This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Americans of Filipino descent are hugely underrepresented in this article. They are the largest subgroup after Chinese, according to the article. Is there some expert who could fill in more things about Filipino Americans in the article? Chiss Boy 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's fair to say that FilAms are "hugely underrepresented," except in the Asian Americans today section that needs to be significantly reduced and thematized. However, the contributions of an expert or "other knowledgable person" would be welcome. -- Ishu 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

actually come people would say Filipinos are the largest sub group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.203.183 ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Visit the Chinese American Article and the Filipino American Article... As of the 2007 estimate, there are 4 million filams as oppose to 3.6 M of Chinese descent. -- User:Vivafilipinas 10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The following articles have been designated as Featured content, and so might give us some ideas as to how we can structure this article.

• British African-Caribbean community: Describes a somewhat heterogeneous population, but the UK is much smaller than the US, and the African-Caribbean community has a long history of colonialism that binds them together linguistically and culturally.
• Iranian peoples: A dispersed population, but the article discusses commonalities across the various diasporas.
• Pashtun people: Similar to Iranian peoples.
• Tamil people: The main difference is that there are Tamil people in other countries, but the largest number live in the home region. This bears some similarities to Asian Americans, but it's different because Asian Americans focuses on the US perspective (i.e., the "host" country) instead of the "home" country.

I present this only for ideas and discussion, since we haven't gotten very far just working with what we have. -- Ishu 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current structure is that bad. It's a pretty logical structure. The article does need a lot of work though, but I think it's mainly copy-editing, referencing, and trimming down some sections that may be unnecessarily too large. Perhaps the thing to do is to coordinate on one particular section at a time. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I used the word structure too broadly. I meant the structure of the content within sections. I basically agree that the current section structure is OK, and you'll see that these featured articles have a similar section structure, but don't have sections like Asian Americans Today and don't dive into as much demographic detail. I post these examples as guides for the content discussions that we've had so that there's some external references instead of just what a small group of editors decides (or disagrees over). Does this make sense? -- Ishu 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, British African-Caribbean community does have sections that lists notable people, and I think the Asian American article mirrors that because they're both about an ethnic minority population. I think the only subsection in that section that really needs re-work is the arts and entertainment one. That subsection is basically a frivolous listing of names. But I don't think the entire section is absolutely necessary for the article. Are you considering deleting the section? I think at the very least, there's some useful demographic information in the subsections on business and politics that should probably be included, because they have real and practical effects on American society. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to regret having mentioned this at all. But let me make lemonade, here. I think it's fine to keep Asian Americans Today, although I think it should extend the description of Asian Americans beyond quantitative demographic statistics. Perhaps we can achieve some consensus for that? (I'd appreciate some input from others besides Hong, especially since Asian Americans Today is the "most popular" section for drive-by editors. A strong consensus of focus would help us to avoid refactoring of this section.) I hope that the effort that I've put into editing these sections (vs. deleting them) is evidence of intent-to-keep. My intention in posting the featured articles was to give us some ideas about how to write this article that aren't necessarily my ideas. Of course, Hong, it's mostly you and me talking on this page anyway.... -- Ishu 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahhah well you've been doing the lion's share of the editing here anyway. Well, comparing with those articles, one thing in this article that's clearly lacking in substance is content about culture and community. But that may be intrinsically difficult to include because most sources about the Asian American population has been on demographics, history, and discrimination. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Terminology section. It now begins with a description of the most common official definition. See for yourself. I know that there is significant room for improvement, so please, help out. -- Ishu 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This section should have its sub-heads removed, and possibly be merged with other sections. The long-questionable "Asian Pride" section has not been altered in some time, and the article Asian Pride rests on a single tripod web site. FYI, folks, it's ripe for deletion, though I have no intention of nominating it. The Vincent Chin reference probably belongs in the history section, while the model minority discussion might go with the demographics, or possibly in history. Once again, input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. -- Ishu 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not be against listing Asian Pride for deletion, because to be honest, good luck finding credible and verifiable sources that define the term and discuss its usage. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of today's (predicatable) addition of a reference to the Virginia Tech massacre, does anyone else agree that the Model Minority section should be reduced to a sentence or two, possibly in the demographics section? A paragraph on Cho Seung-hui is inappropriate for this article, and undesirable given the controversy. Input, please, anyone? -- Ishu 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that new addition. Basically unless a source(s) is provided that actually discuss the VTech massacre in the context of the model minority myth, it's original research. I'm perfectly opened to adding something back in later though, because I'm almost certain that in the weeks to come, an article or two would be written on that very subject. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no support for the assertion that stereotyping can harm Asian students' performance. This appears to be just speculation, especially in view of Asians' high performance generally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, not all Asian ethnic groups perform well academically. Some groups are very much at-risk groups. Secondly, there's no telling that, for those groups that do perform well, they might not do even better without the stereotyping. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there is no support in the article for any assertion in the Asian American Cultural Issues section--as we have discussed previously. But logically, you are correct. -- Ishu 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the extended discussion of Filipino Americans in the Arts & Entertainment section, since three paragraphs is an excessive amount of space to give. We can discuss a few sentences regarding FilAm contributions, provided that there is some relevance to their being Filipino American specifically, rather than Asian American generally. Per previous discussions, we're trying to move away from ethnic identifiers for individuals on this page, except when relevant, and we're trying to avoid having lists of people. -- Ishu 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove Filipino-American contributions? They are even more succesful rather to those who mentioned in the earlier arts & entertainment article. There are LOTS of successful filipino americans so it will be biased if they will not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vj rom ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a discussion regarding which people we'd like to include in the main article; I don't believe that all of the removed people are more notable than those already in the Arts and entertainment section. It's my opinion that we can include selected individuals as Asian Americans and that we should avoid turning this section into a list of people. Obviously, the article will be better off if we have something resembling a consensus. We held a prior discussion on this issue, which has been the guiding logic for about six months now, derived from the policy Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Ishu 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I know that much of Asian Americans today is still lists of people, but as per the discussion, we are trying to avoid having lists. -- Ishu 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would take a look at the article, you'll see that the information about Filipino Americans is rather "skimpy." While South Asians are depicted as being very tech-savvy, actors/singers/etc. seem to be Filipino Americans' strong point. As stated in an earlier post, Filipino Americans are greatly underrepresented in this article, especially when compared with the relatively large amount of information given about smaller subgroups such as Indian and Japanese Americans. This could be a way of including more about them. Chiss Boy 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I note above, I don't think there's "great underrepresentation" of FilAms in the article except for the Asian Americans today section, and people are encouraged to add FilAms or others in Asian Americans in arts and entertainment. Also, please do add elements of FilAm history, etc., especially if they tie into some themes that link to other Asian American subgroups. As we have discussed several times on this page (also please see the archives), we would like to have fewer people in Asian Americans today, not more people. -- Ishu 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's also time to create a separate article for Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, or another appropriate title. The Asian Americans today section consistently is dominated by "arts and entertainment" entries, and the topic clearly has its interested editors. I'd be interested to know what people think about this idea, and what would be a suitable title. -- Ishu 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possible article would be on Media portrayals of Asian people or something similar. Comments? -- Ishu 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Asian Americans in arts and entertainment is a great idea. It'll let us divert all the frivolous insertions of names in the current arts and entertainment section in this article. As for Media portrayals of Asian people, that's basically going to be much of the content found in these articles. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Stereotypes of... articles is that they discuss only "limited" (i.e., stereotyped) portrayals. It would be valuable to discuss characters and actors who have more rounded portrayals, such as Jin-Soo Kwon, and even the evolution of Flower Drum Song. An article focusing on stereotypes limits such discussions. -- Ishu 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is true. The Stereotypes of... articles, in reality, should not be limited to the media either. But I think we can probably have one article that does both - covers media portrayals and serves as a listing of prominent Asian Americans in the media. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, I hope you agree that there's little to be done if it's a "consensus" between you and me. Second, I think there should be separate articles for portrayals and for Asian Americans "in" the arts. The first article could supersede the stereotypes article, but I don't have the time to devote to either article now, so I'm not sure what we gain by creating a stub for it. However, the "in" arts and entertainment article has its interested editors, and should be viable. The net effect, I think, is that we agree there should be a separate article Asian Americans in arts and entertainment that will be what will be. If so, anyone is now one or two clicks away from creating the article. -- Ishu 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ishu - I'll defer to your best judgement here, because you've made a lot more contributions to Asian American related articles than I have. I've only been offering my opinions for the most part. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the recognition, but I think you know that I'm just trying to start some discussion here among some other people besides you and me. If nothing else, so that when someone like Dark Tea comes along it's clear that we tried to involve other people. I created Asian Americans in arts and entertainment and placed a reference in the section. And your opinions are valued whether or not you're the only one offering any. The portrayals article will probably emerge from content in the "in" arts article anyway. -- Ishu 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get some movement on the history section, so let's see who can help out. We can identify key topics, then create an outline structure to guide development of the section so it doesn't become a hodgepodge of facts and stuff. Important topics

• Labor (Hawaii, Railroad, agriculture generally; military service)
• Internal migration (during/after railroad construction), dispersion policy for Viet Nam era refugees,
• Family reunification generally, including war brides, maybe Amerasians, and adoption generally
• Development of settlements and communities in different periods
• Different immigration patterns

This is just off the top of my head. Suggestions are welcome. -- Ishu 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to continue this topic, I think we should structure the History section around immigration patterns, at least until the mid-20th century. I'd ask for consensus, but nobody posts, so this is my statement of intent-to-edit, unless I hear otherwise. The topics I've sketched out above are probably more appropriate for a separate history article. -- Ishu 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So it'd look something like this:

• Before 1882 (to include Hawaii plantation labor, the gold rush, RR)
• 1882 to 1907 (transition of labor from Chinese; mention HI annexation; settlements of Japanese; Filipino migration after US annexation of Philippines)
• 1907 to 1924 (effective cessation of immigration and community development by Japanese and Filipinos)
• 1924 to 1945 (discuss community development and ethnic discrimination, including passing references to internment; discuss FilAm vets and other AsAm WWII contributions)
• 1945 to 1965 (include war brides from Japan, Korea)
• 1965 to 1990 (prior to H-1b, but also discuss Vietnam, Amerasians, refugees)
• 1990 to present

Now would be an ideal time for others to offer suggestions as to how this might be structured, and other topics to include. Also, this section should probably be limited to about 3-5 paragraphs, with further discussion in an expanded Asian American history. Some of these time frames can be combined, but I'm not sure which should be collapsed right now. As always, suggestions are welcome. -- Ishu 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a subpage Asian American/scratch for development on this section. -- Ishu 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the subpage to the Talk space at Talk:Asian American/scratch.-- Ishu 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that two-thirds of Asians are Democratic. Source: http://www.asian-nation.org/politics.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Duly noted, but if that is to be mentioned, I think it's important to note that this is a relatively recent development. I've read that the majority of Asian American voters voted for Reagon on both his terms, and voted for Bush Sr. in his election against Clinton. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to mention this fact, then it should be attributed to a more authoritative source, such as a research document. The link above presents a statement without any references. -- Ishu 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And we've trended Democratic. And if that wasn't good enough, look at this: http://www.aaldef.org/images/04-20-05_exit_poll_report.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

World book: Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent. They or their ancestors came from Asian countries, particularly Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. More than 10 million people of Asian descent live in the United States. Today, Asians are the country's second fastest-growing minority group, after Hispanic Americans.

Encarta: Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia.

Britannica includes history including non-citizens in Asian Americans: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-78001/United-States United States Asian-Americans Asian-Americans as a group have confounded earlier expectations that they would form an indigestible mass in American society. The Chinese, earliest to arrive (in large numbers from the mid-19th century, principally as labourers, notably on the transcontinental railroad), and the Japanese were long victims of racial discrimination. In 1924 the law barred further entries; those already in the United States had been ineligible for citizenship since the previous year.

No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens.

Some people feel that only citizens and legal residents can be called Americans, but this is not the most common usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bachcell ( talk • contribs) 2007-04-19 20:50:36.

1. Sign your comments by putting this at the end: ~~~~
2. The source you provided is Encarta, yet you inserted that it was "most Asian American organizations and Asian Studies departments". I've edited the sentence to take out that unverified claim.
3. The ethnic diversity of the Asian American community is discussed in sections below, no need to put it in the intro.

Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also deleted the "Asians as criminals" section, as none of the three sources provided actually discuss stereotyping itself. You and I may be able to read the first two sources and see that it's laced with stereotypes, but that's original research. We need a source that actually discuss stereotypes if we want a section on Asians being stereotyped as criminals. And the third source, the one about Cho Seung-hui, it's arguable there's even any stereotyping going on. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this at great depth elsewhere. Dictionary definitions of Asian-American.

Oxford Dictionary of American English: "Asian American": an American who is of Asian (chiefly Far Eastern) descent.

"American": a native or citizen of the United States.

Mirriam-Webster: "Asian-American": an American of Asian descent

"American": "a citizen of the United States"

American Heritage Dictionary: "Asian American": A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent. See Usage Note at Amerasian.

Usage Note at Amerasian: Asian American is typically used of a person whose parents are both ethnic Asians but who by birth or naturalization is an American citizen.

The American Heritage Book of English Usage in their section on "Names and Labels: Social, Racial, and Ethnic Terms" says "An American of Asian descent is an Asian American", and that "hyphenated Americans" refers to "Naturalized immigrants to the United States and their descendants".

It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front of it. If one is not an "American" (i.e. a citizen), one cannot claim to be an "Asian American", "African American", etc.

In addition, I have rounded up a United States Census study published in Feb. 2007, that makes a distinction between Asians and Asian Americans. See the table on page 4. [1] Note that in general, the Census Bureau refrains from using the term "Asian American" when it does a census (using only the term "Asian") because the census includes all peoples regardless of citizenship, and those who are not of American citizenship cannot claim to be "Asian American". So as not to exclude these people, "Asian" is used instead.

Continuing, to comment on the "points" made by Bachcell above:

1) World Book says "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent" begs the question, "what is an American"? Dictionaries and common sense dictate that an American is "someone with American citizenship."

2) Encarta says "Asian Americans, residents of the United States who trace their ancestry to Asia." This definition is clearly flawed and too broad-based because it includes people who are clearly NOT Americans, such as illegal aliens (who certainly cannot claim to be Americans since they are deported to their HOME COUNTRY if they are detected).

3) The Brittanica makes absolutely no claims as to what an Asian American is or isn't.

4) "No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens." No proof whatsoever has been shown of this claim, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Canadian history courses, for example, do not limit themselves purely to the history of "CANADIAN PEOPLES". They discuss the British and French (ancestors of today's Canadian peoples) in great length. Asian peoples studied in history courses might very well be considered to be the non-American ancestors of TODAY's Asian-American population. That's certainly the way I see it. Bueller 007 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Any ____-American label is by default ambiguous as identity is largely self-derived. Since these labels serve little legal purpose the US govt has largely removed itself from defining exactly what is and who is Asian-American. Constraining Asian-Americans to legal American citizens would be doing a great disservice to the wiki article on AAs. From just anecdotal evidence, most if not all 1st generation Asian immigrants (i.e. kids who immigrated as children) would consider themselves Asian-American, because while ethnically Asian they are culturally American and identify as such. Also Bueller your logical argument simply doesn't follow and perhaps its just me, but it seems nonsensical. Of course American history courses discuss people of other origins who contributed America. Asian-American does not mean "Asian people who have association with America" it refers to Asian people who are culturally American and identify themselves as such. Thus, while early Chinese railroad workers would not consider themselves Asian-American, it does not follow that their ancestors in America should also be excluded from the AA label. Remember this is a label, and as such, ultimately derives from the individual. While we can define certain universal characteristics, something so black and white as citizenship would simply not stand up to any litmus test. Plenty of Asian kids who grew up in America and are in the process of getting their citizenship would consider themselves AAs despite not being citizens. Also we really don't need a source to back up the claim that "No Asian American history course or studies department restricts Asian Americans only to citizens" this is COMMON knowledge as common as "the sky is blue" to anyone who has taken an AA Studies course in college. The burden of proof is really on you to provide a source that limits AAs to citizens only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.162.87 ( talk) 21:12, 23 April 2007

The American government may not have an official definition of "Asian American", but they certainly have one for "American". And that means "citizen of the U.S.A.". It doesn't matter what word you place in front of it, be it Asian, African, etc., you're merely using an adjective to modify a clearly defined noun. Whether or not one is "culturally American" is irrelevant. What people consider themselves is also irrelevant in this context. Your argument about Chinese railroad workers "not considering themselves American" in no way refutes anything that I've said, as I defined American by objective standards, not "what one considers himself".I would also dispute the silly claim that "a label originates from an individual". As for the "lack of sources", I would suggest that the three dictionary definitions provided (as well as a couple of others posted on Ishu's talk page) should be more than enough. That, in addition to a more-than-appropriate analogy with Canadian history courses should demonstrate to at least those with at least an inkling of common sense that in its strictest and most accurate usage, the term "Asian American" does not apply to those without citizenship. While it may be offensive to some to consider themselves "not American" merely because one does not have citizenship, when it remains the case that you have to go to a foreign embassy to get a passport, are subject to different travel/visa restrictions than Americans, can't vote (suffrage, of course, being the cornerstone upon which the whole nation is built), and that even with a green card one can be *deported* for committing a crime, one must at least concede that the "American" title does not apply to non-citizens in full. Bueller 007 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous: Please sign your comments, and be WP:CIVIL: Most people (including most Asian Americans) have not taken Asian American studies courses. (For that matter, most people have not even been to college.)

At least two dictionaries specify that citizenship is required. While Bueller's sources need to be linked better, I am satisfied that at least they exist. If there's dispute on a point or definition, then all the more reason why sources are required--from everyone.

Bueller (and everyone): Usage is important, regardless of what the dictionaries say. The term Asian American is used sometimes to include non-citizens because Asian American is used to describe individual people as well as "classes of things" such as businesses, cultural organizations, social constructs such as histories, etc. In this sense, Anon has a point. Depending upon how Asian American is used, it may include or exclude non-citizens. The article currently focuses on people, not "things." That leans toward the citizenship requirement. We can have a discussion as to whether and how we wish to alter the focus of the article. But please, let's be civil about it. -- Ishu 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm more than happy with the current definition that says that in the strictest sense "Asian American" refers only to citizens but in less official parlance may apply to non-citizens as well. I think that's a more-than-fair compromise, as I'm sure that almost any official from IMS or the Census Bureau would be more than willing to restrict usage of the word "American" to citizens only, and there are probably a number of universities professors who would like to see it expanded as well. As written at present, it makes everyone happy. Bueller 007 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also try to find sources on how Yuji Ichioka meant for the term to be used, since he was the one that coined it. Specifically, did he use the term to refer to non-citizen residents as well? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To the editors just arriving at this article - please leave Cho Seung-hui out of the article unless there are actually sources that discuss the VTech massacre in the context of stereotyping and the model minority myth. Otherwise you are drawing your own conclusions and that would be WP:Original research. Yes, I know what racial implications there are in what he did, but we as WP editors are only supposed to reflect the sources that we find, not insert our own conclusions and judgement of events around the world. I am almost certain that necessary sources will be forthcoming in the weeks to come, but until then, please leave him out of the article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fellow is an Asian American, and he's made history as the most notorious murderer in a long time. Does someone have to appear in an Asian American history textbook to be included in the article?? I've put him under the crime section, it's certainly not original research to state that Asians have been noted for committing crimes, or that Cho is notable. -- Bachcell 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Bachcell has created a section on crime, and appended to it statements about one individual. Truth, verifiability, and accuracy are not the only reasons for a statement to be included in the article. Wikipedia is not a list of things or people. Cho Seung-hui may be added to the List of notable Asian Americans. I would support the complete de-list-ification of the entire article ASAP if it will encourage the development of themes versus a proliferation of lists. The current Crime section is little more than a mish-mash (i.e., disjointed list) of statements. The presence of references does not automatically make the content appropriate for the article. Right now, the only conclusion I can draw is "Just like other groups, Asian Americans have criminal elements." That is not an encyclopedic theme. It would help if Bachcell (or anyone else) could sketch out some themes for the crime section here and seek a consensus direction for the section. That would be preferable to an edit war. -- Ishu 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't deny the facts expressed, the current section "Asian Americans as a model minority" falls into the same status of "Just like other groups, Asian Americans have some outstanding citizens." I've added an unreferenced tag to the whole section, and citation-needed tags to a number of claims. For example:

• "high work ethic, respect for elders and high valuation of family". We need evidence that these qualities are actually higher for Asian peoples than for other minorities. Practical experience may suggest this, but I think this claim is quite difficult to actually PROVE, and we may have to revert to a "It is often claimed that..."
• Higher household income in unsourced.
• Usage of the phrase "This concept" in the following paragraph is unclear word usage at best, and basically the gist of that whole paragraph sounds like POV BS posturing, because basically what it's saying is "Asians are so great in all the ways we've listed above, but this doesn't really accurately describe Asians, because they're also great in all the ways listed below."
• All three sentences in the last paragraph require citation. Bueller 007 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. That section needed some inline referencing anyway. Some of the statements in that section might need to be re-organised. And I know from personal experience that the model minority myth is something that's been well-written about. The section just needs someone to do the work to include the inline references. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the crime section itself - I don't mind it if there are enough sources for it be expanded upon substantially, but as it stands right now, it was basically created so that Bachcell can include mention of Cho Seung-hui. I would support taking it out unless we can actually expand that article substantially. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The crime secition is WP:NOR and should be removed. This article should have statistics about Asian Americans and crime or other similiar sociological information. On the other hand, a list of Asian Americans who have committed a crime is not informative about Asian Americans. This applies to the other lists of Asian Americans who have done something noteworthy. I have previously argued that these lists did not belong in this article and followed this nagging with scholarly citations, but these citations were removed. They were removed on the grounds that I am a bad editor although they were reliable sources.---- ^Dark Tea 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that Asian-Americans are Americans of Asian ancestory. Further information on Wikipedia states that Cho was a South Korean national who had permanent resident status in the United States. Thus, Cho Seuing Hui should be placed in the Asian or Korean section, not Asian-American because Cho Seung Hui was not an Asian-American.

 
PINOYfilam PINOYfilam Pride]] 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I open this issue to seek consensus about the use of maps on this page. It is my opinion that the maps used should show all of Asia so that it's clear which parts of Asia are being discussed as included or excluded from various definitions of Asian American. The discussion itself is what's most important, and any picture (including a map) is present to assist the discussion, and not as a substitute for the article copy. User:Dark Tea recently changed the map, arguing "removed United Nations map whose significance in this article is questionable. The implication that Asian American is defined by the UN is against WP:NOR" Absent a consensus one way or another, I will not change the map at this time. Input is strongly encouraged. -- Ishu 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference either way. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You two continually believe there is no other policy than WP:CON. You cannot break WP:NOR with WP:CON. There is no citation that the UN defines an Asian American.---- ^Dark Tea 06:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And please take note there is also WP:Assume good faith. Where did I say there is no other policy than WP:CON? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DT: Please relax. Right now, there are three people with three opinions, so no consensus. Unfortunately, there is no productive discussion, either. If we're going to continue this discussion, can we state the pros and cons for different maps? As I stated above, I will not change any map without a consensus. Another reason to include a "full" Asia map is because some folks have argued that this article is "redefining" Asia. Using the "full" map will acknowledge the generally-accepted definitions of geographic Asia while the article copy will specify which groups are included in Asian American. It is not original research to refer to other generally-accepted definitions of Asia. -- Ishu 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, WP:NOR would consist of synthesis of lexical definitions which are claimed to take priority over the expertise of sociologists. The combination of the lexical definition of Asia and of an Asian American gives the faulty definition that Middle Eastern Americans are also Asian Americans. The people who write the dictionary have no particular expertise in the study of the "Asian American", so they are not WP:RS. On the contrary, sociologists whose work is cited from books have a relevant expertise in the subject and have their publication peer-reviewed, making them have two hallmarks of WP:RS. WP:NPOV favors that the POV from a WP:RS take priority over a POV from a non-RS.---- ^Dark Tea 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you'd like for the map to "show" only the parts of Asia that "represent" Asian American as defined by the article. Remember, we're talking only about the map, not the definition as written in the article. Is that a fair summary of what you'd prefer? If not, please clarify. -- Ishu 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless another editor posts comments here, this will be my last entry in this thread, since no consensus will be created. -- Ishu 15:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindentree asked: "is there a source on number of EA doctors in the [Chicago] area?" in regards to the comments about East Asian doctors on ER. In fairness, there aren't many obvious East Asian names on the current faculty list of the actual hospital. Also, while there are more East Asians in a recent picture of the real resident training group, it's clear that there are more actual residents than are in the TV show, too. None of which prevents the casting group from finding Asian American actors who are comparable to many of the young actors who've starred on ER, say at someplace like East West Players. -- Ishu 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the return of these ER inclusions, maybe it is also time for us to create an article along the lines of Media representations of Asian Americans or similar title. Shadowsakura321: Your input on this discussion page is particularly encouraged. -- Ishu 11:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the motivation is to try to divert these editors indiscriminantly adding names to the article, how about splitting out the notable people in entertainment from List of notable Asian Americans and onto a new list? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's a good idea to clarify the purpose of the proposed article. The "problem" articulated is that there aren't very many Asians on shows like ER. There are characters who might fairly be included as Asian Americans. Non-American actors play Americans all the time, and these are clearly portrayals regardless of who are the actors. It can be argued that these non-American actors partially address the issue of representations of Asian Americans. The discussion of ER centers around the characters, while the thrust of the Arts and entertainment section concerns actors. They're different topics. Does this clarify at all? (And whether characters like Neela Rasgotra would be considered to be American is a separate discussion altogether.) -- Ishu 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a technicality, but I think what you're talking about may be better fitted into an article called United States media representation of Asian people. I have no objections at all for creating one specifically on Asian Americans, and I personally would not take out mention of characters that may not be considered "American", if you feel strongly that they ought to be mentioned. But I'm almost certain that there are editors that would eventually swoop in on an article like that to edit out characters that are technically not American. So just be prepared for that possibility. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No technicalities. Article titles aside, you're spot on. The origin of the representation is much more relevant than the character's biographical origin. I'm not likely to spend much time editing a representation article, but it seems like others would like to. -- Ishu 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For future reference only, I am suggesting the article title of Representations of Asian people in United States media. This title is long but clear as to what is and is not included. I came up with this title, and I don't want to have to remember it if there's a need/demand to create a similar article. -- Ishu 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dark Tea has added dozens of original research tags, in some cases to entire sections. Can't we just tag the section rather than ugli-fy the article in this way?

Many of these tagged statements are linked to other articles, which to me is a first-line indication of good faith and verifiability. If nothing else, it's a case to allow more vs. less time for the tags to be removed.

I undid the OR tags on the Notable Asian Americans because DT is only challenging the notability of the subjects. This article isn't the place to challenge notability. -- Ishu 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In most (if not all) cases, I believe the OR tags are less appropriate than citation needed tags. Myasuda 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed them from the sections where the tag was basically abused and stuck OR tags at the top of the sections instead. There's really no need to stick an OR tag in every other sentence if you can just stick an OR tag at the top of the section. And I have no idea what Dark Tea finds so difficult about initiating a discussion before making so many changes to this article or placing 50 OR tags in it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When there are policy questions, it's more productive to open a discussion instead of slapping tags on statements.

Rather than tag items indiscriminately, we should have a discussion about the disputed items. For example, Dark Tea tagged the following sentence as original research:

The most significant change occurred when the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 eliminated highly restrictive "national origins" quotas.

It would help if DT would discuss which part of this statement might be OR. The verifiability policy states: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged..."

While one might challenge whether the Hart-Celler Act eliminated national origins quotas, this fact is so easily verifiable that I wouldn't call it "likely to be challenged," and it is addressed in its own article. (True, WP itself is not an acceptable source, but it is an indicator of "likelihood to be challenged.") In any event, there is no apparent basis for tagging the statement as original research, especially as part of a wholesale 50-tag edit.

Another tagged statement is:

As a result of these population changes, the formal and common understandings of what defines Asian American have expanded to include progressively more of the people with ancestry from various parts of Asia.

Later in the article, most if not all of this is demonstrated and referenced. I suppose this sentence could be viewed as a synthesis, but shouldn't that be discussed?

In fact, to encourage discussion on this page, I will be removing nearly all of the remaining OR tags in the article. I'm not claiming that the tagged statements aren't original research, simply that it's reasonable to expect someone to describe why they are. -- Ishu 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the codes which say exactly who is counted as an Asian in the US Census. Originally, I thought that it was clear. The US Census clearly did not intend "West Asians" like Iranians, Iraqis, Turkmens, Arabs to be included in the Asian racial category; however, User:Ishu disputed this interpretation. He contended that the three regional definition given on the census was not exhaustive and that those groups were intended to be counted as Asians. Well, I have found the codes for each nationality/ethnic group. here They show that those people are not included as Asians. Now, I can add the map I made back into the article of the three regions and not have to have the 6 regional map placed near it for the sake of WP:NPOV.---- ^Dark Tea 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give credit where credit is due. Thank you for discussing your change. -- Ishu 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of Ethnicity-American actors categories have been nominated for deletion, for example, Category:Asian American actors, Category:Japanese American actors, etc etc. If you have an opinion on the matter, please comment here - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_25#Category:American_actors_by_ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

is there any reason why there are two NASA astronauts used as the example of asian americas? isnt this a little mis representative / biased? couldn't we use a pop culture example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 ( talk) 2007-06-05 21:40:08

There was only one astronaut until an anonymous user added a fifth picture. Personally, I don't see why we should have more than four pictures either way. We can discuss a pop culture example; perhaps Daniel Dae Kim might fit the bill? -- Ishu 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we try to understand this logic:

• Dark Tea " (replaced Lisa Ling with Margaret Cho who looks more archetypically East Asian. Lisa Ling may have ancient white blood from invaders into China.)" even though the second is apparently pure speculation, the first is not visible from Lisa Ling's picture, Ling has a family name of Chinese origin and also has a Chinese name 凌志慧, and is married to another Asian American.
• Dark Tea added Maya Keyes and identified her as "full Asian" though her father is not Asian-American, her mother Jocelyn Marcel Keyes is from Asia but has a wholly European name indicating some French heritage, Maya Keyes' name does not indicate Asian heritage, and she has a number of notable American social and political affiliations as well as one volunteer project in Asia, but apparently none involve Asian-American communities.

-- JWB 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to recognize Asian Americans with recent African ancestry.---- ^Dark Tea © 06:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing too, but both disowning people for alleged ancient white ancestry, and interpreting Ling's appearance as indicating such, seem bizarre. -- JWB 09:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm including the following link to the Census Bureau's racial statistics branch: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html. This one web page links to many different Census Bureau documents and studies on race. -- Ishu 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some diversity in the occupations shown. There are plenty of asian american entertainers, actors, nobel laureates / field medaliss, atheletes, business people etc to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.124.215 ( talk) 02:56, 13 June 2007

There are too many pictures in the infobox. I will not change them, but we can discuss here to obtain some consensus. Should we diversify by profession (or "field of notability"), ethnicity, gender, etc.? If we must have more pictures, I suggest a maximum of six, in a 3x2 array. -- Ishu 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Iranians have a closer cultural relationship to India than it does to the Middle East. So why don't they include Iranians under the definition of Asian American? Or they should just include India and all of Southern Asia as "white", even though most Americans don't consider Indians, Persians, and Arabs as white. Or maybe Western Asians (and Iran) should be included under Asian American.

Persians, like Northern Indians and Kurds, are Indo-Europeans like the Germans, English, Italian or Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, this definition might change soon........who can really be described as Asian American. In common usage Asian refers to East Asian and Southeast Asian Americans.......not to South Asian and Southwest Asian. White usually refers to European American. Perhaps the US census should make South Asians and Southwest Asians into their own ethnic group. Zachorious 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that Iran is culturally closer to India than the Middle East? Why would Indians willing choose to re-group themselves with Middle Easterners, since the US Census adheres to the policy of self-definition? I think your POV that Iranian Americans are Asian Americans needs WP:RS before it can be added to the article.---- ^Dark Tea 11:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Tea here. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is what definition are we using for our wiki article? You don't need citations unless you are trying to push someone else's point of view on who is Asian American. If we were to include all people indigenous to Asia then yes: Persia, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Turkey, and even Russia can be included as Asian Americans. Or we can use the US census definition, which constantly changes regarding groups like South Asians. And Iran is obviously closer to India than it is to the Middle East for the same reason why Pakistan is closer to India than it is to the Middle East. For one.....Iranians are linguistically closer to India sharing the same Indo-Iranian roots. Before the British arrived much of India was connected into Persian territory because of the Mughal Empire.

Why can't the US Census get this right? If this is based on self-classification or the common man's understanding then why don't they get changed accordingly. A lot of the time Americans view "Asian American" as someone who is usually from East Asia or Southeast Asia. Indian Americans are often mistaken for Afghan Americans, Iranian Americans, and Arab Americans. I have never seen or heard of a case where a South Asian was mistaken for an East Asian or Southeast Asian. Zachorious 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition of an Asian American is the one that does not involve OR and is cited from WP:RS. Asia is not technically a geographic continent, since its historical border with Europe did not involve standard criteria of being a separate landmass. The definition of Asia had to be defined arbitrarily, hence can be re-defined arbitrarily as the US Census wills it. Indians have stayed Asian for a while and there is no reason why they would want to leave. In the past, there were many legal benefits to being white, but now there are many legal drawbacks such as quotas and affirmative action. For groups who are perceived as minorities, it doesn't advantage them to be defined as white and be discriminated against without recourse. The Mughal Empire does not exist anymore and India is not an Islamic majority nation like Iran. Culture means more than just language and not all languages spoken in India are Indo-European. The world will most likely be speaking English due to the dominance of the United States, but will not necessarily be close culturally to the United States.---- ^Dark Tea 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Self definition means Indian Americans get to define their own race. Self definition does not mean other people who live in the United States get to do it for them. In all possibility, it is possible to classify South Asian American as being from another region of Asia.---- ^Dark Tea 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If Iran was excluded from being South Asian because it's Muslim, why is Pakistan classified as a South Asian race when they are majority Muslim? Islam isn't what divides South Asia into from the "rest of the world".......a common South Asian cultural area is what unites South Asia. Indo-Iranians (including South Indians who had a lot of interaction with North Indians) have been interacting for a long time. And its not just linguistics; there are many things unique in Indo-Iranian culture that all other regions don't have. That is why the UN includes Iran and Afghanistan...(which has undisputed Hindu origins until Muslims came);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_Asia_%28ed%29.PNG

So if I provide citations on other Asian American definitions of other organizations it will be changed to include or exclude certain groups? I doubt it.......the US census definition seems to be dominate on wiki. This isn't necessarily bad, but more should be mentioned on alternative explanations. And you never know when the US census will change their definition.....as they have so many times in history (especially to Indian Americans).

I'm really not sure what you mean by Indian Americans using the quota system to get into college......Asian Americans are usually considered overrepresented than whites........in fact in many ways Asians have the most disadvantages.

I agree with you that Europe is not a separate continent from Asia (this of course comes from geologists, something far more objective). However if that is the case why use "Asian" to begin with? Or if we are going to use it, why not include all Asian "races" (including Western Asians). Or why can't each region maintain their own region (Europe, East Asia, South Asia, West Asia, ect.).

Or yes, perhaps the Indian subcontinent should be its own region, separate from Asian, Middle Eastern, and White. Though any Southern Asian region should also include Persia and Afghanistan. Zachorious 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani Americans don't have to be categorized as Asian American. The Arab American Institute was pushing for them to be re-categorized into the Middle Eastern category. The quota system doesn't apply to Asian Americans, but the hate crime system does. The US censal definition of the "Asian race" does include all of the Asian race by definition. Each region is its own region. I'm sure it is possible to conceive South Asia as its own region while either including or excluding Iran.---- ^Dark Tea 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea......it does make more sense to further subdivide the categories but I'm not sure whether they will do it. If so they should just have a separate Western Asian and Southern Asian categories but all under the same Asian American category. It doesn't make sense to not to include Western and Central Asians under the Asian category. Zachorious 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I request Filipino Americans be removed from the Asian American section. It's pathetic that more and more self-hating Filipinos would idenitfy themselves as Pacific Islanders and look down their Asian bretheren because they believe that because they're mixed and diverse, they're superior and the idea is why associate with race that's looked down upon and stereotyped along with any other ethnic group. I'm sure Filipinos would be pleased to move this article to the Pacific Islander American section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinZenielPerez1990 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Census categorizes Filipinos as Asians rather than Pacific Islanders. If the majority of Filipino Americans think that they are really Pacific Isladers, then the US Census may change their race.---- ^Dark Tea © 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Filipinos are HISPANIC. Hispanic or Latino is not a Race but an Ethnicity and it includes Europeans, South Americans and Asians....Filipinos, mostly Catholics with Spanish names and three centuries of Spanish colony, are Asian HISPANIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.222 ( talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

In Britain Asian is used to refer to people who come from (or whose parents came from) the Indian subcontinent, while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/asian?view=uk Iseebias 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like the photos of South Asians are going to have to be removed. Iseebias 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what this other dictionary says. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary you cite makes no distinction between the terms application in North America vs. it's application in Britain. This article is specifically about Asian-Americans so the fact that South Asians are considered Asian in Britain has no relevance here. Iseebias 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe R. Feagin, President of the American Sociological Association, states that in the Chapter on "Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese and Asian-Indian Americans" that, "Korean Americans are one of the five major Asian American groups-- each with a strong identity and a rich history and culture--- that are analyzed in this chapter. The others are Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese and Asian-Indian Americans." in his book Racial and Ethnic Relations. USA:Pearson, 2003. ISBN  0-13-099533-9. His expert credentials make him a reliable source that trumps the dictionary definition.---- ^Dark Tea © 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid one man's opinion does not trump the Oxford English Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary the preeminent authority on proper use of English terms. It is both mainstream and scholarly. Iseebias 01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid one source without expertise on this particular subject doesn't trump an expert on the subject.---- ^Dark Tea © 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is written by numerous experts, not just one, and they are foremost authority on the proper use terms in the English language. They analyse word useage in thousands of mainstream and academic contexts to arrive at their conclusions, and should be given greater weight than one obscure academic's opinion. Iseebias 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to find evidence that the definition of an "Asian American" in the OED was written by experts in American sociology like Feagin which would be pertinent to its credibility. Additionally, the Census Bureau's definition of the Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country".---- ^Dark Tea © 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sociologists are experts on sociology, not race, not language, and your expert is certainly not an expert on Asian Americans. And while the cenus sometimes conforms to common useage, this isn't always the case. For example, the census defines Arabs and North Africans as white but the public limits the term white to those of European ancestry. Similarly, the public limits the term Asian to East Asians, but the census expands the term to include South Asian (though strangely not West Asians, even though West Asians and South Asians are the same stock and both are totally distinct from East Asians), and they only did so recently because of political lobbying by South Asians for non-white minority status. At some point in the future the census definition may become mainstream, but until it becomes common enough to be recognized by the rigorous analysis of language useage done by the Oxford dictionary, it remains an obscure academic definition with little relevance to how Asians are defined and percieved by American society as a whole. Iseebias 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your argument can be simplified to I don't agree with the US Census. You simply disagree, but that is not an argument that has merit on Wikipedia. The US Census states that its definition of the Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country". The US Census considers sociologists to be experts at defining race which can be seen in the Office of Management and Budget statement, "the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences."---- ^Dark Tea © 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No my argument boils down to the fact that some arbitrary government classification (which was created as a result of political lobbying) has little relevance to how the term Asian American is used and understood in the real world, as evidence by the oxford dictionary which examines words in their actual real life context. This article is called Asian American not Asian American as defined by the U.S. census. There can be a section of the article devoted to census definitions, but the census definition shouldn't dominate the entire article and be given undue weight, especially when it has so little real world relevance Iseebias 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of the Asian race may have been influenced by lobbying, but the underlying foundations take into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry". You keep on saying that this article should use the way the term is used in the US but it is clear that the Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country".---- ^Dark Tea © 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The census may generally reflect recognized definitions, but they fail to always do so as evidenced by the fact that contrary to common useage, they regard non-Europeans as white, and as further evidenced by the fact that they are vulnerable to political lobbying. The census is obviously a reliable source on how the government defines Asian Americans but they are not a reliable source on common everyday useage, where the Oxford Dictionary is the preeminent source. The purpose of this article is to give the reader a broad understanding of the Asian American construct, not to take one politically influenced official source and shove that narrow POV down everyone's throat. Not only does the U.S. census contradict everyday useage, but their classification also makes no sense anthropologically, genetically, or culturally, where South Asians have far more in common with peoples of the middle east then with East Asians, who they look nothing like and have no genetic or cultural relation to. Iseebias 03:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Census' definition of the Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country" not just the US government. In response to your claims that South Asians are genetically, anthropologically, and culturally closer to Middle Easterners than East Asians note that the Office of Management and Budget's definition of the Asian race takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry, but it is not "scientific or anthropological" in its foundations and it is not "primarily biological or genetic in reference".---- ^Dark Tea © 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. You already posted the quote about what the U.S. census generally reflects, and as I already explained and proved, what they generally do is not what they always do, and not what they've done in this case. I hope you're not going to insist that the U.S. census dominate this article, because wikipedia policy clearly states that all significant view points get proportional representation, and that no one POV be given undue weight Iseebias 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not disproved the US Census' statement that the Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country". The general populace of the US surely gets the most weight over the small percentage who disagree.---- ^Dark Tea © 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to disprove a statement about how the U.S. census generally defines race? We're not concerned how they generally define race, we're concerned about how they specifically defined Asian Americans. In general their definitions may reflect common useage, but in this specific case they obviously do not as proven by the Oxford Dictionary, which is a reliable source on how the general populace uses words, which as you said, carries more weight than a small percentage of lobbyists, census takers, and academics who disagree. Iseebias 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you misread the quote. The quote doesn't say that the racial definitions reflect the way the US Census generally defines race. The definition of the Asian race says its definition "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country".---- ^Dark Tea © 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they generally reflect socially recognized definitions, but that doesn't prove they claim to always do so. A general statement about the relevance of their definitions does nothing to counter a specific objection to this particular definition. Iseebias 04:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country" for all but a few people who disagree. The few people who disagree are the reason the word "general" was added on. If there were nobody disagreeing, then rather than "generally reflect" it would say "reflect".---- ^Dark Tea © 04:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are combining two separate references to produce original research. Their statement about generally reflecting socially recognized definitions was in response to a general question about how they generally define race or ethnicity, not in response to a specific question about how they define Asian Americans. Generally in this context means that in general their definitions reflect social consensus, but in this case, we know from the oxford dictionary, they do not Iseebias 04:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis is using independent sources to arrive at new conclusions. The Office of Management and Budget is a single source. The US Census derives its definitions without change from the OMB, allowing it to reflect the single source of the OMB. Its races "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country" of which the Asian race is included. Nothing has been synthesized from independent sources.---- ^Dark Tea © 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Tea you are making an error in logic. Just because the Asian race is included in a categrory of definitions that generally reflect social consensus, does not mean that the Asian race definition itself reflects social consensus. To make an analogy, Danny Devito is a man and men are generally taller than most women, but that doesn't mean Danny Devito is taller than most women. Confusing the general with the specific is a very common error. Iseebias 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Asian race "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country" for all but some people. The word "generally", in this case, does not mean that most of the racial definitions reflect the common opinion of the American populace but at least one does not. The word "generally" is a qualifier the US Census uses to make their statement about representation true. Obviously, you disagree with the US Census, so they couldn't say that it reflects the American populace when there exists a handful of people who disagree. The qualifier "generally" means that the definition is generally reflective of the American populace except for being reflective of your beliefs and people who agree with you.---- ^Dark Tea © 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's very simple. The question in their Q & A was how do you define race/ethniciity. They explained how they produce their definitions and said of their definitions: They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. The term generally in this context describes the general nature of their definitions, and not to the fact that their definitions reflect a general consensus. If they wanted to make the latter point instead of saying they generally reflect a social definition, they would have said, they reflect a general social definition. But anyways, I'm sure I can't convince you, and who am I to say that my interpretation of their comments are anymore valid than yours? And what does it matter anyway? Even if the U.S. census did claim they were reflecting consensus would that mean no other reliable sources are allowed to challenge them. Clearly we can argue this all night but I for one need to get some sleep Iseebias 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That alternative phrasing says the same thing. The adverb "generally" on the verb "reflects" shows that the reflection is only in general except for the people who disagree, making it unreflective of their beliefs. The adjective "general" on the noun "social definitions" would mean that the there exists a common social definition but some people disagree with it, making it not applicable to the social definitions of those few.---- ^Dark Tea © 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't interpret it that way at all. To me, the adverb "generally" on the verb "reflect" means that in general they reflect, not that they reflect the general (i.e. the majority). But I think we've argued this point to death. Iseebias 05:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things I'd like to point out:

1. Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition (2005), which I am looking at right now, does not state that "Asian" as used in North America only refers to people from the "Far East"
2. Oxford Dictionary does not define "Asian American", while the US Census does.

Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The pocket version is generally smaller and less thorough. True, oxford doesn't define Asian American but it clearly states who is sconsidered Asian in America, and contrary to the census, it's not south Asians. Iseebias 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So it doesn't state who is Asian American, then, correct? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It states who is considered Asian in America, which obviously and most specifically includes Asian Americans Iseebias 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is "obvious" to you may be interpreted as original research. It is not clear that an "Asian American" is the same thing as the definition of an Asian in America.---- ^Dark Tea © 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that an Asian American is an American who is considered Asian in America. That's the most basic of logic Iseebias 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That statement sounds akin to claiming that a Red Bull logically defines a bull colored red. Your assertion that a person considered to be Asian in America is an "Asian American" is still original research regardless of your opinion on the implications formed after deconstructing the word "Asian American".---- ^Dark Tea © 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Asian Americans Americans who are considered Asian in America? Yes or No? Iseebias 05:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for an editor's personal definition of a word which would constitute original research? I would say "yes" in regards to you asking for original research.---- ^Dark Tea © 05:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are stretching the definition of original research to an absurd degree Iseebias 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, when the definition of an "Asian American" could be an American who self-identifies as Asian, an Asian with US citizenship, etc., it doesn't stretch the definition of original research to accuse you of making it by claiming an "Asian American" has to be someone identified as an Asian in the US.---- ^Dark Tea © 06:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why Oxford should even be used as a source if it doesn't define "Asian American". Oxford states the difference between how the word "Asian" is commonly used between the UK and North America. But the US Census specifically defines "Asian American", and the US Census is a reliable source for racial categorisation in the U.S. In fact it's one of the definitive sources for such a task. Iseebias, your idea that Oxford thus states who "Asian Americans" are by its definition of "Asian" is, in fact, original research, as it is your own personal analysis of a source. You are jumping from the usage of the word "Asian" in North America, to the definition of "Asian American". In the lack of other reliable sources, maybe that's passable. But this is not the case. Furthermore, Oxford does not state anything about "Asians in America". It specifically says, "...while in North America it is used to refer to people from the Far East". It makes no statement about Asians that are in America. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's very simple: Oxford clearly states that South Asians are not considered Asian in America, and hence are not Asian American, regardless of some obscure government classification based on political lobbying. Further, the article clearly states in the intro that Asian Americans are commonly just called Asians, and common mainstream information is what encyclopedia's should reflect. Iseebias 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary is contradicted by the much stronger source of the US Census which "generally reflect(s) a social definition of race recognized in this country". I suspect the Oxford dictionary's surmising of this issue lacked sufficient expertise to arrive at the true conclusion that the US Census arrived at. The definition of the Asian race was spurred on by lobbying but the foundations of the Asian race take into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.---- ^Dark Tea © 15:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If the census reflected a general consensus it would be apparent in common useage, but the dictionary proves it's not, and besides they are only claiming their definitions in general reflect socially recognized standards; they make no claim that this specific definition does, and your misinterpretation of their words is original research. And besides the census is not an expert on the English language. Mainstream sources by world recognized authorities on the English language trump obscure politically motivated government classifications. Iseebias 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something important. Neither the Oxford English dictionary nor the US Census use the term "Asian American". They both use the term "Asian" while the US Census also uses the term "Asian race". The Oxford English dictionary may have expertise in the usage of words. Alternatively, the US Census has expertise in race, ancestry, demographics, economics, ethnicity, etc. as they are understood in the USA. Since this article is about "Asian Americans" neither of those sources may be appropriate. The "Asian American" group may only be discussed by American sociologists in their American-centered discussions of race and ethnicity. They may go as far as saying that Indians aren't usually considered Asian, but this will only be in passing. As long as they are mainstream and are writing for academics, they will abide by the US Census' racial definition and include Indians.---- ^Dark Tea © 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes the U.S. census experts on race? They're not scientists. Only biologists and physical anthropologists are experts on race. Besides it's prima facie absurd to argue South Asians and East Asians are members of the same race. All the genetic data tells us South Asians cluster with peoples from the middle east, and have been genetically isolated from East Asians by a huge mountain range, which is why they look nothing alike. But if you don't believe in race as a biological construct, then Asian American (or simply Asian) is a nothing more than a term in the English language, so the only experts we can turn to define it are experts on English. Iseebias 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The OMB mandates "the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.", so apparantly sociologists can define race. The social sciences are a type of science, contrary to your implication. Genetics and ancestry are similar but different. The definition of the Asian race takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry, so South Asians and East Asians have a relationship that takes into account "ancestry".---- ^Dark Tea © 17:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the census clearly states that their categories are not to be interpreted as scientitific stating: The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. [2]So if your source argues that scientific criteria should be used, then your source argues that the census should not be used. Further, the cenus admits that their definitions are political constructs (and indeed this one would have to be since it came about through lobbying) and hence should be restricted to a "political definition" subsection, while mainstream common understanding is what should nominate the article. We do our readers a disservice by allowing a strange political definition to dominate this article. Iseebias 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The OMB mandates "the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.", making them scientific, so even though they say that the races, "should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological", they in fact are scientific. They just advise people against interpreting them as such with the command "should not".---- ^Dark Tea © 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That don't make any sense to anybody I'm sorry. First you quote them saying their definitions should be scientific, then when confronted by a quote of them saying their definitions should not be interpreted as scientific, you dismiss it because the word "should" somehow implies it's just a command rather than a fact. Well, you're quote uses the word "should" too so perhaps while they agree that their definitions should reflect science, they realize that they do not, and hence command people not to interpret them as scientific. And if their definitions are scientific, then, what please tell, is the scientific logic of lumping one group of dark skinned caucasoids (south asians) in with mongoloids, while lumping the other group of dark skinned caucasoids (arabs) in with light skinned caucasoids (europeans)? And since it's a matter of a fact that south asians only got classified as asian after lobbying, why in the world should anyone believe the decision was scientific at all? Iseebias 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear whether or not the US Census has scientific racial definitions. I would like them to explicate their reasoning for their racial groupings, but I know that the definition of the Asian race takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry although the specifics of ancestry, culture, and society involved are unclear.----- ^Dark Tea © 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is a "scientific racial definition" and why should it be more important than other definitions? There isn't any consensus that "scientific racial definitions" are better than social, political or cultural racial definitions. futurebird 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, it doesn't matter what we WP editors think of the sources' approach to racial categorisation, whether or not it's "scientific", "sociological", "geographical", or anything else. We're not supposed to be analysing our sources' methods of research and decide amongst ourselves what to use and what not to use. Are any of us credible anthropologists and sociologists that we can discount sources based on our own personal opinions? Not that I'm aware of. As long as these sources are WP:Reliable sources, we should reflect what they say. There's no doubt that the US Census is a reliable source here. We can add that Oxford dictionary defines North American usage of "Asian" to refer to East Asians only, but Oxford dictionary certainly does not hold the monopoly on what "Asian American" means. Outside the US Census, you'll see that basically all Asian American Studies experts include South Asians as part of the Asian American group. Probably the most cited Asian American literature, Strangers From A Different Shore by Ronald Takaki, most certainly includes South Asians as part of the group. My point? Oxford Dictionary does not trump every other source that contradicts it - and there are many sources that contradicts it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. futurebird 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The census is a reliable source on government racial classification, but it has no expertise on how how the term Asian American is used in everyday life. The only sources for that are dictionaries (which are written by experts in how words are used) and polls. The only poll I've seen shows most Americans do not consider South Asians to be Asians. Now there was recently a theory that a lot of East Asians wanted to call South Asians Asian because lumping themselves in with South Asians made East Asians feel more caucasoid. There's also a lot of South Asians who want to be called Asian because they fear being reclassified as white and losing their minority status. We have to be very careful to not to let political sources like the census and certain activist academics transform this article into a soap box for political agendas. Much better to rely on trusted mainstream sources like the dictionary which are experts on how terms are actually used. Let's leave the politics out of it. Iseebias 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's fine, we can even include something that covers what you've mentioned concerning the usage of the word "Asian" in North America if the article doesn't already have something like that, given that we have sources to back that up. But you seem to want to summarily dismiss that "Asian American" is used to refer to South Asians as well by many sources, and you seem to want to erase any mention of South Asians in this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's not an encyclopedia that only covers how terms are used in conversational usage. In fact, something like government racial classification or the politics of racial categorisation is exactly what should be in Wikipedia. And also let me note again, that the US Census is not the only source that categorises South Asians as part of the Asian American grouping. Most, if not all, experts and professionals concerning Asian Americans or the field of Asian American Studies include South Asians in the Asian American grouping. The bottom line is that this needs to be reflected in the article. And if there are sources that discuss the issues of the inclusion of South Asians in this categorisation, then we should reflect what they say as well. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never removed any cited info about south asians being asian. What I removed were the photos of south asians. I think that since 95% of America does not consider South Asians to be Asian, hvaing photos of south asians in the article gives undue weight to a minority view point. Significant minority view points are welcome in wikipedia, but they're supposed to be given a subordinate status within articles Iseebias 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

95% of America does not consider South Asians to be Asian? What is that? Your personal opinion? Furthermore, WP:Undue weight refers to the use of reliable sources, not unverifiable "polls" and personal opinions of WP editors. In that context, it would seem that Oxford Dictionary is the minority view here since many other sources can be produced to contradict it. I give you Dictionary.com's definitions of "Asian" [3], for example. It lists definitions by Random House Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary, and WordNet (Princeton University). None of these dictionaries exclude South Asians in the definition of "Asian", with the American Heritage Dictionary going so far as to specifically include South Asians in the word's usage. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, oxford is the most authoritative of the dictionaries, and second of all, oxford is the only one to make a distinction between North American useage and British useage. Of course South Asians will be included in many dictionary definitions of Asian since in Britain the term Asian refers ONLY to South Asians. But this article is specifically about Asian Americans so a dictionary that distinguishes between North American and British useage is far more relevant than a dictionary that lumps all the useages together into one definition. Now if you find another reputable dictionary that claims that South Asians are considered Asian in North America, then we can document a genuine dispute, but until then, a mainstream authority on common useage should be given far more weight than obscure government classifications created by lobbyists and academic activists who don't speak for society as a whole. Iseebias 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources what is yours for "95% of America does not consider South Asians to be Asian"? Since you gave that as your reasoning for removing the pics of South Asians, I was just wondering. By the way, you missed one. Is that because you only removed 95% of the pictures in accordance with your findings? MrBlondNYC 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was just a funny segment they did on some local news show about how an Indian man who opened up an Asian restaraunt was getting strange looks from the public because he didn't sell East Asian food. He kept trying to explain that South Asians are Asians and the broadcaster confronted him with a poll showing 95% of Americans don't see it that way. It just goes to show the disservice we do to readers when we present a fringe view as mainstream. But my source was not that TV show, since I don't have the citation, but rather the oxford dictionary which is an authority on common useage. Iseebias 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No your exact words were "I think that since 95% of America does not consider South Asians to be Asian, hvaing photos of south asians in the article gives undue weight to a minority view point." So according to you, your removal of the pictures was as a direct result of this very interesting report you saw. The reporter, instead of treating it as a local fluff piece, thought it important enough to do find this study to confront the man with. He must be one hell of a reporter because I can't seem to find this study anywhere. I guess Google isn't so great after all. Well, surely you could remember something about it? Where did this reporter get the study? What was the name of the program? Where was the restaurant? What station was the show on? Did they ask passersby for their opinions? Surely, this is something you are thoughtful about so I would think some details about the program would really stick in your mind. I'm very interested in reading this. Thanks. MrBlondNYC 03:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Iseebias, you're really arguing around in circles, just clutching very tightly to the one and only source you have - Oxford. Sorry, but Oxford does not override every other dictionaries out there, especially when there are American dictionaries that contradict it. If I wanted nothing but Oxford, I would have no use for Wikipedia. I'd just look everything up on Oxford's website. Luckily for the world, Wikipedia is not just a mirror site of Oxford's website - Wikipedia actually use any and all sources so long as they are reliable and verifiable. Have you consider that maybe the other dictionaries do not distinguish between British and American usage because they do not define North American usage of "Asian" to exclude South Asians? Regardless, the fact is they do not state that South Asians are excluded in the usage of "Asian". I also just checked out Merriam-Webster Online, it also does not exclude South Asians in its entry for "Asian" [4]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about Asians in all contexts (see Asian if you want to edit that article); this article is about Asian American's which means that dictionaries that specifiy North American useage trump dictionaries that define Asian from a global perspective because this article's not about the global perspective. Also keep in mind we have to be extremely careful about POV pushing in this article because there are all kinds of political and psychological motives for wanting to lump South Asians in with East Asians. I don't want this article to reinforce the stereotype of self-hating East Asians wanting to lump themselves with South Asians to avoid feeling "oriental" or mongoloid, nor do I want this article to reinforce the stereotype that East Asians are jealous of South Asians being caucasoid, and want to strip them of this status by calling them Asian (when in fact it was the south asians who rejected the white label and asked to be called asian). All the East Asians I know are proud to be East Asian and don't feel the need to lump themselves in with South Asians. It's only extremists who want to lump the two groups, and this article should reflect the mainstream, and not give undue weight to extremists who ruin the reputation of the East Asian community. Iseebias 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You claim that dictionaries that define a "North American usage" trump dictionaries that define Asian in the broad sense of the word. Note, again, the US Census which defines "Asian" and generally reflects the usage in the USA trumps the broader "North American usage" source, making your one-up objection to the broader dictionary definition sound contradictory. There is no consensus as to whether Indians are Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Africoid (Negroid, Negrito, Australoid) or to what percentage they are of the three, but I don't think that their typological race is relevant to this article.---- ^Dark Tea © 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A) You have no specific source saying their definition of Asian generally reflects useage in the USA, you are using a general source about their definitions in general and we disagree on how you are using that source B) even if the census did say what you claim, it wouldn't matter because the census is not a reliable source when it comes to general word useage, and thus can not be quoted as experts on how terms in the English language are used by the public, C) the census definition of Asian was revised as a result of lobbying, so even if it originally reflected general word useage, it now reflects political activism and hence a minority view point that can not be given undue weight, D) the dictionaries I've seen define caucasoid broadly enough to include South Asians, and I've never heard of anyone mistaking South Asians for mongoloids but that's not the point, since the term Asian American was created to replace Oriental American (not mongoloid American) and no one ever called South Asians Oriental Americans; indeed in Britain South Asians are called Asian to distinguish them from Orientals (a term still used there) Iseebias 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

D) You have previously criticized sociologists as lacking relevant expertise in their definitions of race, but you present dictionaries as having expertise in everything under the sun. Granted Caucasians live in India, but do you really believe a dictionary that says that the term "Caucasian" includes India implies all of India? D) The Indian-American activism was to get Indians recognized as Asians in a specific instance where sections of government didn't abide by the Thind decision. The Thind decision had already decided Asian Indians were "intermediate[s]" between the "dark-skinned Dravidian" and the "Aryan [Caucasian] invader", making them not Caucasian by "common understanding" which only includes racially pure Caucasians. The common understanding of a white or Caucasian in the USA has always been one of exclusion, not recognizing individuals with black or American Indian blood. C) I don't understand how minority activism, particularly when its Asian Americans self-defining themselves, discredits the Asian American concept. B) The US Census is an excellent source of information about USA demography. Its speciality is USA sociology, so it is relevant here. A) The US Census says it generally reflects the USA conception of race. This means its reflections have a general scope, reflecting the opinions of most everybody in the USA, but they don't accomodate the minority of people like you who disagree.---- ^Dark Tea © 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We've already been over this several times. The census never claimed their definitions have a general scope, they claimed their definitions in general reflect a common understanding. In general implies there are exceptions and although you interpret the census differently, in this case you admit there is an exception because you admit that the inclusion of South Asians as Asian was a consequence of lobbying (the census even admits their categories are political constructs). In other words, your source for calling South Asians Asian is lobbyists, and what makes lobbyists an authority on what an Asian is? Now, I don't claim dictionaries are an expert on everything, but unless you are prepared to argue that race is a real biological construct (in which case you should be citing biologists), then Asian American is nothing more than a term we attach to some people and not others, and dictionaries are experts on termonology. And Dravidians are caucasoid by the way, at least according to Cavali-Sforza-they cluster with Arabs and Europeans. The article also clearly states that the term Asian-American was intended to replace Oriental-American which means that the people who are now described as Asian American are the same people who used to be described as Oriental-American, which excludes South Asians. Iseebias 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The new genetic map made in 2007 trumps the 1980s Cavalli Sforza map. In it, the Indian Subcontinent is closest to Southeast Asians and East Asians. Regardless I have never claimed that race was based on biology. Your false dilemma of either arguing race is based on biology or the dictionary's definition stands triumphant is baseless. The dictionary has no expertise in relevant fields related to race. You continue with your dictionary-expertise-on-everything argument even though it is translucently flawed. The lobbyists were just aligning the disparate branches of local government with the official stance on the Asian race.---- ^Dark Tea © 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That new genetic map is the strangest thing I've ever seen. It contradicts the widely accepted Out of African theory of human origins which implies that the deepest division on the human tree is African/non-African. Your map implies that the deepest division is Native American/non-Native American which would seem to imply that humananity originated in the Americas and not Africa. Your map also implies that East Asians are totally separate from Native Americans which also contradicts scientific consensus. In short your map don't make any sense to anybody, and represents an extreme minority view within the scientific community. Your comment that dictionaries have no experties on race presupposes that their exists an Asian race, rather than just an Asian label. Once again, if you want to argue Asians are a race than produce a biologist who makes that specific claim (and preferabley not one who does so using an extreme minority view point), but until then, stop using lobbyists as sources Iseebias 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the primary sourced used for many genetic maps, it is Cavalli-Sforza's study. They reprint his errors without hesistation. In about 25 years a lot has changed in genetics, since it is a new science. Cavalli-Sforza is not a reliable source for genetics due nature of this new science. The map implies that American Indians evolved from a separate group of migrants into Alaska who were transformed by the bitter cold into physical form that mirrored East Asians. The map implies a lot more genetic interchange between Africa and Eurasia than previously assumed. The only person it does not make sense to is you.---- ^Dark Tea © 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No there's been a lot of studies that were completely independent of Cavali-Sforza, in fact Cavali-Sforza wasn't even the one who discovered that Africa was the origin of human kind. Your tree is also contradicted by the genetic trees of Neil Risch and Spencer Wells too, and btw Spencer Wells claims that contrary to appearance, Africans and Australian aboriginals are the most unrelated people on the planet. Your tree puts them fairly close, and even seems to contradict the notion that humans originated in Africa. Your tree is just so far outside the mainstream that I wouldn't take it seriously until it's independently replicated. Iseebias 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Risch cites Cavalli and Wells did his doctoral thesis with Cavalli. Wells may be an independent source, as far as I can see for now, but he's been influenced by Cavalli. There seems to be more blind regurgitation of errors from Cavalli. Cavalli is not a reliable source anymore after about 25 years, making Risch's work suspect for citing him.---- ^Dark Tea © 20:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well of course all scientists are influenced by the scientists who came before them, but Wells and Risch both collected independent data based on different samples that Sforza used. And their trees all agree that the deepest split on the human tree is between Africans and non-Africans and the most recent split is between East Asians and Native Americans. Your tree argues just the opposite, that the oldest split is Native Americans/non-Native Americans, which is just bizare. I think the reason is that the guy who made it has his PhD in statistics and thus is not a reliable source on genetics. His mathematical procedure looks objective, but the way he translates DNA data into numbers is probably flawed Iseebias 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only that but this guy only splashed that tree together because he was hired by some commercial DNA service. Hardly a scholarly source at all Iseebias 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, the other geneticists could be good at genetics, but poor at the necessary statistical mathematics to organize a multivariable genetic similarity map, making them non-reliable sources when it comes to genetic similarity. You claim that his map is "strange" and "bizzare" which I will interpret to not be arguments. We have already determined that the term "Asian American" is primarily the domain of sociolgists who by and large agree in paper that Indian Americans are Asian Americans, making the genetic definitions of race irrelevant. This is not the genetic definitions of race article.---- ^Dark Tea © 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as multivariable analysis is now largely done by computers, it hardly matters whether they are experts in statistics or not, and no, I never agreed that sociologists are experts on Asian Americans, unless of course they have a degree in Asian American studies or teach in that subject. I guess the true experts would be the people who created the term in the first place and they created it to replace Oriental Americans (which doesn't include South Asians). In terms of how the term is actually used in North America, the expert would be the dictionary Iseebias 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again - it doesn't matter why you think the sources say what they say. What matters is that they do say what they say. Our job as WP editors is not to qualify our sources based on our own personal and amateur opinions of something like racial categorisation. We should just be reflecting what reliable sources say. This is a very basic and fundamental part of editing WP. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but what makes a source reliable is that they have expertise in the subject at hand. The lobbyists who created the census' Asian race definition have no such expertise, and infact, their inclusion may even violates NPOV because they have a political bias and thus are not a neutral source. In fact you could even go so far as to ague they are an extremist source. Iseebias 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The lobbyists were only persuading the stubborn local governments bow down to the Thind decision. They did not define the Asian race themselves.---- ^Dark Tea © 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1. That you want to disqualify the US Census because you think it's built by lobbyist is not based on anything but your own personal opinion, and it borders on soapboxing. And if you have reliable sources to say that racial categorisation in the US Census is built by lobbyists, then we can include them in the article.
2. WP is not about stating only what is common language usage as defined by Oxford Dictionary and only Oxford Dictionary.
3. WP:NPOV states that we are to present different sides of an issue to maintain a neutral point of view, and not by eliminating one established point of view.
4. There's no WP policy to say that we are not to use a source about racial categorisation that is not based on "scientific" research and motivations.
5. Whether or not the concept of "race" is based on science or sociology or human construct is not relevant to this article given the fact that reliable sources discuss what is "Asian American" - that is something for the Race article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
6. The US Census is not the only source that includes South Asians as part of the Asian American grouping. Academics and professionals in the field of Asian American Studies and related studies include them as well. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That you want to qualify the U.S. census because "you" think they are experts on Asian Americans is based on nothing but your opinion. There are all kinds of government documents that are produced by people who know NOTHING about the subject, and are frequently criticised by experts in the field. Don't confuse a powerful source with a reliable source. If you have an actual definition written by an expert in Asian American studies who defines South Asians as Asian then that's one thing, but the article should clearly distinguish between academic definitions and mainstream definitions (i.e. dictionary) Iseebias 20:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Reliable source: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I don't care if they are doing racial categorisation by scientific, anthropologic, sociologic, or any other reasons. That's not for us to judge. It's ridiculous to think that the US Census is not a reliable source on the demographics of Asian Americans. And you still haven't addressed the other points I've raised - WP is not a mere mirror of Oxford Dictionary, NPOV means we present different points of views, the US Census is not the only source that includes South Asians in the Asian American group, etc etc. Throughout this entire discussion, you've got nothing to go by but Oxford Dictionary, which again, is contradicted by other dictionaries. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And the U.S. census is not a trusted authority in the field of ethnic termonology, ethnic studies, asian american studies, or ethnology. The U.S. census is nothing more than a political document. In fact in this case it counts as a biased source because this definition is documented as having been influenced by lobbyists and wikipedia NPOV policy prohibits political bias. You say this is not for us to judge. Who is to judge if a source is biased if not for us? Who is to judge if the source is an expert in the field at hand if not for us? And wikipedia *is* a mirror for the Oxford dictionary when the article is about termonology, because oxford dictionary is both scholarly and mainstream (the two criteria for reliable sources) and it's not contradicted by other dictionaries; the other dictionaries are simply not comprehensive enough to distinguish British from North American English. That's not to say that there's no place in this article for the census definition, but an extreme minority view that is completely ignored by a source as mainstream as Oxford should not be given undue weight. It should be confined to a small part of the article consistent with the small number of people who subscribe to that view. If a definition is so esoteric that it's not even recognized by the world's most authoritative dictionary, it has no business getting equal weight on wikipedia Iseebias 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And btw, I have more going for argument than just the world's most authoritative expert on termonology (as if I needed more). I also have the people who actually created the term Asian-American. Who is more authoritative than them? Niether you nor Dark Tea acknowledged the fact that the term was created to replace Oriental Americans, and Oriental Americans did not include South Asian Americans so how could the term intended to replace it? And if that's not enough, we have one of the most watched TV shows in American history (Survivor) creating an Asian tribe that excluded South Asians. What more evidence do you need that the census definition is fringe? Iseebias 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet more harping on and on about how Oxford is the one and only source that should be used to define "Asian American". So far you only have empty assertions and one dictionary source. Again, WP:NPOV states we should present different points of views, not eliminate them. And I've shown you how, if anything, Oxford is the minority view given the undue weight here. Again, WP is not a dictionary. Also, are you seriously using a reality TV series as a measuring stick of how far the definition of "Asian American" goes? By the way, the show would seem to contradict Oxford Dictionary in its inclusion of Filipino contestants. And Take a look at some sample course listings at different Asian American Studies programs - Cornell, UCLA, Berkeley, etc. The study of South Asians in the US is included. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So, there are Asian American courses and publications that talk about Arab Americans too (should they be given equal weight?). What you need is a cited definition of Asian American from ethnologist or an Asian American studies professor. And Oxford is the only dictionary to explain what Asian means in a North American context. And no one is suggesting that we eliminate any significant view point, but wikipedia does aim to represent views in proportion to how mainstream they are, and both Oxford and Survivor demonstrate that calling South Asians Asian is not the norm. And the fact that Survivor included a Southeast Asian does not contradict oxford because most Southeast Asians are hybridized East Asians. Iseebias 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not useful to insist on using the Oxford Dictionary for a North American term. The US Census is something that can be referred to, and the definition of Asian American is changing to include South Asians. I hear it all the time. Don't insist on one dictionary source.-- Parkwells 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Iseebias' Oxford definition makes the claim that the Asian American means Far Eastern Americans. If we're to go along with his definition, anyone who is not a Japanese-, Korean-, (Taiwanese-,) or Chinese-American should not be on this page. The Far East is generally used to mean East Asia if I am not mistaken. Thegreyanomaly 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problems with that:

1. Oxford defines "Asian", but not "Asian American".
2. Oxford is so far the only source that defines North American usage of the word "Asian" as referring only to East Asian, and it is only a dictionary, which leads me to think it is far more useful for wiktionary than Wikipedia.
3. Other sources contradict Oxford.

Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's use the US Census definition, and let the Oxford definition go to wiktionary.

I think the last lead paragraph is unsubstantiated in terms of saying Asian Americans may include Russians, Iranians, etc. There is not a scholarly consensus on that, so I don't think it belongs in the lead AT ALL. Maybe it should go lower in the article.

I checked the references: #7, the PBS panel, was made up of writers and a journalist, no social historian or any academics, so they were speculating, talking about ideas. The second reference (#8) was one editor's opinion on a website. Neither of these references satisfy Wikipedia guidelines to use scholarly sources that undergo peer review. There is not a consensus on the largest definition of Asian American. I think the editors and article have enough to grapple with using the current US Census definition and trying to cover the array of groups within that. A shift to the larger definition hasn't happened yet, and it isn't even covered in the article, so shouldn't appear in the lead. The speculative topic could be covered more thoroughly below in the article. -- Parkwells 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)--[-- Parkwells ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's odd that the article doesn't mention much about the adoption of Asian religions and spirituality by Americans, but this has been one of the far-reaching impacts of Asian Americans. In addition, there have been studies noting the increase in younger Asian Americans who practice Christianity. For instance, a while ago there was an article about a Christianity group at an Ivy League college (Princeton?) in which almost all the members were Asian Americans. Many communities have Asian American Christian churches, too.

There has been more than one generation to adopt Buddhist practices, beginning with some Beats in the 1950s, and waves of interest in the 1970s (which included more Americans going to Asia to study), especially on the West Coast; and more publicity about Buddhism, Hinduism, and yoga practices in the 1990s and recently. Interest in Buddhism has also related to the appearance of exiled/refugee Vietnamese and Tibetan monks who have lived and worked in the US, as well as earlier Japanese Zen Buddhists who came here to teach.

With interest especially on both the West and East Coasts; establishment of American Buddhist temples and retreat centers in several areas of the country, including the southwest; incorporation of meditation into spiritual and holistic health practices by people who don't belong to any religious institution; and revival of meditation, centering and other related practices in mainstream Christianity; Asian religions have had major cultural influence in the United States. I'll look for some sources, but there has been a lot written on this. Think how the religion section in bookstores has changed, too.-- Parkwells 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a shallow start on Religious Trends and Health and Medicine under a new section - Cultural Influences.-- Parkwells 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's debatable whether more Asian Americans are becoming Christians or whether more Christian minorities and majorities are immigrating to the US. Many Christian organizations have large Asian populations but many of those are from countries such as Korea with a large Christian population or India with a small but highly mobile Christian minority (ie, largely my folk, the Christian Malayalis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 ( talk) 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is unbalanced. A few people's opinions that Americans don't think Asian Americans "belong" is really not sufficient documentation for general opinion. For people to treat every curious question as somehow questioning their right to be here is oversensitive. When I was growing up in metropolitan NY, kids were always asking each other, "What are you, what are you?". It was a shorthand for saying, "Where did your family come from - that is, where did your first immigrants come from?", whether that was from Greece, England, Poland, Russia, Italy, China, Korea, etc. I guess this was part of the way we learned about nationalities of different names, for one thing. With the waves of new immigrants that have arrived in the US in the last several decades, is it so unnatural for people to continue to ask questions about origin? It's not a question that only means one thing or the most negative thing. -- Parkwells 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what about M Night Shyamalan, Kal Penn or Naveen Andrews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.224 ( talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

: Good Point. Maybe you can be the one who adds to it? 
PinoyFilamPride 
talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that one of the larger groups isn't represented. There are already 2 Japanese Americans, Onizuka and Shinseki. Furthermore, does everyone in there have to have posed with the American flag? BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Sandra Oh, which both balances the number of women in the box, represents Korean Americans, and breaks the mold of having the other 5 with the American flag behind them, which I find somewhat silly, implying (whether intended or not) that this "proves" that they're Asian American, unless these were the only pics that someone picked initially for presentation. BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I think this article needs to be updated. I just read articles Filipino American and Chinese American. 210.4.122.54 ( talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There aren't enough sources for Asian Americans in... (sports, music etc.) Bulk of the sections contain blanket statements such as "Asian Americans are prominent in..." or "Asian Americans have made significant progress in..." with no sources not to mention that sentences with weasel/peacock words should not be in an article in first place. I don't think listing Asian American figures for each section counts as a source. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these sections contain weasel words which claim that Asians are prominent in a field, then show this with lists of individuals, making it original research. Statements about Asians being prominent in a field should be made with a reliable source and should not have lists of famous individuals in them.---- ^Dark Tea © 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know an Indian American girl who looks like this tribal indigenous Indian woman? I would prefer we use someone who looks like this in the picture rather than this person ( Image:Kalpana Chawla, NASA photo portrait in orange suit.jpg ) who looks Aryan. I'm sure she could where a hijab, learn Persian and pass as a local in Iran. The US Census specified that Aryans are not Asian in their write-in section and only the people who originate in the original people of the Indian Subcontinent are Asian. I'm tired of periodic vandalism due to some people looking at our picture of Aryan astronaut Kalpana Chawla and then ignorantly writing in "Indians are Caucasian" or accusing us of claiming Caucasians as Asians. I know it is hard to find someone of tribal indigenous real Indian ancestry who has done something encyclopedic due to the discrimination they face in India at the hands of (Aryans) white people and Aryan-Indian-Eurasians who side with Aryans.----- ^Dark Tea © 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The table headed "Metropolitan Areas with the Highest Proportion of Asian Americans (2000 Census)[19]" doesn't seem to match any of the information in the US Census link at the ref - plus I am suspicious of some recent "correction" edits. Johnbod ( talk) 22:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The figures should match the citation even if someone feels that the figures have changed since the date of the citation.---- ^Dark Tea © 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of White Asians, most of them Indo-Aryans from Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan and Northern India, Kurdistan etc...and also semites in Israel, Lebanon, Syria etc...and also millions of Turks are White.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2000 US Census considers the definition of the Asian race to be people with origins in the original people of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. It does not use a definition based on current location where you could live in Japan for a few generations but originate from Italy and still be counted as a Japanese and Asian. The 2000 US Census bases its definition on original location. The original location of the "North Indian" or Aryan if I may was the Iranian Plateau rather than India, making their original location Iran, the Middle East, and making their race white.---- ^Dark Tea © 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what "Asian" means? Because millions of Northern Indians are Indo-European too, even if it is true the majority of Indians are Dravidian or mixed with Dravidian (similar to the Latinamerican mixture of Indo-Europeans with Natives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.149.47 ( talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If respondents respond with the term "Aryan" on the write-in portion of the 2000 US Census, then they are counted as white, but if they respond "Indo-Aryan" they are counted as just Asians and not also white. The 2000 US Census' definition of an "Indo-Aryan" is unclear. It should be noted, however, that the clearly multiracial term "Eurasian" is counted as only being Asian, so the 2000 US Census may have viewed the term "Indo-Aryan" to be a similar term, involving the mixture of the white Aryan and the Asian Indian.---- ^Dark Tea © 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Indo-" means Indian (which immediately indicates Asian race in the Census definition) and Indo-Aryan refers to a modern language family including about 3/4 of the population of India, as well as the ancient immigrants supposed to have brought the ancestral language from Central Asia. The hyphenated term is because Aryan in one meaning is a dated term for Indo-European, and much of Indo-European is outside of South Asia. There is no guessing about ancient racial mixture or retracing ancient migrations involved, as this is highly controversial and unnecessary for the Census to get involved in. -- JWB ( talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The section regarding history termed the effects of World War II is very slanted towards one subset of the overall group, that is the Japanese American experience. Although it was arguable the harshest and had many honorable acts relating to it, it does nto show how it effected other asian american groups in the United States and its territories at the time. Furthermore it doesn't go into how those events had a direct influence on later asian american immigrant waves that came from Korea (then a Japanese territory) and Vietnam (then part of the larger French Indochina).-- 207.114.206.48 ( talk) 07:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The right term should be "Yellow Americans" because Asia and Africa are different Continents from America and when somebody says "Asian American" or "African American" while for whites we only use the term "White" that means tha the ONLY AMERICANS are the Whites while the blacks are Africans and the yellows are Asians.

The right term is "Yellow Americans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.28 ( talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about "Asian Pacific Americans" is as ridiculous as saying "European Atlantic Americans" instead of Whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.25 ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

lead itself

“

Asian Americans are Americans of Asian ancestry. They include sub-ethnic groups such as Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans and others whose national origin is from the Asian continent. In Oxford dictionary, "Asian person" in the United States is sometimes thought of as a person of East Asian descent [1]. In common reference "Asian" is often used to refer to those of East Asian or Vietnamese descent or anyone else of Asian descent with an epicanthic eyefold. [2] This lags behind the US government definition and general usage in many parts of the US and many consider those of East, South or Southeast Asian descent with or without epicanthic eyefolds to be "Asian". [3] [4] [5] In the US Census, people who originate from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are classified as part of the Asian race.

”

arguments

These are not sources amalgamated to push a position. There are multiple points lined up sequentially

• First we have the askoxford source to show that there is one definition that claims Asian American = East Asian American
• Then we have the book citation supporting that in common reference that sometimes a racist notion that Asian American = "person with epicanthic eyefold" is used. I can go find more if one alone is unsuitable.
• Then we state that the gov't and general usage have a more accurate, more inclusive definition of "Asian" (This lags behind the US government definition and general usage in many parts of the US and many consider those of East, South or Southeast Asian descent)
• Furthermore to avoid any confusion with or without epicanthic eyefolds is mentioned, so that a reader should know that the the government nor the Asian American Studies departments do not use eyefolds in their definitions.
• Finally a reference is made to make it clear that not all Asians have epicanthic eyefolds

I can reorder the citations and redo the wording if desired, but please do not remove content. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ref