the table is not a source. Similarly, the content in no way summarizes the source, and represents WP:SYNTH. I'll give you several days to try and sort out the verifiability and synthesis issues. aprock (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU, please stop wikihounding me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what you're talking about. If you really think there is an issue, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First step is to ask the editor to stop, thus why I have not taken it to a noticeboard. I am hoping that by asking, that it need not escalate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no clue what you're talking about. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you take it to my user page. aprock (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Asian 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 11:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Demographics of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The URL links in the references at the top of the columns in the "U.S. states and territories" section (references #101, #102, #103, #104, #105, #106 and #107) do not show any data. For example, the link provided in the reference ["Total Population: Chinese alone or in any combination". 2010 Census Summary File 2. United States Census Bureau.] (the Chinese column) does not show any data — the website only displays the total population of the United States. Therefore, there is no way to verify whether the data (in the table) for the 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico is correct. The links were retrieved in 2012; it's possible that the links have changed since then.

I looked up American FactFinder's Nebraska data, and the displayed data for Filipinos was 2,741, not the 4,900 displayed in the table in the article. That may be because the 2,741 number is for Asians alone (i.e. not in combination). In any case, I could not find any reference with the 4,900 number. And that is just one state: multiply this issue by 52.

(The Nebraska source: American FactFinder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Demographic Profile Data). LumaP15 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Census update

[edit]

Could be worthwhile to update to 2020 Census 142.186.93.240 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Asian_Americans&oldid=1201447354"