Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 10

Once again, there is a proposal to eliminate Asian American occupation categories. Previously, in 2018, this talk page was notified at Talk:Asian Americans#Proposed elimination of Asian American occupation categories . . . and ultimately the categories under discussion were retained due to a lack of consensus. This time, the scope is slightly more broad, but the focus is still primarily on Asian American subgroups and the argument for deletion and upmerge is the same. If you care to participate in the discussion, it's being held at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#People by country of descent and occupation. — Myasuda (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Asia and Africa are extremely huge. Some subcategories are more cohesive:

1. East Asian Americans
2. Southeast Asian Americans
3. Indian subcontinent Americans (read: Indian subcontinent)
4. Sub-Saharan Americans (read: Sub-Saharan Africa)
5. Arab Americans (read: Arab world)
6. European Americans
7. ... I missed so many

These groups make comparatively more sense (more criteria can be applied, no grouping is perfect).

Asian Americans benefit from the IQ of East Asian Americans.
We need more data on that.
Some people are racialists about the pseudo-race "Asian"
but antiracialists about East Asians which are genetically related.
The term "race" is not always supported genetically, neither the categories I suggested are perfect, but if we are methodical and list many criteria are more coherent than the terms Asian American and African American.

Some people claim that the variable "Asia" is superior than the variables "genetical kinship" and "IQ" kinship but they never elaborated why.

Racialism is to accept the notion of races at a cultural level, and that is certainly not aracialism which is like the French state not to deny the science of genetics but its social reference; racialism is the path to racism, but most proud of their race = racialists aren't described as racists; a philosophically aracial has one or more races; usually accepts the science of genetics but doesn't combine it with social labels even when he/she likes "racialist" music; you might like black music but you might also in tandem be an aracialist; some mixed people might become philosophically aracial but biologically they have DNA, they are not DNA-less, they are genetically multiracial and philosophically aracial or more specifically aracialists because the suffix -ist denotes philosophical vew so we don't have to mention the word "philosophy").

--Anonymous Editor 05:25, 8 August 2019

Anon--

Thank you for your good-faith inquiry here on the talk page. You raise many questions, but my quick answer is that the article takes the term 'Asian American' at face value because it's used by many people and many organizations in the United States. That alone makes the term notable as it is used today. You are correct that the term combines groups in ways that may not make sense. The article tries to discuss some of these inconsistencies. If you're willing to engage with the other editors here on this talk page, I believe there are additions that will make the article better.

I want to thank you one more time for posting questions on the talk page. It's good to be

WP:CONSENSUS

, and the talk page is the right place to start.

Happy editing!

Ishu (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We're currently claiming that Spanish is a language spoken by Asian Americans, with a source stating that "Since the Philippines was colonized by Spain, Filipino Americans in general can speak and understand Spanish too." Eh, that's not really true... 2602:306:CFEA:170:9415:4F0B:D297:C5D8 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While

prevalence should that population of Spanish speakers among the Asian American community, be given? It can be argued that among Filipino Americans it's more common that a significant amount of that population only speaks American English (Osalbo, 2005, Guevarra, 2016).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo

) 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the source tagged to the fact is the Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife, and that source is not quoted accurately. The quotation in the citation reads "Since the Philippines was colonized by Spain, Filipino Americans in general can speak and understand Spanish too." The quotation in the original source reads "Since the Philippines was colonized by Spain, Filipino Americans in general can speak and understand a little bit of Spanish too." (emphasis added) My view is the omitted text is important. Also, the sourcing in the articles

WP:BOLD

--Ishu (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

An edit in 2016 inserted a new second paragraph in the lead section.

Overall, I think this is a very good paragraph. My view is it uses judgmental language (nativist) for the lead section. A separate matter is the legal timeline could use some more context.

To be clear, the record shows how much nativism drove the immigration restrictions. My view is it's better to present that context in the body of the article where there is room for the details.

Because this language is in the lead section, and because it’s been here for a few years, I believe

I'm not wedded to anything here. Please discuss.

Ishu (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current version to the proposed revision. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I also prefer the current version. Mention of specific acts passed to limit or bar immigration can be deferred to the body of the article. Change "mid-18th" to "mid-19th" (correction) and 1880s to 1870s (to reflect the Page Act) in the current version's lead, and I think the lead text is fine.—Myasuda (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The 1st sentence of the “Proposed revision” replaces “the contemporary United States” with “North America.” This article is not about Asians in North America, e.g. Asians in Canada, Asians in Mexico, etc., so I am against this change in the “Proposed revision.”--Ephert (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The “Proposed revision” fixes the century when large-scale immigration occurred, and this fix should be implemented.--Ephert (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ishu said, “My view is it uses judgmental language (nativist) for the lead section,” but the nativist term seems to be the correct term. User:Ishu said, “My view is it's better to present that context in the body of the article where there is room for the details,” but I think that mentioning the term in the lead might be a good idea.--Ephert (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ishu said, “A separate matter is the legal timeline could use some more context.” I like the changes in the “Proposed revision” related to giving specifics to the legal timeline. The “Current version” sounds like a bunch of different laws were made in the “1880s-1920s” and “1940s-60s.” If that more accurately reflects history, then it is better. If not, then the specifics in the “Proposed revision” are better.--Ephert (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the last sentence in the “Proposed revision.” I did an internet search, and I saw a graph (Figure 2) about Asian Immigrants in the United States, which was cited to the US Census Bureau. Based on that graph, the last sentence in the “Proposed revision” seems like an accurate description of Asian immigration.--Ephert (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the present wording with the correction of the correct century for the beginning of larger immigration stated above. Perhaps it is best to link to the

Overall, the current version seems to have worked well. I'm not sure that the proposed revision represents an improvement.

Castncoot (talk

) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition to making the article better, my priority is to reaffirm the value of consensus in drafting the lead section. My view is we should discourage non-consensus changes to the lead section. Since some folks said "don't change at all", here are some small items that are more clearly fact-based:

• Liked by several people: Change reference to "Large scale immigration" from 18th to 19th century for historical accuracy
• Liked by talk: Reword last sentence to generalize trendline of population increase (current version suggests since 2010)

I think there are other problems, but let's get consensus on straightforward things first. --Ishu (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the last sentence in the health in medicine section:

"Due to the prevalence of usage, engaging with Asian American populations, through the practitioners of these common alternative medicines, can lead to an increase of usage of underused medical procedures."

This is very confusing. The word "underused" implies that alternative medicine should be used more than it is. I don't know what this is trying to say but that shouldn't be it.—

International relations (IR) is no longer just diplomacy and wars. Asian Americans especially fit into an international context of social-economic-cultural interactions. In 21st century reliable sources IR it includes trade, investment, permanent & temporary migration, refugees, sending $$ back; sending back for marriage partners, religious missionaries, transfer of cultural values (eg religion, food, gender roles) and the popular images of the other side. Here are some book descriptions that make this clear--(1) Cultural Factors In International Relations--(2005) a Chinese perspective; (2) Religion in International Relations Theory: Interactions and Possibilities (2013); (3) International Public Finance: A New Perspective on Global Relations (1992) (4) (2018) Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A mention of other nation's diaspora and their impacts on specific bilateral relations might have a place in articles about specific ethnicities that fall within the definition of who are Asian Americans (i.e. Japanese Americans impact on Japanese-United States relations, or Americans in Japan impact on Japanese-United States relations). That said, Asian Americans contain many ethnicities and there is no single Asian nation. Therefore, to include the link and the further reading source here, is IMHO inappropriate, and should be done in a case by case basis in articles about specific diaspora and not in this article. The link which the above user added is also only specific to one part of Asia, and not to the rest of the parts of Asia which other ethnicities that fall within the scope of the definition of who are Asian Americans come from; therefore it inserts a bias, a preference to certain Asian American over certain other Asian Americans.
Therefore, I kindly as @Rjensen: to self-revert themself.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any such limited rule about the "see also" section. I think a useful rule is it can include a short list of what serious editors consider to be useful to general readers. The fact that we have an article about Asian Americans, in addition to articles about Chinese-Americans, Japanese Americans, etc. suggested editors think the Asian Americans have something in common. Indeed they do, and it is Asia. the United States is had a high degree of interest in the cultures and economies of East Asia especially. readers need to know that there is in fact coverage of the relationship between East Asia and the United States. it would be a good idea to have comparable articles on the relationship between the United States and, for example, South Asia--the U.S. is ignored in the article on South Asia.

According to this editorial in the NY Times, "The origins of the coalition date to 1968, when students at the University of California, Berkeley, coined the name 'Asian-American' to identify a movement that was antiracist, antiwar, anticapitalist, anti-imperialist and often Marxist." I never heard this before. If UC Berkeley is where the term originated, should it be mentioned in this article? Chisme (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of that either. Do any other reliable sources state this? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurahuynh17.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Martinthelee.

Above undated message substituted from

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sad boy with a laptop, Hkaur27. Peer reviewers: Sad boy with a laptop, Hkaur27.

Above undated message substituted from

I would just like to potentially propose a section under this article discussing the economic aspect of Asian-American identity as it relates to the Model Minority Myth and any other info that pops up in my research. Please check out my sandbox for more info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuchrist (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have again replaced a reference definition that was deleted. When the reference "acs18" isn't defined, it leaves the article with a visible referencing error as well as un-verifiable claims. If there's an issue with the claim, we should examine that and compare it to the reference. If there's an issue with the reference itself, we should talk that over here instead of partially removing it from the article. The reference definition must not be removed from the article without replacement because it leaves the article with a visible error message. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the new information added to the debates and criticism section, several points. First, most of that information was taken from an article called Feature: Who exactly is Asian American by Steve Sailer. Mr. Sailer has been a columnist for VDARE, a website associated with the alt-right and with white supremacy and has been known to make pseudoscientific and racist statements, namely that African Americans and Mexicans in America have lower IQs than whites. He has also been described as a white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. You can find all of this information in the Wikipedia article titled Steve Sailer. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer. Any information he provides lacks credibility and should not be used. In addition, his premise that South Asians find cultural similarities with Middle Easterners and not with other Asians is not entirely true. If you look at the cultures of Southeast Asia, in particular Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia, much of their language, art, architecture, and even religion had Indian influences. The ancient Khmer Empire was a powerful Hindu-Buddhist kingdom. Even today, there are Hindu-Buddhist influences in those countries. That information can be found in the Wikipedia article, History of Indian Influence on Southeast Asia. There were in fact two major influences in Southeast Asia, Indian and Chinese. In addition, South Asian Americans do in fact see themselves as Asian. According to a 2020 article by Lee and Ramakrishnan in Ethnic and Racial Studies, volume 43, issue 10, it was found that South Asians, namely Indians and Pakistanis, do classify themselves as Asian. It is other ethnic groups that are less likely to consider South Asians as Asian Americans. Furthermore, the article by Kabhampaty is not saying that Asian is synonymous with East Asian. It is saying that the perception of who counts as Asian American is narrow and excludes South and Southeast Asians. And, if you read the article, clearly it is opposed to that narrow definition and favours more inclusivity under the umbrella label of Asian American.

Here is the citation:

Jennifer Lee & Karthick Ramakrishnama (2020) Who counts as Asian, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43:10 1733-1756, DOI 10.1080/01419870.2019.1671600207.255.130.250 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)207.255.130.250 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I must object to the use of the article by Steve Sailer, "Who exactly is Asian American" as a source for the debates and criticism section. Mr. Sailer is known for his association with white supremacist websites such as VDARE and has published a personal blog on Unz Review, an online publication promoting anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material. He has also made racist statements such as "black people tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better educated groups," and that blacks and Mexicans in America have lower IQs than whites. It says so in the Wikipedia article about him. I do not see how Wikipedia can view any article written by a bigot noted for his scientific racism as a credible source. Furthermore, Mr. Sailer has no background in genetics or anthropology. He has an MBA in finance and marketing. And not only that, racial classifications such as Caucasian and Mongoloid have been deemed obsolete (see respective Wikipedia articles on those terms).207.255.130.250 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of this and it's concerning to hear. Do you a source that explains what you're saying? I also have to agree that the use of the source here is inappropriate. One of the issues I have with it is that Sailer cites dated racial texts that are deemed pseudoscientific and thus not accurate. The term "Caucasian" is a very broad term that has fallen out of usage in science as it does not accurately reflect the groups that are purported to belong to it. For example, genetic studies reveal that modern-day Indians and South Asians were formed from indigenous South Asian groups that mixed with exogenous West Eurasian and East Asian groups that settled in the region. Additionally my other issue with it is that Sailer's article is not an entry in an academic journal, it's a news article and neither is Sailer a geneticist or anthropologist. Wikipedia's entry on "Caucasian" clearly states that the term has fallen out of usage, confirmed with multiple sources so it would be contradictory to cite an article that uses this terminology and quote text from the article as if it is fact. I have made some edits to the information taken from the source but I am interested to hear what others have to say. (Ayuuy7 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Update: I googled Steven Sailer and can now see what you are talking about and read the lede of his Wikipedia page. Having read the article, I think it's very inappropriate to cite the article. (Ayuuy7 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Sure, here are several links regarding Steve Sailer and what kind of person he is: https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/steve-sailer/m05fyqq? https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Steve_Sailer.html207.255.130.250 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC) hl=en207.255.130.250 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And here's another interesting link to a study by Lee and Ramakrishnan, indicating that Indians and Pakistanis generally view themselves as Asian while other groups are less likely to do so. It might be useful in the debates and criticism section. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2019.1671600207.255.130.250 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)