Template talk:Asian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans.

Mongolians and Kalmyks[edit]

Even though Kalmyk is of Mongolian orgin, they should not be counted as East Asia since Kalmykia is a republic of Russian Federation. Kalmyk only refers to these Mongolian from Kalmykia. 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Mongolians in Mongolia are not counted as Asian American in the U.S, either. Padishah5000 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? We don't have to make the same mistakes as the US statistics office (or whoever defines such categorizations there). --Latebird 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we do have to make the same "mistakes" as the U.S Government, since this template is used to define "Asian Americans", also known as American of Asian ancestry. As an encyclopedia, we are not allowed to make up our own definitions, but rather must rely on actual sources. Please find a source from the U.S Government that clearly states Mongolian Americans to be Asian American, or else I will have to keep removing the the inclusion of Mongolians in the template. Padishah5000 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, we are allowed, no: required, to use common sense:
  1. Last time I checked, Mongolia was located in Asia.
True, most defintions of Asia include ALL of Asia. We are not talking about geography though, but race. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Ergo: Mongolians are Asians (by definition)
Not in the Unites States, any more than an Iranian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Russian, Iraq or Israeli is. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Ergo: Mongolian Americans are Asian Americans (by definition)
According to which U.S government agency? Show me a factual link/citation, and I will consider it grounds for consensus. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to deviate from this very simple standard logic, then it is YOU who needs to provide sources to prove your point of view. Are you saying that the US census bureau lists the Mongolian Americans in some other category? If so, which one?
Here is my source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68180.htm - Notice no mention of "Mongols", or Central Asians in general? I am sorry, but that is the reality of "race" here in America, and it is not the job of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to try and change that definition. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Or did they simply neglect to categorize them at all? Maybe because their numbers are so insignificantly small compared to others? In that case, which seems the most likely, I don't see what your actual argument is. --Latebird 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In the United States, racial classifications do not follow the logic of what many may see as a "phenotypically" racial appearance. Being from the continent of Asia does not qualify a person or entire ethnic group as Asian. For instance, people from the Near East, Central Asia and former Soviet Union, as well as Asiatic Russia, are not counted as racially Asian, regardless of how they might physically look to an observer. Mongolia, as well as Kalmyks, fall under the categorization of "white", since they come from the former Soviet Union/Central Asia and or Russia. I hope this is making sense to you. If you dislike how the U.S Government categorizes people, I suggest writing a letter to your local Congressperson and Senator. Padishah5000 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source proving my point:

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,...

Or are you seriously claiming that Mongolia is NOT in the "Far East"? Note that the examples listed are by no means exhaustive. The countries not explicitly mentioned are summarized under "Other Asian". Your other explanations are Original Research without sources. Even then, Mongolia was never part of the Soviet Union, and geographically it belongs to East Asia. --Latebird 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am stating the fact that Mongolia is in Central Asia, and the link I provided proves my claim from an official source. Mongolia is not mentioned at all as a source point for Asian-American people. Padishah5000 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I fail to see how your link proves anything, since it seems to lack any reference to Mongolia (as to Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan, some other areas it would probably include as Far East/Southeast Asia/Indian subcontinent). This link, however, seems to suggest that Asian ancestry can indeed be defined as to include Mongolia - moreover, whenever Mongolian or Mongolia is placed in some group at all, it's in a group with China, Japan, Korea etc. (app. B, p.G-11, G-99). Moreover, page B-38 seems to inply that as far as the US census is concerned, Asian americans are all those who say they are. Yaan 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, in America, you are not who you say you are, in the legal context. Just being from the Asian continent is not enough to be considered Asian. For example, if you "feel" that you are Asian, and try an claim a status as such, and you do not fit the definition, your claim will be thrown out. You must be from the listed regions, or have some ancestry that directly is, to fit the categorical definition. Putting down Mongolia will not be counted as a requirement for Asian-American status. Mongolia is considered part of Central Asia by the U.S Government, and as such is considered part of the Middle East and or former Soviet republics(even though Mongolia was independent of the Soviet Union). Kalmyks are considered Russian, and just like Central Asians, are counted as white. That is the reality of the situation. I do not like it anymore than you do, but to make this encylopedia accurate, we must do so in relation to how Asian-Americans are defined as American, by both the government, and all Asian-American organizations(which pushed for the current definition). Padishah5000 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts, Padishah. But then, the point is moot anyway. Can you please show me a Wikipedia policy mandating that we must use a definition that was only created by an US governement agency for their own internal purposes? Wikipedia generally follows common use definitions. And exactly such a definition is given (and explained in detail) in the article Asian American. Maybe you should read (and try to understand) that one first before continuing this discussion? --Latebird 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Mongolians are note counted as "Asian-American" in American "common use". As the definition should have made you aware of, being from Asia in the United States does not make you an Asian-American. This is especially true of Kalmyk-Americans, who are defined as Russian, and therefore white. This is not open to debate. The American concept of being "Asian" has nothing to do with physical appearance. After all, a person from Pakistan and a person from Japan are both counted as being "Asian" in American use, while a person from Afghanistan and a person from Kazakhstan are both counted as "white". For someone to try ans base a person's "Asianess" on their appearance, would be interpreted as racist in the American context. Wikipedia is not here to invent new definitions, or to redefine how people see the world. Like I said, if you do not like this definition(I myself do not), my advice would be for you to get in contact with your local representatives, to try and redress the issue. Padishah5000 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you kept asking for "evidence" but didn't have the decency to even read the source provided originally by Dark Tea in this edit comment and again by Yaan above. You're making it quite hard to assume good faith with this kind of behaviour. For the third time: This official document from the USCB explicitly lists Mongolia in the "Other Asia" section. Thus, even if we were to accept your fixation on the USCB definition (which I doubt we will), your position on Mongolia would still be wrong according to your own criteria. --Latebird 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that I am not acting in "good faith", then I suggest you file a complaint. As far as my position is concerned, I demand a single shred of evidence that Mongolian-Americans not originating in China are counted as Asian-American by any U.S Government agency.
As you can see here the CIA World Fact book places Mongolia in the location of North Asia:
As such, I have never seen any indication that Mongolian Americans as being counted as Asian-Americans. If I am wrong, then I ask for a shred of evidence that this is the case. As far as the Kalmyks are concerned, they are defined the same as any other person from Russia, as white. Padishah5000 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been given evidence directly from the USCB, which was the only evidence that you were willing to accept at first. Ignoring that now won't help your credibility. --Latebird 10:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The US Census Bureau document User:Latebird found clearly shows on page 687 that "Mongolian" is included in the "Other Asian" list of write-ins who are counted as racially Asian. Your CIA Factbook citation User:Padishah only carried weight when the argument was over the vague definition of original origin from the Far East. That US Census vague source has been supplanted by the in depth US Census source, making the question of Mongolian racial classification with the US Census no longer debatable.----DarkTea 11:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That works for me, as far as the Mongol-Americans are concerned. That is huge link, I might add. Padishah5000 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your request at 3O[edit]

I see that you have more than two editors involved in this debate. With that, its relative complexity and the need for sensitivity toward national identification, I recommend RFC as a more suitable avenue. 3O is only for two-editor disputes. I'd be willing to offer my assessment for what it's worth, but I think you need more of a consensual assessment, which RFC can provide. Adrian M. H. 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It was two editors at the time when I posted the request. But as far as I am concerned, the more the merrier! --Latebird 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationalities, ethnicities, both?[edit]

Should the template include only nationalities (i.e., groups linked to specific, sovereign nation-states), or also include ethnic groups such as Mien and Hmong, which do not have specific countries, and which may be associated with more than one country? --Ishu 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If they consider themselves as a separate identity, I think they should be included since a country-based definition might be biased against stateless ethnic groups. --23prootie 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nepali Americans[edit]

They very much exist, Dark T. Why didn't you just Google it? Anyway, here's what I found: "Since the 1960s, thousands of Nepalis from the Himalayan kingdom have made central Ohio their home. The Nepali community has grown dramatically within the last decade, further adding to the multicultural nature of Columbus. Whether as civil servants, educators, small business owners, doctors or musicians, Nepali-Americans continue to actively participate in civic activities in Columbus."[1] I removed the Newah link b/c they're just one of Nepal's ethnic groups, the 6th largest, actually. SamEV 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

23prootie: Let's have a discussion about this before deleting, please. --Ishu 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a good solution is creating a Nepali-American article, with sources of course. --23prootie 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Greyanomaly, the Ancestry heading in the sources only indicates that Afghanistan is in the South Asian region, as the ancestry codes are grouped geographically; it has nothing to do with race. If you scroll down in the first document you cited (the info in the second document you cited is contained in the first) you'll see a heading of "Race", wherein you'll find the entry "Afghanistani" under "White". SamEV (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The official race coding from the Census Bureau. You can see that Afghans are classified as white. SamEV (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed an edit which added Afghan Americans and Pashtun Americans to this template as neither are considered by the Census Bureau as Asian American. Also see this reliable source (NPR) for the 2020 census stating they will still use old 2010 race classifications.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Why doesn't this template include people who are Middle East, Southwest Asian, Central Asian descents? (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The US gov't doesn't consider them Asian, that's why. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image change[edit]

I have changed the image away from the Flag of the United States to a map created by user MissMJ for use by the WikiProject. Discussion regarding the creation of the map can be found here. It maybe placed in the archive, which can be found here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Asian American template[edit]

I have made a reversion of a good faith series of major changes to the template that included Russian Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, Arab Americans, & Jewish Americans. These ethnicities do not fall under the scope of who are Asian Americans, per the Asian American article which uses the definition used by the United States Census Bureau (which can be read here and further reiterated on page 3 of this document). Before additional changes occur per WP:BRD, a discussion and consensus should be reached before the scope of this template is changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I made the initial change, because I was confused as to why the Middle East (Jewish, Arab, Iranian, Turkish, etc) was excluded since they are geographically and historically Asian. This time, I added an addendum clarifying that these groups aren't considered as such by the US Census Bureau, if that is ok.--User:evildoer876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Readdition, is not keeping with WP:BRD. Subjects are not included in the scope of the template or the subject, a not should be included as to state why they are not included, but they should not be listed as, and fall outside of the scope. It would be the same as including Bill Clinton in the list of notable African Americans, and adding a note that he isn't actually African American, but is there because he was called (by some) as the first African American President.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Does Bill Clinton have any African ancestry? Otherwise, I'm not seeing your point. The Middle East is in Asia, and I never really understood the arbitrary distinction being made between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, you realize that's not exactly the same? If you look in an map, the Scotch-Irish and English of what descends Clinton are in Europe not Africa. By the same if you look at a map, the Arab World and the Middle East are in Asia itself. Therefore, not only some people are considering that they are Asians, is that they are geographically Asians. Asians are the people that living in the Asia continent, are not a race. However, if in the United States Census Bureau alone are considered Asian to the Mongoloid race of the Far East (it mean, east of Asia), in that case, the groups that I included, did can be considered Asians (Kalmyk and Yakut). On the other hand, just in case, I did not include them with Asian Americans in the template but in the "related ethnic groups" seccion of it. At any rate, obviously a group of Russians descended from Chinese (Kalmyk American) is related to Asians, with the Chineses. Yes, this group is of Asian origin.--Isinbill (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Bill Clinton is not African American, however he was called the first African American president by Toni Morrison (1, 2).
The definition used for Asian Americans, in the article which directly relates to this template is that used by the US Census for the racial definition of Asian, see the discussions in the archives of the Asian American article here and here. Although geographically peoples from the Middle East are from the continent of Asia, the Census Bureau does not recognize them as racially Asian. As for the Kalmyk and Yakut people, they are Russian. I have not found a reliable source where, since we are using the Census Bureau definition for Asian Americans, that state that these Russians are considered racially Asian by the Census Bureau. I have searched, and not found one yet. If anyone can provide the reliable source that indicates that the Census Bureau does, please provide it. Otherwise, per WP:BURDEN, it would be original research to include these to ethnicities in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans are considerated racially Asians because them descent of people of Mongoloid race of Asia, then Kalmyk are racially Asians because them descent of Chineses and them are of this same race still. In addition, it is not that Russians are racially Asians as a whole, only the people of eastern Russia, the natives -not the descendants of people from other places-, that are racially indistinguishable from the people of Southeast Asia (as the Yakuts).--Isinbill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It might be the case that Kalmyk and Yakuts are considered Chinese American, as all Chinese diaspora who immigrate to the United States (minus Taiwanese Americans) are considered Chinese American. However, without a reliable source there is no verification of my possibility, or the statement made by Isinbill, and therefore to place the two in the template would be original research, which is against policy/guidelines.
Hispanic/Latino Asians are still racially Asian, although ethically Latino/Hispanic. The census recognizes them as both Hispanic/Latino as well as racially Asian; See their article for the RS for that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
According to this source The Buddhist Channel: "Peace and Harmony in Kalmykia" the Kalmyks are of Chinese descent. Although I did not know any U.S. sources that deemed to them as Chinese-Americans because, simply, still I have not found sources on which this community in the United States is named. This source deemed them of Chinese descent, but not Chinese Americans, because the source is not talking about immigration to the United States. I do not know if the source could serve ...--Isinbill (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, found a source:
Michael Aaron Rockland (14 March 2011). "Meet the Kalmyks". Living. New Jersey Monthly Magazine. Retrieved 11 October 2012. It was not until 1951 that Kalmyks began to come to New Jersey. Earlier, they had been rejected under the Asian Exclusion Acts (repealed in 1943) and immigration quotas based on race (repealed in 1965). They found an ally in the United States Attorney General who argued that since Kalmykia is in European Russia, the Kalmyks are Europeans not Asians, going so far as to insist that they are “Caucasians”—which is silly, but so is racism.
It appears that their definition changed. Perhaps more reliable sources maybe in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Found this reference for the Yakuts, but not specifically about Yakut American, they are culturally Turkic, but are racially mixed. So I would still like to find RSs that state how they are defined here in the United States.
Found an additional reference for Kalmyks:
Sanderson, Sagan T. (2004). "Kalmyks". In Lurie, Maxine (ed.). Encyclopedia of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press. p. 434. ISBN 9780813533254. Retrieved 11 October 2012. Originally refused entry into the United States because of Asian Exclusion laws, the Kalmyks were reclassified as Caucasians. More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
That makes two RSs that say that they WERE historically defined as Asians, at least up until the early 1950s. I will add a note to the template as was done for Afghan Americans, thus providing a link to the ethnicity. Hope this works as a good compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Then, the Kalmyks are, officially, Caucasians. While the Yakut are a mixed the indigenous (with physical characteristics "Asian") and Turkish. By the way, could be Yakuts in the template "American Middle East"?. I believe the Yakut should be put in some template related with this group for that it is more easy localized (they are not Russian Europeans because they are of the east of Russia)--Isinbill (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to ask that type of question at WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Turkey, or WikiProject Ethnic groups. However, my experience is Ethnic groups, is not very active.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare the case for Bill Clinton being classified as African American to the original peoples of the Middle East (ethnic Jews, Iranians, Arabs, Turks, and Israelis) being classified as Asian. The former is based on a remark by a single individual, whereas the latter is based on geography and historically falling under the scope of the Orient. But if we're using the US Census Bureau definition, then it's apt. (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Either way, Middle Easterners are not categorized as Asian Americans by the Census Bureau. A note attesting to this has been placed on the template. I hope this is sufficient to address any concerns.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yakut American, apparently, can not be included in any American group: either the Asians, or the Middle East (as their "republic", by what I read in the WikiProject Turkey, is separated into thousands of miles of what is considered the Middle East), and, of course, the Europeans, since they are geographically Asian. And I think this is among the few ethnic groups can not be included in any group, so I can not include it in any template. The group closest to them was that of Asian Americans, but the United States Census Bureau rejects them as Asian. That way the group is more difficult to find as it only appears in the category of U.S. ethnic groups.--Isinbill (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I read the discussion you started at WT:TURKEY, and it appears that the Sakha Republic is already included on the template Template:Turkic-speaking regions. As for this template, it comes down to reliable sources. Chances are given the designation of the Kalmyks, they are most likely considered Caucasian, as Turks are; however without reliable sources placing the ethnicity anywhere (in an ethnicity) is subject to WP:BURDEN and would be considered insertion of original research. Keep trying to find an RS, good luck.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at this publication from the Census Bureau, it appears that Yakuts are classified as Caucasian. Hope this helps; but I would recommend finding additional references.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out the concept of biological races has been long thrown out, and the usage of the words "Caucasian" or "Mongoloid" really has no bearing. People of South Asian descent like myself are cranially typed as "Caucasian" for what it is worth, but we are still recognized as Asian by the US government and most intelligent people/organizations. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Other "Asias"[edit]

I see the Middle East has been discussed here but what about Central Asia, Northern Asia and what is now called Southwest Asia? It seems like this definition only includes East Asia. It's an enormous continent and there is a valid argument that it should contain other Asian ethnicities. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. Lysimachi (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

missing nationalities[edit]

Any idea why Afghan Americans, Armenian Americans, Azerbaijani Americans, Iranian Americans, Iraqi Americans, Israeli Americans, Kazakh Americans, Palestinian Americans, Russian Americans and Turkish Americans are missing from the template? I won't be adding them because I've no idea which geographical section each should be in. And there's also List of Lebanese Americans, I couldn't find anything but the list about them. (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some have been added now. Lysimachi (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Those persons are not considered Asian American, as they do not fall within the scope of what nationalities are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as being part of the Asian race.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a lot so please bear with it[edit]

@Iryna Harpy, LouisAragon

Initial visibility: currently defaults to autocollapse

To set this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

  • |state=collapsed: {{Asian Americans|state=collapsed}} to show the template collapsed, i.e., hidden apart from its title bar
  • |state=expanded: {{Asian Americans|state=expanded}} to show the template expanded, i.e., fully visible
  • |state=autocollapse: {{Asian Americans|state=autocollapse}}
    • shows the template collapsed to the title bar if there is a {{navbar}}, a {{sidebar}}, or some other table on the page with the collapsible attribute
    • shows the template in its expanded state if there are no other collapsible items on the page

If the |state= parameter in the template on this page is not set, the template's initial visibility is taken from the |default= parameter in the Collapsible option template. For the template on this page, that currently evaluates to autocollapse. Category:Asian American templates

The current template has many issues. Apart from the disputed inclusion of Central Asias and Caucasusians there are also micro-errors and micro-ommissions. Several Chinese ethnicities and the Tamil people are excluded in the sections for Malaysian American and Singaporean Americans despite the existence of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians and Singaporean Chinese and Singaporean Indians and the Tamil language being official in Singapore and also Mandarin Chinese. Punjabi Mexican Americans should be group together with Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans and while the several miltiracial ethnicities should also be together. Taiwanese Americans should also include other Chinese ethnicities. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also Sindhi Americans are also Indian Americans not just Pakistani Americans and Pashtun Americans are also Afghan Americans. The only stuff that were being discussed were about Armenian Americans and Iranian Americans, who are presumed to be European Americans but the other stuff don't seem to be disputed. The person disputing this did not comment on Malysians just gave a vague "bogus" comment so it is unknown what their opinion is. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Shhhhwwww!!. Thanks for the hard work you've been putting into templates. Diasporic groups by country are inherently problematic due to WP:NOR. Because we follow classifications according to the nation-state in question, there are huge disparities in nomenclature from one to the next dependent on the government interpretations. I'll take a look at this and discuss it further with you when I have a little more time on my hands than I do today. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not-Asian Americans but from Asia[edit]

@Thenabster126: due to the United States Census Bureau definition of Asian Americans, which is already noted using Template:smallsup, there are many nationalities and ethnicities that come from the continent of Asia but who are not categorized or defined as Asian American. Please stop introducing factual errors to this template, as you have on February 19th, February 22nd, and on 29 January.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)