It seems like you're having issues getting to the pdf from the census bureau. I suspect this is a problem with your computer's configuration, or the network connection you are hooked up to. Could you describe your problem in more detail, and perhaps I can help you troubleshoot? --JereKrischel 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like perhaps we can find more accurate wording then - your issue is not that ths source is broken, but that the commentary regarding the source is not completely accurate. Let's add in your thoughts, and try to keep the source, and the indication that in 1990, eurasian families represented the greatest proportion, even though this might not be true for the population at large (which may have grown up and no longer be in families)...would that work? --JereKrischel 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, let's work on characterizing the census quote properly, and add any counter references you have. Just deleting the reference is not really appropriate. Hopefully you've seen the "note" I added to the citation, indicating it represents "families" not total multiracial population. Let's expand on that until you approve, okay? --JereKrischel 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the "thesis":
- Here's the quote:
Census data indicate that the number of children in interracial families grew from less than one half million in 1970 to about two million in 1990. In 1990, for interracial families with one White partner, the other parent was Black for about 20 percent of all children, the other parent was Asian for 45 percent, and the other parent was American Indian and Alaska Native for about 34 percent.
- This means that in 1990, out of a total of 100%, 45 percent of these families were white/asian, 34% were white/native, and 20% were white black. The statement, "white and Asian mixes made up the largest proportion" is true. If the statement was "white and Asian mixes made up the majority", that would be false.
- Hopefully this clarifies things - the statement being made is regarding proportion, not absolute majority. --JereKrischel 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you add the CSU census quotes, rather than changing the literal, word for word quote from the census source cited? We can't just attribute words (even if more accurate) to people that didn't explicitly say them. --JereKrischel 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please CITE the document you mentioned on my talk, and add something to the article.
- Also, even excluding pacific islanders (approx. 5% of the Asian/Pacific Islander pop in 1990) http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-4.pdf, the proportion of white/asian mix would only drop 2.5%, still being the largest proportion. --JereKrischel 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits to Blasian. Quite a few folk have been putting completely unsubstatiated racial stereotypes (re: asian men/black women, genetic "averaging", etc) in these mixed-race articles, and your vigilance is appreciated. Mahalo (thank you) for your work! --JereKrischel 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) ]]
Although admittedly the line "people with mixed Asian and European origins have become synonymous with exotic glamour in some cultures." is probably not needed in the article dealing with Eurasians, I find it odd that you did not remove the statement "Regardless, both are two beautiful cultures, when blended create a being of exquisite and exotic beauty." in the Blasian article. Edward Sandstig 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for all your good work. Can you make sure that any ethnic categories you add are verifiable, especially in the case of living people? A category should at least be mentioned in the main article, and should be referenced to a verifiable source, or it is liable to be challenged or (more likely) just removed. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, ethnic categories which are added without a reference will be removed. It would be great if you could stop doing this as it is work to go through and remove them. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BlasianSensation.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)