Talk:Korean Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias?

This page seems to have bias including the education part and "Koreans being role models for the American society". -dandan xD 10:49 22 November 2006 (AEST)

I've just removed the "Education" and "Bias" sections; such sections should certainly exist, but as written they were not only POV but had no encyclopedic value and seemed dangerously close to trolling. More work still to be done. Thanks, -- Visviva 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

one tenth of the korean-american population are NOT adoptees. that's ludicrous. i'm removing that statement. there is no data or reference to support that. in fact, there is an article here on wikipedia that refutes that statement.

the reference to support that 75% of the population attend church regularly is supported only by: "It is difficult to estimate an exact figure, however, 70%-75% would be an acceptable figure that have been used by some scholars in the field." this article comes from a church website and the text used in the article excludes "regularly".

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 23:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

The Huntington source is a magazine article, and it was used to support the fact that Christians outnumber Buddhists 10 to 1 among Korean Americans. A specific portion of the Kim book was also cited in the religion section, but someone deleted it for one reason or another. cab 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Income

Looking over the webpage of the U.S Census Bureau (the link is provided in this article) I see no reason to keep this part:

(Koreans) “…have higher than average incomes compared to other Asian groups, as well as American averages"

Considering that other Asian groups like the Taiwanese, Chinese (except Taiwanese), Filipino, Japanese and Asian Indians in the U.S, all have higher median household income, higher median family income and higher per capita income than Korean-Americans as well as taking into account the fact that the per capita income of Korean-Americans is below the national average, I find the above statement quite inaccurate. Again this is all from the U.S Census Bureau’s homepage and the link is provided in this article.

I suggest deleting said statement seeing as changing it to “have higher than average income compared to >some< other Asian groups” would be an irrelevant point since it really doesn’t say much.

--213.112.53.13 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Asian Americans and other lists nominated for deletion

List of Asian Americans and a whole bunch of other lists have been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please vote at the AfD.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asian Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cambodian Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Americans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hmong Americans

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 12 for all the lists that have been nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hanja

couldn't the hanja also be "朝鮮系美國人", since the English word doesn't specify North or South. --Voidvector 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Both Korean WP and Chinese WP seem to confirm "韓國系美國人" in Hanja without also mentioning that they may be called "朝鮮系美國人" in Hanja. Of course this may just be because most Overseas Koreans were from South Korea. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

chronology

chronology of the history section is repetitive. I am deleting the latter half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.27.158.254 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Socioeconomics section?

The part of the article called "Socioeconomics" seems to be based around racial stereotypes. A person is a human being before they are part of an ethnic group, of course they "hold diverse occupations", why wouldn't they? Contralya (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

We only have two people now. It would be better to have four if we have somewhat to put. Michelle Wie is famous, but does she really represent Korea? I recommend Sarah Chang. and maybe Hines Ward.<-not sure.. Carolinehjkim (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We have free pictures of Sarah Chang (Image:Sarah_Chang_before_performing.jpg) which we could crop, but the free (GFDL or CC-BY-2.0 licensing) images of Hines Ward, which you can see on his article, or many more on Flickr [1], don't really show his face; he's in full gear in all the ones I saw. cab (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical Korean-American in Las Vegas, 2008

I removed the "typical Korean" image as it seems to make a value judgement about what a "typical" Korean looks like. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He undid your removal, though he at least took out the word "typical". I was going to revert the anon based on the image being self-promotional; however, is "Korean-American in Las Vegas, 2008" really any less representative than the nameless photo right above it captioned "Korean-American football player in Chicago, 1918"? It's kind of a humorous response to the older picture, and it *is* a valid illustration of the article topic. --MPerel 06:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the inclusion of this photograph. The two photos are not comparable. Image:Korean-American-1918-football.jpg comes directly from the Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection and can be verified. On the other hand, Image:Typicalkorean.jpg comes from User:Levink, who has approximately zero contributions. If I had to guess, the photo is either of Levink or someone he knows, or if seen from another perspective altogether, is attempting to insult Koreans by making them look "thuggish". Finally, image policy, in particular Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, discourages "images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic...these images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the dubious image with Image:Korean Americans.jpg, an image from an official press conference that can be traced back to an official organization (ka4obama.com). Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's much better, good find. --MPerel 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion section

Could possibly be expanded by drawing upon its antecedents in Christianity in Korea and Buddhism in Korea, two absolutely fascinating articles. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

List of notable people section

I suggest this be removed, again, and all such edits go to List of Korean Americans. It's ridiculously long and makes the article unbalanced. cab (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean

Does korean american include evil korea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.104.245 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hines Ward is Not Korean

What the title says, he would fall under the article of Afro-Asian, he is NOT a Korean-American, not does he identify with being Korean. Easternknight (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Active editors of this article are invited to join the discussion regarding the change in Asian American article's infobox. Specifically we are looking to get nominations for individuals who would fall under this article, nominations shall remain open until 9 November 2009. Comments are also welcomed. Thank you in advance --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the nomination process is now over, and the voting period has began. Due to lack of nominations the slot for Laotian female representative is vacant, and will need further discussion sometime after voting has been concluded. The voting period will last until 4 December 2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of laundromats?

Korean Americans own many laundromats, liquor stores, and gas stations in America. 174.16.108.193 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Distinction between Korean-Americans

On page of Korean-Americans should distinguish between North Koreans and South Koreans and mention the number of people in each of these groups who live in USA(although certainly most of them are of South Koreans),if number are Known separately. Currently, North Korea and South Korea are two different countries, and although I am in favor of a page that speaks in general of both groups I believe should,at least,mention the number of people that each of these groups has United States. On the other hand,the demographics should talk,place of settlement of each of these groups separately (except, obviously, if they live in the same places).--80.31.187.49 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly? No reliable sources make this distinction. Korean Americans with family roots in the northern half of the peninsula (usually, descendants of those who left during the Japanese colonial period or who fled south during the Korean War and then went overseas) don't conceive of themselves as ethnically separately from Korean Americans with family roots in the southern half of the peninsula. And for obvious reasons, contemporary immigration from North Korea to the United States is practically non-existent. Perhaps this situation would change if there were more North Korean immigration, but for the moment there's no basis at all for making such a distinction, and no scholars, journalists, etc. who look at demographic statistics, etc. of the two groups separately cab (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with no distinction between the two groups if the North Korean immigration to the United States is as low as you say and there is no reliable data for the distinction and therefore I agree with both groups to unite in a single number . But just for that, not that both groups are ethnically the same, because, despite that, still come from two different countries, and that too must be respected. I do not think the North Koreans-South Koreans feel, except those who emigrate to South Korea.--Isinbill (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Total Population

Per rationale on Talk:Chinese American, I have changed the population from the 2010 data earlier data. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

POV infobox

As of this posting, the infobox has a three individuals who are political appointees of President Obama. This may create an undue weight in the infobox that may favor one political party over other political parties in the United States, thus creating an infobox that does not meet WP:NEU; therefore, I am tagging the article accordingly. Possible solutions are to included a balanced number of elected officials and political appointees to the infobox, or exclude elected officials and political appointees all together.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced claims of Korean-Americans' raising and eating dog meat

An editor has, twice, inserted the following unsourced text into the article. I've removed it, twice, because unsourced assertions that are likely to be considered offensive should not be included here. (I have no problems with offensive material that is well sourced.)

In more traditional Korean American cuisine eating a live octopus is considered good for karma and in the film Old Boy the main actor ate four live octopuses all to achieve one scene. This film is a popular film among Korean Americans. Another common tradition for Korean Americans is eating dog meat. It is illegal to sell dog meat in the US yet a lot of Korean stores have secret illegal sections dedicated to dog meat specialties. But since purchasing dog meat is difficult some Korean American people raise their own dog meat. When it comes to dog meat there have been many Korean American groups who have discouraged public American figures from exposing the dog trade in Korea. Though this is a very controversial issue it is also a part of a huge history. Many Korean Americans do not eat dog meat but there are some Korean American people who are very keen on the Korean traditions.

I believe claims such as those regarding the movie scene, the bits about "eating dog meat", "secret illegal sections", "raise their own dog meat", etc. need to be strongly supported by reliable sources before being included here.

Do any other editors have opinions on this? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apart from Koreatown, Korean Americans don't maintain separation of ethnicities...

There were very significant problems with this statement, which I've taken out for the good of the article. First of all, the statement was cited from a source quoting 30-year old information. Information that old holds no relevance today, as that was when Koreans (in large numbers) just began moving to the United States and settling into Koreatowns in Los Angeles and New York City. Therefore, for this reason alone, the source cannot be considered a reliable source to back up such a controversial statement. Secondly, OBVIOUSLY that is what a Koreatown implies, that is, separation of ethnicities, so why even bother including the statement? Third, the link is an indirect link to L.A.'s Koreatown, but that doesn't hold water anymore when there are Koreatowns all over the United States and when in fact L.A.'s own Koreatown has become Latinized.

Castncoot (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this article needs A LOT of work

It's as if a bunch of 12 year olds wrote it. WangKon936 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Korean Americans

seems we are duplicating this article. I will work on moving the notable people lists to that article shortly. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 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: There is a consensus to Move the page. As there appear to be conflicting guidelines here, I am not able to give either more weight, but the vast majority of participants say that WP:PLURAL is the most relevant here. Therefore there is a consensus to move this page, and it is worth looking into other pages as well, as this may well set a precedent. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Korean American → Korean Americans
• Korean Australian → Korean Australians
• Korean New Zealander → Korean New Zealanders

– Per Talk:Korean Canadians and WP:PLURAL. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - @George Ho: I'm fine with a move, but there a ton of pages to move if we're going to be consistent. African American, Irish American ... basically any FOOBAR Americans. This might be something for Village Pump to deal with. Also would help to have a centralized discussion on this since it's a multi-move request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a larger issue, which would affect all ethnicity articles regarding XYZ Americans. Many of these articles already have redirects from their plural form to the non-plural form. As EvergreenFir said, if this change is to be implemented for the Korean diaspora, than it should be for all ethnicities. That being said looking at PLURAL there has ben some discussion about this in that the plural form of some ethnicities is the same as the singular such as pointed out in 2005 Bantu, Zulu. Furthermore, how large of a consensus was built when this guideline was created back in 2004? Does it have the same level of support from the community as it did back than (when the community was arguably smaller and required smaller numbers of editors to back it up as it takes today). Additionally, what do manuals of style, such as APA & MLA, say about this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support any and all such moves per WP:PLURAL Red Slash 17:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• do not change This would make these articles different from every other fooian American article as well as articles in Category:Ethnic groups by country. And the article are named correctly, since the articles are not about individuals (which would be plural) but about the particular ethnic group (which is singular). Hmains (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a very good reason to oppose the suggested moves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• do not change I agree with Hmains. And I will add a new point" "Korean American" is both a noun and an adjective. In the latter role it functions as a modifier for concepts such as "Korean American literature" or "Korean American politics". Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• cmt also, the various plurals in Category:Ethnic groups in Canada should all/mostly be changed to singular to match the rest of WP for such articles. Hmains (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article covers a lot more than Korean-Americans, considered as individuals. It also includes Korean American Memorials, Korean American Politics, Korean American Religion and Korean American Cuisine....In other words the term "Korean American " is much broader than the restrictive "Korean Americans". This article in fact takes the broader perspective. Otherwise it becomes more or less a list of names. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly true for all these articles. Hmains (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose - Article is about the ethnic group, "Korean American". Also Hmains and Rjensen raise valid points. To give you an example please see, African American or Iranian American. Mbcap (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmains, RightCowLeftCoast, Rjensen, Mbcap, Surely if there is valid reason to move this type of article then all similar articles should change. If other articles have been badly named then this is not a reason why this article should be badly named. I recently put through an RM, closed by BD2412, for the moves of:

• Azerbaijani people → Azerbaijanis
• Bahamian people → Bahamians
• Bangladeshi people → Bangladeshis
• Barbadian people → Barbadians
• Bolivian people → Bolivians
• Chilean people → Chileans
• Colombian people → Colombians

and this set a precedent for similar forms of action.

Alao, as it is and as per WP:NOTDICT, the title Korean American is incomplete. It should either be Korean Americans, Korean American people or, as per one interpretation of the topic, Korean American (ethnic group) or something else.

As it is the text of the article presents: "Korean Americans (Korean: 한국계 미국인, Hanja: 韓國系美國人, Hangukgye Migukin) are Americans of Korean descent, mostly from South Korea, with a small minority from North Korea." What text should this present.

My only contention is whether "Korean American" might better work as a navigation page with a form similar to British Korean. A thread has related to these issues is presented at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#What to do with articles for Britains with other nationalities, ethnicities and/or descents.

Linguistically, however, the move is logical and, as I hope any admin will see, should go through. GregKaye 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have raised a related discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Presentations and pluralisations of peoples. GregKaye 11:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Greg for your comments. I have struck my oppose above. I will study the issues raised and will post thereafter. Mbcap (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – The unique "singular" forms used by American immigrant groups on Wikipedia is absurd. We have longstanding usage of the plural form, which makes the most sense (e.g. Italians, Germans, Swedes, Hungarians, &c.). I don't see why American groups should be the exception. Let's have consistency. I'd also note that the singular title implies that the article is about the word itself, rather than the people. RGloucester — ☎ 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The following books showed up on a book search for Korean American or Korean American's, all of which are about the Korean American people and none are singular:

• Korean Americans by Anne Soon Choi
• The Korean Americans by Won Moo Hurh
• The Korean Americans by Brian Lehrer
• Korean Americans by Nichol Bryan
• Korean Americans by William David Thomas
• Korean Americans by Scott Ingram
• Korean Americans by Alexandra Bandon

I would like to apologise for my oversight as it seems that the common name on this topic is the plural form. WP:ETHNICGROUP does say we should use the common name and also states that if there is a plural demonym available, we should make use of it. There certainly is a plural form available so we should use this. Greg is it possible to make this consistent, for those ethnicities for which these considerations apply, throughout the wiki if it is not already the case? Finally could I ask RightCowLeftCoast, Hmains and Rjensen to reconsider the opposes in light of the new comments which have been made. I understand one contention was that this articles covers "a lot more than Korean-Aermicans". My question is this, how does the plural form stop us from documenting religion, cuisine, politics etc? Another point which was raised was in reference to this being about the ethnic group and so should be singular but WP:ETHNICGROUP addresses this. We can by all means use the plural form. Mbcap (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap If a convention is established the easiest thing would be for an editor with the correct tools to go through an manually move the articles manually over the "Fooish Americans" redirects. Give me the tools and I'll do the job. GregKaye 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Korean Americans cuisine" "Korean Americans politics" ....? We have a long policy of using the singular at Wikipedia for American ethnics: Irish American, German American, Asian American, Italian American, Mexican American, Vietnamese American, Filipino American, Chinese American, etc--all of them I think use the singular form. Rjensen (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: can you point to this policy? Or is it de facto? And how is it rationalized given the other guidelines and policies mentioned already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I just pointed out the effect of Wiki policy is that all (I think) the similar articles are of the form Xyz American. This de facto policy emerged through the actualk edits of hundreds of editors over the last decade. Accepting the proposed change would make this particular article stick out like a sore thumb. We rationalize here by the behavior of editors in real-time, not by some untested statement that was written by a person who apparently never examined any of the ethnic articles. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

De facto is not a legit reason to go against policy and guidelines. This is nothing a bot can't take care of relatively quickly. Perhaps this needs to be moved to village pump since it's really a request for multiple moves. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think people misunderstand how Americans talk about ethnicity and ethnic groups. it is much more than a discussion about individuals, (" Korean Americans") it is about a subculture ("Korean American cuisine") that is shared in to a greater or lesser extent by individuals. indeed in the American context it is quite common for an individual to share in several different subcultures ( my father came one group, my mother from a very different group, for example, and I married a spouse of a third group). Wikipedia has no fixed rules, and the guidelines in this case never mentioned or considered or realize the problems involving ethnicity. that is a failure in the guidelines. In actual practice and dozens of ethnicity articles, hundreds or even thousands of Wikipedia editors have converged on the same policy over the last decade. keep in mind the Wikipedia rule is that there are no ironclad rules-- a very wise policy indeed, otherwise we would have people totally ignorant of ethnicity trying to tell us how to handle the ethnicity articles. Rjensen (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As for policy, WP:ETHNICGROUP gives as 2 of 4 legitimate examples both the plural and the singular forms. It states: " In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, whether in nounal or adjectival form." the adjectival form is "Korean American" as in "this happened early in the history of the Korean American ethnic group." Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen I would like to pick up on the "common English-language term" reference. "Korean Americans" is the common name for the subject given the books all use the plural form. You reasoning makes sense for "African American" which I was only able to find singular forms for but in this case the plural form is used. I would echo EvergreenFir's statement that this may need to move to village pump to address the problem because both sides raise valid points. Mbcap (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with Rjensen. If we look at the academic writings about the group Korean American, or as other have said Americans of Korean descent, the ethnicity Korean American (and most other "hyphenated American" ethnicities (even though in most common usage the hyphen is not used for Asian American ethnicities)) are not referred to in the plural, when the subject is the ethnicity. Therefore, I do not only oppose the name change, I Strongly Oppose the name change. And why wasn't WPAA notified about this?

As a subject the noun is Korean American. As single person is a Korean American. As a plural, a group of people who are Korean American are Korean Americans. This article is about the subject, which encompasses the plural of individuals that fall within the definition of who are Americans of Korean descent (as the category is named).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I will notify those appropriate wikiprojects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast Thank you for your notification of the relevant wikiprojects and for rectifying what is often a common failure related to WP:RM that, where appropriate and where it will not infringe on WP:CANVAS, relevant groups can be given notification of changes so that arguments can be presented. Please note though that this is not a vote but will need to end in a policy/guidelines based decision. I note that, probably because WP:AA is a navigation page, that you piped your above link as: "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans|WPAA]]". In the current context I think that it is of relevance to note that the project is not titled "Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian American". A title such as Korean American people and influence would be acceptable. "Korean American" infringes WP:NOUN. GregKaye 08:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Korean American comes up 923k times, Korean Americans comes up to 308k. So WP:COMMONNAME.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast To clarify that first search relates to: ".. am Korean American", ".. is Korean American" and "Korean American something coming up the vast majority of those 923k times. What you have done is to establish WP:CommonlyUsedDescription. This description will often be applied in description of an individual "Korean American" who, when considered together, are described as "Korean Americans" GregKaye 08:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You have not established WP:COMMONNAME. A Wikipedia title should complete its ...!

That data is useless. You are comparing an adjective that can be applied to non-people, such as the aforementioned "Korean American culture", and comparing it to a nounal phrase that can only refer to the people. That's an obvious attempt at providing misleading statistics. This article is about the people as a group: it is about Korean Americans. "Korean American culture" is a product of "Korean Americans". This article is about the people, as a group. Everything else on this subject matter flows from "Korean Americans". There would be no "Korean American culture" without "Korean Americans". It is not about the term "Korean American", nor is it about some obscure "Korean American ethnicity". RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, note that the first sentence of the article says "Korean Americans are…" It does not say "Korean American is an ethnic label for Koreans who have naturalised in the United States of America". RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

the "support" people like to talk about following the rules. They did not read the rules closely. The written de jure rule WP:ETHNICGROUP explicitly allows "Xyz American" (see the box) and never mentions "Xyz Americans" (though it seems to allow it). In real Wikipedia life I believe that all of the thousands of editors on dozens of similar articles have used "Xyz American" with zero complaints I have seen. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The content at WP:ETHNICGROUP is currently and I think rightly contested (found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)). GregKaye 08:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen I think that you raise an important issue in regard to: ""Korean Americans cuisine" "Korean Americans politics" ....?" and you have made me hungry thinking about it (for the food that is). I think that these issues might perhaps be presented as Cultural contributions of Korean Americans, Political contributions of Korean Americans or Korean Americans in politics. This can either be done within the article or a new article can be started on a subject such as Korean American cuisine. As it is "Korean American" is not a proper encyclopaedia title as it begs the question, Korean American what? What the title in effect does is compound and adjective on another adjective. This is linguistic nonsense. We might as well have articles on topics such as. "Bright sunny". A guidelines reference to this is WP:NOUN which says: "Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; ..." The current title does not use nouns at all.

It is nonsense that the article might be titled "Korean American" when the text starts: "Korean Americans ..." GregKaye 08:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's quite reasonable because the NEXT sentence reads: "The Korean American community ...is the fifth largest Asian American subgroup, after the Chinese American, Filipino American, Indian American, and Vietnamese American." It's a fringe view to ridicule all the other editors of ethnic articles. Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen which group of people comprises, "The Korean American community"? GregKaye 08:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the community in the United States constructed by people of Korean descent. the community is more than a group people, it includes institutions, churches, publications, local organizations and national networks, and their adaptations to the American culture in their work realms of food, religion, politics, & family structure as well as attitudes toward Korea & other ethnic groups. And it includes the history of that community in terms of settlement patterns, assimilation patterns, intermarriage, language usage, & relations with relatives back in Korea, etc. I suggest that all of these characteristics are handled better at Wikipedia using the adjective form ("Korean American") and work poorly with the noun form ("Korean Americans"). Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I could alternately support the article moves → Koreans in the United States, → Koreans in Australia and → Koreans in New Zealand.

This would follow the commonly used format as demonstrated in the articles: Koreans in Africa, Koreans in Argentina, Koreans in Chicago, Koreans in Chile, Koreans in China, Koreans in France, Koreans in Germany, Koreans in Guatemala, Koreans in Hong Kong, Koreans in India, Koreans in Indonesia, Koreans in Iran, Koreans in Japan, Koreans in Malaysia, Koreans in Micronesia, Koreans in Mongolia, Koreans in Nepal, Koreans in Paraguay, Koreans in Peru, Koreans in Poland, Koreans in Singapore, Koreans in South Africa, Koreans in Spain, Koreans in Sri Lanka, Koreans in Taiwan, Koreans in Thailand, Koreans in Uruguay, Koreans in Vietnam, Koreans in Washington, D.C., Koreans in the Arab world, Koreans in the Czech Republic, Koreans in the Netherlands, Koreans in the Philippines and Koreans in the United Kingdom. In each and every case the plural reference is used with the titles not infringing on either WP:PLURAL or WP:NOUN. I personally prefer this type of usage as it focusses on the more verifiable issue of location and potentially expands the topic. I have also always regarded that it can be healthier to talk in terms of citizenships rather than use more nationalistic and/or tribal designations.

The topic in the first case can be similarly described as Korean Americans or as Koreans in the United States in both cases being inclusive of issues of cultural impact.

As a third option, and at a stretch, a title as The Korean American community might be considered if a case can be made. GregKaye 09:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Kaye thinks of Korean-Americans, say, as a conglomeration of individuals with a certain characteristic. this leads to a listing of famous people, and their photographs, and demographic tables. that is not how sociologists, scholars, historians, community leaders, or researchers handle the issue. they see the ethnic community has the topic, with all the institutions, attitudes aspirations and issues of assimilation and intergroup relationships. I looked at Kaye's last 2000 edits. he loves to rename pages based on "rules." But he has not written about any of American ethnic communities & seems seems totally unfamiliar with the approaches represented by being reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen your WP:CRYSTALballing on what I think is not appreciated. So would you prefer the title Koreans in the United States which I raised in recognition of the issues that you mention. You are invited to present your own arguments in relation to the thread topic rather than attacking other editors. Thank you for looking at my last 2000 edits and I am sure that, if you took a close look, you will have noticed that I never talk of "rules" and certainly try to emphasise the importance of foundational principles like WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Unless you can justify your WP:ASSERTions including the baffling ".. seems seems totally unfamiliar with the approaches represented by being reliable sources" please strike content. If you do want to take issue with an editor then an appropriate forum is on the User's talk page. I would be quite happy for there to be a descriptive title and consider the fundamental descriptive principle of WP:AT to be of more importance than "rules" like WP:CONCISE. GregKaye 12:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on serious use and understanding of the reliable sources. The person has never read any of these reliable sources, that person's views are strictly limited, and don't carry much weight. Especially when that person rejects the unanimous consensus of the other editors on American ethnic articles. Now maybe I'm wrong, perhaps you have read some of the major RS. So to clear up the mystery and speculation, you could tell us how familiar you are with the reliable sources in American ethnic history. Your edits here and elsewhere never refer to them. I have repeatedly Argued here that the Article deals with a community or group phenomena, for which the adjective "Korean American" fits nicely; I argue the noun form "Korean Americans" is only a subset And is not the main subject of the actual article. It's not clear if you agree with this argument are not? As far as respecting your point of view, that wears thin when you ridicule the status quo title of this and all other American ethnic group articles as "nonsense." In my opinion, you have not given any good reason for changing the titles. Rjensen (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen Clearly: "Wikipedia articles are based on serious use and understanding of the reliable sources" and I have referenced your quoted reliable sources below. I have no in depth knowledge of American ethnic issues although I have spent notable time with a native American girlfriend in Colorado. I have heard your arguments and see no reason why the content you mention cannot fit with any of the titles concerned. There is no book with the stand alone title Korean American. Why do you want to force Wikipedia to use this as a title? I defy you to find any other notable place where "Korean American" in isolation is used as a title. Please try not to refer to me as "the person" or "Kaye". GregKaye 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Think about the article on simply Americans in general. Would it make sense to say "Americans religion", "Americans culture", "Americans cuisine", etc? Ditto the articles on Norwegians, Russians, Filipino people, Vietnamese people for example, also include their cultures, cuisine, religion, and not only the people, and they all use the plural form. Rtedb (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please argue the points and not editors. It is evident, at least to me, that "Korean Americans" is the common name for the topic which satisfies WP:AT. It is also unclear as to how the plural form is not considered to be congruous with academic coverage of the topic. Even books written about Korean Americans are called "Korean Americans". Won Moo Hurh, the late sociology professor at West Illinois was an expert on this subject and his book is called "The Korean Americans". Anne Soon Choi, an associate professor at California State University wrote the book, "Korean Americans". Rtedb could you please provide sources because your comments suggest that the singular form which is commonly used by academics in this field. Mbcap (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ty Mbcap. I have never been described as "The person" and don't remember having been called "Kaye" since school. I find it more difficult than it should to seriously consider arguments of the ethical presentation of an ethnic group as presented by an editor who makes consistent personal attack within the context of impersonal reference. The reply, of which I am grateful, seems to have been addressed to Rjensen. GregKaye 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're addressing the wrong editor. Rtedb (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As for academic publications, both forms are in use, depending on whether the author has a narrow focus on individuals, or a broader focus on the social structure. I argue this article in fact does have a broader focus than it should be that way. Scholars like the adjective form because they are looking mostly at social structure: see An, Sohyun. "Korean American High School Students’ Perspectives on US History." The Social Studies 103.1 (2012): 12-19; Chung, Jae Ho. "China's Evolving Views of the Korean–American Alliance, 1953–2012." Journal of Contemporary China 23.87 (2014): 425-442. note the hyphen--this deals with South Korea & US governments not Korean Americans; Ikemoto, Lisa C. "Traces of the master narrative in the story of African American/Korean American conflict: How we constructed Los Angeles." Southerrn Calif. Law Rev. 66 (1992): 1581; Kibria, Nazli Becoming Asian American: Second-Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities 2003; Kim, These Bearers of a Homeland': An Overview of Korean American Literature, 1934–2001; Kim, Elaine H., and Eui-Young Yu, eds. East to America: Korean American Life Stories New Press, 1996.; Kim, Lili. Doing Korean American History In The Twenty-First Century. Journal of Asian American Studies. 2008; Kim, Sharon. A Faith of Our Own: Second-Generation Spirituality in Korean American Churches (2010); Kwon, Hyeyoung, and Chanhaeng Lee. "Korean American History." Los Angeles: Korean Education Center in Los Angeles (2009); Ling, Huping, and Allan W. Austin. Asian American History and Culture: An Encyclopedia Routledge, 2015 Covers all the major groups; Park, Kyeyoung. The Korean American dream: Immigrants and small business in New York city 1997; Son, Korean-American Community In The United States: Search For Korean Ethnic Identity 1993; Won Towards a Korean-American ethnicity: some theoretical models 1993; Yoo, David K. Contentious Spirits: Religion in Korean American History, 1903–1945 (2011). on the other side take a look at Abelmann, Nancy and John Lie. Blue Dreams: Korean Americans and the Los Angeles Riots (1997), this is an example of the noun form. Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen you mention:

• Korean American High School Students’
• the Korean–American Alliance,
• the story of African American/Korean American conflict:
• Korean American Identities
• Korean American Literature,
• Korean American History, three times
• The Korean American dream:
• (the) Korean-American Community In The United States and
• Korean-American ethnicity:

All of these are subjects. On its own "Korean American" is not a subject. It is a description. PLEASE note: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GregKaye 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dictionary --that's another irrelevant issue. At issue is what the RS say about this ethnic group. Have you not read ANY study of Korean Americans??? Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Astounding, you ignore WP:PLURAL and WP:NOUN and now you ignore WP:NOTDICT. Are all Wikipedia guideline contents that don't agree with you irrelevant? In answer to your question, which I have also answered above, no. Let me ask you a question. Is "Korean American" an article title and, if so, how? GregKaye 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies Greg, I mistakenly pinged Rtedb and no problem. Rjensen thank you for providing the citations. We may need to do a more comprehensive search of the literature because the above articles seem to address "Korean American". The use of the singular form may be because it is being used in a non-noun form. A google scholar search[2] revealed use of both forms. Could someone who is better versed in lexicography please interpret the results. Mbcap (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I scratched two articles from this discussion. In fact, only "Korean American" has been the main or sole focus as of right now. --George Ho (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment as an example the TOC of the article British People has sections on "culture" displayed as follows:

4 Culture

4.1 Cuisine

4.2 Language

4.3 Literature

4.4 Media and music

4.5 Religion

4.6 Sport

4.7 Visual art and architecture

4.8 Political culture

Is there anything that needs to go into a Korean Americans / Koreans in the United States article that could not be added in a similar fashion? GregKaye 16:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen In addition to the views that RGloucester has presented below the question that I want to ask is why, by talking about a group of people with good grammar, we can't also celebrate their achievements?

You have just presented a whole load of negative and negatively worded comment at a thread I had started in proposal of bringing an improved standard of Grammar usage to parallel Wikipedia titles at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). How does it do a people justice to present them under an erroneously presented title? GregKaye 18:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – This whole discussion is an absurdity. It seems that Rjensen does not understand the distinction between adjectives and nouns. "Korean-American" is an adjective that can be applied to anything relating to or derived from the group of people called "Korean Americans". "Korean Americans", as a group, are the topic of this article. "Korean-American culture" is a productive of Korean Americans, which is why the adjective "Korean-American" is used. I'd also note, to be clear, that the present title does not use the adjectival form. It uses the singular nounal form, e.g "Mr Park is a Korean American", not "Korean-American writer Park Yoon Jung wrote..." The adjectival form requires a hyphen, whereas "Korean American" as a singular noun does not require a hyphen. In other words, the present title is misleading, as it seems to be about a "Korean American", singular, or perhaps the word itself, rather than the collective group called "Korean Americans". Wikipedia consistently follows the standard usage, as with African American (noun) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) (adjective). The article should be moved, and that's that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"A Korean American gave the sermon" = used as a noun; "a Korean American minister gave the sermon" = used as an adjective. "Korean American" is versatile (Both noun and adjective) in the way that "Korean Americans" is not (it is only a noun). The adjectival form does not requires a hyphen--I just cited more than a dozen titles from scholarly books and articles & most do not use the hyphen, tho some do. One citation the does use it is talking about Korean-American diplomatic relations. As for the rules, they explicitly allow for either the noun or adjective form when dealing with ethnic groups. Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The adjectival form requires the hyphen in good English, and the majority of style guides that are not the Chicago (prefers no hyphens) agree. The subject of this article is "Korean Americans", just as the subject of French people is Frenchmen, or the subject of Germans is the people of Germany. The subject of this article is not an "ethnic group" or the term itself. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

no that is not true. "Most style manuals today have dropped the use of the hyphen, as in Italian American, using Italian as an adjective" says Fred E. Jandt (2015). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. SAGE Publications. pp. 53–. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Most style guides, if not all, have dropped the hyphen for the nounal form (it used to take one), e.g. "I am an Italian American". However, it is maintained for the adjectival form, e.g. "He is an Italian-American chef who makes lasagne with a right and proper bit of graft". RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Most scholarly publishers use the Chicago Manual of style As do the scholarly journals. The subject of the article is the community or ethnic group in the USA built by people of Korean descent. The article deals mostly with topics such as cuisine, politics, religiosity and so on that are community attributes. Of course it also deals with famous individuals and shows photographs of the number of them. The problem with the European articles is much more complex. To start with the titles "German"/ French/ English/ Russian etc are used as the titles of the language article. Secondly there is a very large scholarly, intellectual, and popular community of interest in American ethnic groups. The community has developed its Criteria and definitions -- you can read it all in Thernstrom ed., Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (1980) You can buy a copy for less than five dollars. My point is that in Wikipedia, great majority of American ethnic groups have a very similar article in terms of the topics covered. That is the standard by which Wikipedia has evolved, with the contribution of thousands of editors. Chinese American has over 800 contributing editors; Polish American over 600; Japanese American has over 700. This article has 803 different editors who have contributed to it. Wikipedia's built by these editors in a collaborative fashion. To see outsiders who have not contributed, and seem to know very little about the Reliable sources, march in and demand radical changes because of their personal linguistic beliefs, does annoy me, I must admit. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN. Step back and stop with the "outsiders" crap. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No individual owns a Wiki article but the collectivity of thousands of actual editors in fact do "own" them. see WP:STEWARDSHIP I think an outsider who is informed on the topic would be welcome – but an outsider who knows nothing of lease talking about and insist on making changes and indeed tries to negotiate a compromise When his arguments don't go anywhere is not welcome. I'm very happy to say that in my experience, almost all the ethnic group articles have been reasonably free of edit wars and battleground issues. Possibly the one exception has to do with Hispanic/Latino/Chicano usage, Which continues to be debated inside the ethnic communities and among scholars. Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see this degrade into personal attacks (especially all the attacks against Rjensen /sarcasm.
Korean American is the noun used for the subject, groups of individuals of Americans of Korean descent (whole or partially (Hapa)) are referred to Korean Americans. This usage has been seen in multiple reliable sources. I disagree with Americans of X descent (event though that is what has become common in category naming) naming as that is not the common name used by the group. I especially oppose the usage X in the United States, as that expands the subject to non-Americans in the United States.
For instance Filipino American is the common use noun when describing the subject. Again see the google search, other editors can choose to WP:TLDR this, but 57k compared to 26k. This is why Filipino Americans redirects to Filipino American, and this is the similar case for most American ethnicity articles. It is common practice, it is common name, I don't see the validity in the requested move.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparing google search results should not override MOS guidelines. I have no idea why there's even push back on this. It's a proposal to move pages to conform with MOS, not some major content change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is always room for American exceptionalism, no? Ha ha! RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. As a group it is more common that the subject is singular. This is common see Asian American. So, call it exceptionalism, I will say WP:COMMONNAME.
What is being suggested here has HUGE precautions across all race and ethnicity articles of those in the United States. This is something that would impose names on groups which the groups do not use for the subject. So it is not just WP:WPAA but also WP:ETHNIC.
I remember a similar discussion back in 2009 that wanted all Asian American ethnicity to be hyphenated back in the 2009/2010 time frame, using similar logic used by those who prefer the plural article name. Didn't make it right then, doesn't make it right now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast I hope that you are speaking from a perspective of English being your first language.

• When we write an article on topics related to people from the United States we, perhaps questionably, entitle that article Americans (there are two continents of Americas which adds to my reasons for preferring Koreans in the United States)
• When we write an article on topics related to people from the United Kingdom we, perhaps questionably, entitle that article British people

The only time that you would get an independently titled content entitled American or British would either be as an instrument of navigation or in a dictionary.

This is as per WP:COMMONSENCE. My hope is that this quality can be promoted as we weigh up various and oft contradictory guideline contents. See ALSO: WP:PLURAL and WP:NOUN. GregKaye 06:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is only one place where people and things are called "Americans", and that's the United States of America. Don't go down that road. I don't like foreign invaders in my English. RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think RGloucester's and GregKaye's arguments above are the only ones that make sense. Korean Canadian has already been moved. 208.54.83.150 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

208.54.83.150 Thank you and it is encouraging to hear that there is the north of the border article has the sensible, non-ambiguous article title Korean Canadians. In the same way as the article on British people is brimming with cultural references I see no reason why this article shouldn't grow or how other sensibly titled articles with titles like Korean Canadian cuisine cannot branch off. GregKaye 23:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PLURAL and consistency with pretty much any other article about ethnic (sub)groups. For example, we have the articles at Koreans and Americans, which cover the respective groups and their history, culture, cuisine, religion etc, so it's only natural to have this (and related article) at Korean Americans. The counterarguments exposed at length above are simply bogus. No such user (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The MOS explicitly allows the usage and gives "African American" as a model. It is the common name. Some history here: in the Old World, "German" "French" etc meant both the language and the people, so Wiki uses "German" for the language article and "Germans" for the people article. That does not work in an explicitly multi-ethnic/racial society like the USA so we have "German American" for the ethnic group. It covers both the individuals ("German Americans") and the community (politics, cuisine, music, literature, relations with the government & other groups, etc). This is the typical usage in the RS as well as in Wikipedia for 10+ years. There is no reason to change to uncommon forms. The proposal is made by people who a) insist on their own (mis)reading of the rules and b) who know zip about American ethnic groups and the RS used to write the Wiki articles. So I strongly oppose this useless and damaging change.Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your objections don't make any sense. How many people need to explain this to you? "German Americans" does not imply "individuals, it implies the collective group of people called "German Americans", and everything that springs from that collective. There is no RS usage of "German American" as a topic on its own. That's just an adjective, not a noun (unless one is referring to one person, e.g. "a German American"). It doesn't mean anything. If we know "zip" about American ethnic groups, you know "nought" about English grammar. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"you know "nought" about English grammar"!! -- well I know just enough to publish 21 books and 45 scholarly articles and serve on the editorial boards of 11 scholarly journals in history and sociology. The Wiki rules say that a title for an ethnic history article can be a noun or an adjective. WP:ETHNICGROUP states: " In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, whether in nounal or adjectival form." so we have the explicit rule, the common practice at Wikipedia & the typical RS title. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you say, Rjensen. Your actions speak louder than your words. RGloucester — ☎ 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, everyone see WP:AVOIDYOU, see WP:NPA.
This is not about what we think, but what reliable sources use as the WP:COMMONNAME, the common name for United States ethnic groups is generally non-plural. This is allowed as stated by others by WP:ETHNICGROUP. As I have stated and as others do not want to acknowledge is that reliable sources when speaking about the subject generally use the non-plural. While the plural is often used, it is generally speaking about a group of people who fall within the definition of the subject, and not the subject itself. Clear as mud? Perhaps this is the point were we all agree to disagree, allow the articles to remain where they have been for the past decade, and WP:DROPTHESTICK.
There are competing essays and guidelines which have been cited by those on either side of this issue. To the closing admin, please close as no consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The protestations of one very vocal, ownership user is not "no consensus". Guidelines are clear here. That they've been wrong for a long time is absolutely no reason to ignore it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The title follows the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). (which gives African American as a model pattern. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which frankly makes no sense. African Americans does. It's time to standardize this portion of the encyclopedia. There i no logical reason to have American Jews and Korean Canadians but Korean American. You argue to status quo, but the status quo is wrong. This is an easy fix with no good reason against it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

it makes no sense to change when the current policy fits the rules and the reality and the RS. In my opinion --people who admit they are ignorant of the topic should not insist on making changes that are rejected by people who do know the topic. Rjensen (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't see anyone admitting that. Just a user who displays OWNership and repeatedly calls others ignorant, outsiders, and other personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't see anyone admitting that.?? GregKaye said above: "I have no in depth knowledge of American ethnic issues". I don't claim any ownership, only a share of the stewardship here. EvergreenFir wants "logical reasons". The logical reason we have "American Jews" is that it is treated as a religious group not just an ethnic group. As for "Korean Canadians" the person who started it was only interested in individuals & not the community (it starts out, "Korean Canadians are Canadian citizens of Korean ancestry." & ignores issues of language, customs, politics, etc etc) Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Missed GregKaye's comment. Just that one person then. As for American Jews, the lead sentence of the article is American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans, are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish ethnicity. The article is mostly about the ethnicity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Another point - leads are always plural - Japanese American, African American, Irish American, Italian American, and every Foobar American I have searched starts with the lead sentence Foobar Americans blah blah. Always starts in the plural form. There is no reason whatsoever that the title of the article be singular and the lead be plural. If the natural way of writing it, as seen in the leads, is plural, so too should be the titles. Especially so if the guidelines say the titles should be as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Further, this refutes Rjensen's assertion that the articles are about more than just the people and thus should be titled singular. They are indeed more than just the people, but the main topic is the people. Most articles cover the people in terms of demographics, history, migration, and famous individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is consistency the above editor is after, than why not go with the name that is the category title "American people of XYZ descent"? The reason why that doesn't work is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name of the subject is singular. Others have attempted to ignore it but it is as clear as day.

Furthermore, although there is WP:NOUN, just as how some argue that WP:NBAND allows for certain bands to bypass WP:GNG; since these are subjects about ethnic groups, than the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) clearly stands as the primary guideline for this and other XYZ American articles. It does allow for the article's current name, it is the common name. Therefore, please WP:DROPTHESTICK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is largely about the community. In it I counted only six named individual Korean Americans, (plus the 12 who have photos in the upper right corner but no additional info beyond their name). The rest of th text is about the community. For example, the demography section mentions 107,145 kids adopted from Korea over the years but otherwise ignores them because they are outside the KA community. The article that EvergreenFir desires actually exists and is called List of Korean Americans. It should satisfy those who complain about the title here. That is we already have coverage of notable K-Americans in that other article. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Straw man duly added to the list of fallacious arguments you're pulling. But keep throwing more mud, perhaps something really sticks. No such user (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: The WP:COMMONNAME argument you keep on repeating is outlandish. COMMONNAME tells us whether we should pick "Korean Americans", "American Koreans", "Koreans in the United States" or some other term as the title of the article, according to their relative circulations in the sources. Choice of singular vs. plural in the text is dictated solely by the rules of the English grammar, which tells us that, if we speak about a single Korean American (as sources often do), we should use singular, and if we speak about a whole lot of them, we should use plural. And that is what Wikipedia guidelines WP:PLURAL and WP:NOUN say as well: since this article is about "a whole lot of" (actually, all of) "Korean Americans", we should use plural. No such user (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast firstly please consider referencing people by their User names. The whole heart of WP:UCRN is that we use a commonly recognisable name. This is noted as being relevan in naming, People such as: Bono (not: Paul Hewson); Places such as: The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage); Science and nature topics such as: Fuchsia (not: Lady's ear drops) and other topics such as: Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai). In the case of the current topic we have two issues: an ethnicity and another ethnicity or nationality / residency. There may be various ways that the subject can be presented that would all have a high level of recognisability for readers. It is also of importance that the title functions well in relation to its topic and, with whatever result may be, that a fully functional content is the result. GregKaye 15:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, if we take a step back and consider the content of the article Americans we find the following TOC format of information:

1 Overview

2 Racial and ethnic groups

2.1 White and European Americans

2.2 Hispanic and Latino Americans

2.3 Black and African Americans

2.4 Asian Americans

2.5 American Indians and Alaska Natives

2.6 Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders

2.7 Two or more races

3 National personification

4 Language

5 Religion

6 Culture

7 American diaspora

The content is very far from being a "List of Americans" or as anything that might be accessed through Lists of Americans. Instead it covers a range of topics that might be covered in an article either sensibly entitled Korean Americans or Koreans in the United States.

Above, I presented the part of the part of the TOC from the article British people that pertained to culture and I asked:

“ Is there anything that needs to go into a Korean Americans / Koreans in the United States article that could not be added in a similar fashion? ”

This question, which can also be related to (for example) the Americans TOC, still awaits answer. GregKaye 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As the sections are about multiple ethnicities that fall within the different sub-subjects (race categories (as defined by the Office of Budget Management)) it makes sense to use plural for section headings, as for the Asian American section, it is about all the demographics of the different separate Asian American ethnicities, whether Chinese American, Filipino American, Indian American, etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast Please let mi ask the question another time: "Is there anything that would need to go into a Korean Americans / Koreans in the United States article that could not be added in a similar way in which information is added into the Americans, British people or other similarly ethnically themed article? Please answer. I do not understand your objection and would like to find a way forward. All that the present title has done is coordinate adjectives. The title, in current form, has no subject. GregKaye 22:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Americans" are not an ethnic group. (it's a citizenship status & includes many different ethnic communities). likewise the "British people" (includes English, Scots, Jamaicans, Indians etc etc). Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated by Rjensen it is common practice within Asian American studies, to refer to the ethnic group within the Asian American race category in the singular.

Koreans in the United States would change the scope of the article; not all Koreans in the United States are Americans, neither are all individuals of Korean descent in the United States Korean Americans. As I stated Americans of Korean descent is the category title, but does not conform to WP:COMMONNAME.

Why question content, when this is a discussion about article title.

Unless we're arguing that the article title does not fall within Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) or that the guideline no longer applies, this is a moot discussion IMHO. And if that is what is being argued, than this is the wrong way to go about it IMHO; as a RfC regarding policy/guidelines should be held at the appropriate noticeboard or talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast I really should give up pinging because the pings never come back. If you want the article to be about the "Korean American ethnic group" then name the article Korean American ethnic group. Otherwise "Korean Americans" does the same. If Koreans are an ethnic group then, very certainly, so are Korean Americans. Please show actual examples of places in which the title "Korean American" is elsewhere used.

It has been asked multiple times, Korean American what? The title "Korean American" is nonsensical and incomplete.

The article Koreans has a section Koreans#Culture which, in this case, offers links to related articles. This provides yet another option by which the broad topic area can be handled. You have raised no valid objection for an English encyclopedia making use of good English. GregKaye 08:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Such ignore.
Rjensen, and I, provided cases where the subject is referred to the singular, rather than the plural. I know some sources use the plural, however, not all, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) allows for singular reference, and both are used in scholarly sources, 26k singular, 13.1k plural. I don't know what more to say. We are not going to move each other from our views, and WP:WEIGHT is with my view IMHO (I am sure that GregKaye has a different view).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast please explain your "[[Doge (meme)|Wow]]!" comment. Your references to scholarly sources with no substance. Scholar also finds:

"About 2,760,000 results" for "Korean" singular and a far less dramatically

"About 142,000 results" for "Koreans" plural.

None-the-less Koreans is the title that we use as this is this is the title description of the ethnic group.

GregKaye 09:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye keeps misreading the rules: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) explicitly gives "African American" as a model, which is the model used here and in (nearly) all the ethnic group articles. It does NOT give the plural "African Americans" as a model. As for "nonsense" -- "Korean American" makes sense to all the editors who have actually worked on this article. As for "making use of good English" there is no evidence that this is not good English except the personal POV of GregKaye. Since he says he has not read much about ethnic groups, his "ear" for usage in the reliable sources is untested. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen Perhaps ironically you keep misreading that Wikipedia has "rules" and not WP:GUIDELINEs and that, when improvements can be made, there are WP:No fixed rules. In relation to the WP:AT WP:CRITERIA guideline on the topic of "Consistency" please note article titles such as Korean Americans in New York City and Koreans in Washington, D.C. a consistent use of terminology presentations would use Korean Americans. These, consistent with all the articles starting with title wording such as "African Americans ..." also provide strong argument for the pluralisation of all such titles.

Please also note the content at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals):

Articles on people groups. Canadians, French people and Koreans in Japan are all acceptable titles. Titles like Spaniard should be recast in the plural, i.e., Spanish people. If a plural title without the word "people" is available, it is almost invariably chosen; e.g., Bangladeshis is consistently preferred to Bangladeshi people. GregKaye 10:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"peoples" and "ethnic groups" are different concepts. The Korean people (article = "Koran" for language and "koreans" for people) are a historic people (like "Germans", "Russians" etc) with a history going back many centuries or thousands of years. Ethnic groups are recently constructed communities when immigrants have recently moved to a DIFFERENT country, in this case Koreans in USA in 20th century. it's all in the literature--read some of the items in the Further Reading to learn about it. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE read the opening text of the article Koreans. It begins, "The Korean people (Korean: 한민족（韓民族） or 조선민족（朝鮮民族）, see names of Korea) are an ethnic group originating in the Korean peninsula and Manchuria.

Please note comments by No such user as of 14:30, 2 April 2015 who, in this context, rightly recognised Korean Americans as being an ethnic sub group.

Please also note my comments of 08:08, 8 April 2015 when I stated: "If Koreans are an ethnic group then, very certainly, so are Korean Americans." In any case, whether we were to talk of Koreans as an ethic group or just of Koreans as a group with a shared cultural background, it would make no difference. In the first case "Korean Americans" could be considered as an ethnic sub group. In the second case "Korean Americans" could be considered a sub group of people that shared a common cultural background/heritage.

This thread has become a monster and I do not think that you are listening. GregKaye 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It now has over 9,650 words and I pity the admin that will have to sort through the content. GregKaye 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources make a distinction between a people living in their historic homeland (Koreans in Korea) and immigrants who recently moved to a totally different culture and established themselves as a distinctive separate ethnic group -- they deliberately and explicitly created the Korean American community as a halfway point between the old historic traditions of Korea, and life in modern America. Rjensen (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources also make a great many references to Korean Americans and nothing you have said in any way disagrees with that. GregKaye 18:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And nothing said above changes what we have said, that Korean American is the subject, the ethnic group. It is the common name and it complies with MOS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a request for closure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the WP:PLURAL guideline on groups of people, and the way the article text is always written on articles on these articles anyway. Clearly "Korean American culture", "Korean American cuisine", etc. can be discussed perfectly well under the new title. Other articles on American ethnic groups may not do this, but that just means they should be fixed too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 1 May 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.

Religion

JOHN MYUNG: HOW CAN YOU FORGET HIS PICTURE IN FRONT KOREAN AMERICAN PIC. ALL TIME BEST BASS PLAYER. BAND HE CREATED DREAM THEATER HE IS RELGION OF ALL BASS PLAYER.

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaPowerCom (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC) "More than 80% of Koreans living in America are Protestant or Roman Catholic. The other 30% are Buddhist and 2% non-religious or spiritualist-structuralist." Does anyone notice that 80%+ and 30% and 2% do not add up to 100%? In fact, it adds up to over 112%... If those are real stats, then i think "The other" should be removed because "The other" implies that the 30% are not part of the 80%. 112% > 100% 68.36.163.67 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean Americans and Latinos in Koreatown

There has been articles you can find on google about the high interaction between Korean Americans and Latinos (esp. Mexican Americans and Salvadorans) in Koreatown. Both Koreans and Central American groups arrived in similar fashion, both for political and economic reasons, and their experiences as immigrants in a new country, although the US played a huge role in South Korea and Central America. There is a high number of intermarriages between Koreans and Central Americans, and Korean spouses learn Spanish while Central Americans learn Korean, and both groups know English, thus Koreatown is a trilingual community. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:D962:2182:F3EB:EEB3 (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Korean 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023213104/http://www.mofat.go.kr/consul/overseascitizen/compatriotcondition/index6.jsp?TabMenu=TabMenu6 to http://www.mofat.go.kr/consul/overseascitizen/compatriotcondition/index6.jsp?TabMenu=TabMenu6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219012241/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn31.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn31.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725044857/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014140239/http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/167951555_Korean_company_to_buy_Fort_Lee_bank_buying_local_lender.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/167951555_Korean_company_to_buy_Fort_Lee_bank_buying_local_lender.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628183344/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI16Aa01.html to http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI16Aa01.html

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) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Korean 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222201039/http://www.northjersey.com/news/mahwah-library-hosts-korean-tea-ceremony-to-celebrate-new-year-1.1275756 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/mahwah-library-hosts-korean-tea-ceremony-to-celebrate-new-year-1.1275756
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oaks.korean.net/n_stastics/StatsProg.jsp?bID=13003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130826231444/http://aascpress.metapress.com/content/320208pj23401021/ to http://aascpress.metapress.com/content/320208pj23401021/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120003001/http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/113719969_Kim_named_Central_Municipal_Court_judge.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/113719969_Kim_named_Central_Municipal_Court_judge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120003001/http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/113719969_Kim_named_Central_Municipal_Court_judge.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/113719969_Kim_named_Central_Municipal_Court_judge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714013436/http://www.northjersey.com/community/at_the_library/news/Palisades_Park_monument_to_comfort_women_stirs_support_anger.html to http://www.northjersey.com/community/at_the_library/news/Palisades_Park_monument_to_comfort_women_stirs_support_anger.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526003555/http://www.asianweek.com/2003_01_10/feature_timeline.html to http://asianweek.com/2003_01_10/feature_timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224234028/http://www.ieas.or.kr/vol14_4/14_4_3.pdf to http://www.ieas.or.kr/vol14_4/14_4_3.pdf

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) 04:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Korean 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140928131008/http://www.northjersey.com/news/korean-medical-program-draws-1-500-to-holy-name-medical-center-in-teaneck-1.1097631 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/korean-medical-program-draws-1-500-to-holy-name-medical-center-in-teaneck-1.1097631
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003045229/http://www.northjersey.com/news/225683871_North_Jersey_Korean_health_fair_data_help_track_risks.html?page=all to http://www.northjersey.com/news/225683871_North_Jersey_Korean_health_fair_data_help_track_risks.html?page=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003045808/http://www.northjersey.com/news/health/events/Annual_Korean_Health_Fair_draws_crowds_at_Holy_Name_Medical_Center_in_Teaneck.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/health/events/Annual_Korean_Health_Fair_draws_crowds_at_Holy_Name_Medical_Center_in_Teaneck.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003045818/http://www.northjersey.com/news/180665391_Holy_Name_will_screen_2_000_for_Hepatitis_B.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/180665391_Holy_Name_will_screen_2_000_for_Hepatitis_B.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030904155748/http://www.asianweek.com/2003_01_10/feature_timeline.html to http://www.asianweek.com/2003_01_10/feature_timeline.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20060518164303/http://www.koreamjournal.com/Magazine/index.php to http://www.koreamjournal.com/Magazine/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513065310/http://koreanamericanliterature.com/ to http://www.koreanamericanliterature.com/

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) 09:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious affiliations not correctly ordered per cohort population

Those who follow the "religion of nothingness" should be mentioned last, and not according to magnitude.
Because their personal beliefs aren't religion or religious.
If they are, please correct the definition of religion in the article religion.
If you necessarily want to keep the irreligious at order per magnitude, select a hypernymous group title: metaphysical worldview.

While we atheists are irreligious, the lack of a religion is often counted under the religion category. Just as with other demographics, the lack of children, lack of employment, etc. are all listed under the headers of those statuses. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

History

What does "abandoned" mean in this context? "They would venture into abandoned cities and start up businesses which happened to be predominantly African American in demographics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughboy1234 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction in the religion section

Under religion, it says "Between 60% and 65% identify as Christian", however in the chart right next to it, it lists 40% Evangelical Protestant, 21% Mainline Protestant, and 10% Catholic, which as far as my math goes would bring the total to around 71% (give or take a little bit depending on how those numbers were rounded). I don't know which one is right, the chart or the text, but can we just find out what the actual number is and go with that. Having a contradiction between the text and the chart could cause a lot of confusion. 2600:6C40:1900:166E:C5AB:9CF3:232:CCA1 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)JMM

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heejaens. Peer reviewers: Heejaens.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Courtneyleey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baeksusan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenMK6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)