Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Asian Groups

Does this include Bangladesh, or Afghanistan or what? I know there are a lot of countries in Asia, but can this not be more specific? Aside from the "Pacific Islander" group, which has its own problems ala Madagascar etc, it seems kind of unclear, save for East and South East Asia. What of South Asia? I know this has got to be specifically defined by some organization clearly. If anyone is familiar with this stuff, and Wikipedia style writing (not for everyone) please help out and add this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with your point

"Starting in the first few years of the 2000 decade, Asian American earnings began exceeding all other racial groups for both men and women.[6] For example, in 2008 Asian Americans had the highest median household income overall of any racial demographic.[7][8] In 2012, Asian Americans had the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial demographic in the country.[9][10] In 2015, Asian American men were the highest earning racial group as they earned 117% as much as white American men and Asian-American women earned 106% as much as white American women.[6]"

The continuous use of economic earnings— that Asian Americans earn more than other racial groups— undermines the generalizations Asian Americans face. Also the census does not acknowledge the diverse range of ethnicities that Asian Americans are grouped under. Many second-generation Cambodians, Laotian, Hmong, and many other Southeast and South Asians, who are darker than what is represented as Asian Americans, may not identify as Asian American so generalizing here is not good.Laurenahn (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article

There isn't much information on the development of Asian American on sports. There is a lot of individuals and their sports careers but not a general development of Asian Americans and how sports shaped the identity of Asian American or something relating to. Some information, like the high school graduation rate, are getting a decade old or older, more recent ones could be added. -Jdacpa2 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see List of Asian Americans#Sports.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed statement

@Neutrality: I see that you've removed cited content. Please re-add it. There are plenty of reliable sources that can verify the removed content including but not limited to Fusion, CNN, WSJ, NYT, CBS News, and ABC News. This five year old information already has been published in academic quality literature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

At the time I took it out I added similar content cited to another source. See "Postwar immigration" second and third paragraphs. If you feel there is anything additional missing, feel free to add it. Neutralitytalk 00:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The addition drew largely from a single source, instead of the multiple sources which are provided above. Moreover, it only mentioned China in relation to Mexico. This leaves out the increasing immigration from South Asia, as well as continuing migration patterns from Southeast Asia (particularly the Philippines).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
My edit cited both the Migration Policy Institute (great, invaluable source) and USA Today. I also added "As of 2016, 'Asia is the second-largest region of birth (after Latin America) of U.S. immigrants. [citation],'" so no, it didn't only mention China in relation to Mexico. In any case, I see you've already expanded the article (thanks), so I don't think there's anything more to do here. Neutralitytalk 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Progress as a group within American society" section

This section appears to be an essay. It repeats content from some sub-articles of this article, and attempts to state an opinion citing various statistics. There is nothing wrong with stating statistics, but to draw a conclusion based upon those various statistics is potential synthesis. I propose that the section be deleted, and am seeking consensus towards that proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

I am concerned about the lead section, it spends to rather large paragraphs focusing on income, poverty, and educational attainment. Per WP:LEAD, the section at the top is suppose to summarize the article. Moreover, this article has multiple sub-articles whose summeries should be included either within appropriate sections of this article or in the lead as well. Perhaps focusing on those three things in the lead of the article give those subjects undue weight?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the edits in the past two years it appears that IceBrotherhood (talk · contribs) has added a lot of the content which I am concerned about. This section does not appear to summarize any part of the article or sub-articles. While the content is verified, placing it in the lead section is IMHO improper. Per WP:APPNOTE I have notified editors who have contributed significantly to this article, and the wikiproject which is primarily responsible for this article, to get more opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

IceBrotherhood (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC) I agree but this is a problem that had occurred on the previous version of the lead section. The last lead section focused on biases. It contained misinformation about being the most successful group in America, great educational attainment, saying Asians did better than White Americans and the references the person added on they omitted a lot of information in favor of stuff just as economic success despite the issues being of economic disparity that was acknowledged in the sources they used. The last lead section spent large paragraphs focusing on income and educational attainment.

I tried regularly going through the proper channels to address this but it fell on deaf ears. In the talk page of Asian Americans a few people brought up the biases of the lead section but no response. If we want a better solution to this then there should be acknowledged of the disparities, poverty, educational attainment, and income, but not as abundant. While a larger more detailed section in social on political issues to expand on this. I personally don't understand why didn't anyone try to engage me about the fallacies of the last lead section, but this one came of great concern. The last lead section had immensely long paragraphs of these topics but in reverse that was reflective of the model minority stereotype when Wikipedia is suppose to be impartial and show all sides of the narrative.

I'm willing to compromise and work with you as we can come to a solution that can create a lead section that satisfyingly addresses the full story and not a one sided narrative. I try regularly to get other editors to engage me but many ignore me other than to tell me I'm just either performing an error or violation. That or praise me for my contributions. I'm willing to work with you if you can work with me.

@IceBrotherhood: At the same time focusing on the disparities puts undue weight on the accomplishments of the subject of the article, which has been documented in this, the parent article, and in sub-articles. Perhaps the two paragraphs that brought up this conversation, the two paragraphs which IceBrotherhood boldly created, would be better off in the "Model minority" section. Which is only one small part of the article. Therefore, having these two paragraphs gives undue weight to that one section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

But putting too much weight unto the achievements undermines the real issues that are caused by the disparities and racism. The last lead section before my additions which are more extensively referenced. I believe that the lead section should minimally speak upon the achievements and disparities and issues of Asians Americans but both points be equally acknowledged in the lead section despite the minor acknowledgement. While there should be a section created in the article that isn't in the Model Minority section. Maybe the section can be called Economic and social disparities among Asian Americans.

The last lead section was overly biased with it's many sentences saying that Asian Americans do better than non-Hispanic Whites and I paraphrase When they said when taking into account countries of origin Asian Americans are no more likely to be poorer than Non-Hispanic Whites. That was an egregious bias that should've been taken action upon early on. I may not know who this is, but there should be something done about their editing and participation on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral ground not used as a device for racial division or to advance any agenda.

The points if we were to reduce and summarise the points up we need to discuss what we should put in the lead section. While all the larger more in depth stuff should go into the section created to acknowledge the disparities, poverty, social and educational issues that we can most likely agree will go into the Social issues section of the article.

I presented this issue in the talk page before and the use Laurenahn agreed with my point but neither one of use were contacted upon about a way to resolve this issue. Meaning those who looked away also wanted the article to be portrayed in that manner. I repeat Wikipedia isn't suppose to be a place that pushes stereotypes or racial agendas. Can we agree to both be more mindful of this in the future and not to let stereotypes good or bad to cloud this article? IceBrotherhood (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not suppose to be pushing anything, including achievements or "real issues that are caused by the disparities and racism". While there is a place to include verified content, it is also not a place to present essays, and especially not on the lead section of an article. While there is verified to reliable sources facts of the disparities and Asian Americans who have had been the subjects of racism, there are sections in the article for that where such things can be expanded on. The lead section should include summaries of both the sections which IceBrotherhood (talk · contribs) is appears to want to emphasis as well as other sections.
Presently, the first two paragraphs appear to summarize the Terminology, Demographics, and History sections rather well, if not so insufficiently. Then the next to paragraphs appears to entirely focus on something not included in the article.
Therefore, I will boldly move that content to an appropriate section of the article's body.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, my edits were only in retaliation to the other users edits. So, you won't create a subsection in social issues to address disparities? If you do then thank you. If not then can you leave the information around before you move it so I can be able to create the subsection. As both Model Minority and Racial violence doesn't cover the topic well. It would be much appreciated. I believe that sub section is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I would've been nice to have a few sentences that summarises both achievements and disparities, but this is very much satisfactory. Thank you for your cooperation I most enjoy it for being impartial, fair minded and open. IceBrotherhood (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Social and economic disparities among Asian Americans

@IceBrotherhood:, please consider bundling references as some edits appear to over state the content which is being verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Disregard I have made the modifications I had asked for above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

NYC

@Castncoot: Please revert the most recent change. If please look references the Los Angeles metro area has a larger population of Asian Americans compared to NYC, see the referenced content on Demographics of Asian Americans. Just because NYC has a large population of Asian Americans, and/or is the largest metro area in the U.S. doesn't mean that it is "most notably", or "notably".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the way the language is written, the "notably" only applies among metros "elsewhere", which doesn't include Los Angeles, which is already included in "West Coast". So the statement is correct, because NYC and vicinity contains a larger Asian American population by a huge margin among metros "elsewhere," meaning the East Coast and Midwest. (Btw, the NYC and LA areas are currently about the same in Asian American population size and NYC will be the largest by 2020 or so at current immigration rates, which is not a factor in the argument here. More saliently, however, New York's Asian American ancestry has a greater depth and breath overall than Los Angeles.) Most importantly, why is Hawaii even being included, when although it is nearly half Asian American, this total number is smaller than even the 800,000+ Chinese Americans alone in the NYC metro area? Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hawaii is included because it is not the "West Coast", but still has a significant Asian American population, with over 700k Asian Americans. Yes it is in the "Western United States", but not the "West Coast". A better question is why isn't Texas listed specifically in the infobox, as over 1m Asians live in the second most populous state in the United States (and has a faster growth rate than New York).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are some references from the Department of Education, and the State of Texas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I never said Hawaii was part of the West Coast, just Los Angeles, and only since you brought up the comparison between LA and NYC. The point is that we could go on and on with further examples here. But since we can't realistically do so, I believe that we should just revert to the way it used to be for quite a while, which was simply to list the top three metros, namely NY/LA/SF (or LA/NY/SF), and say "and other metropolitan areas". That's so much less controversial. The D.C. area is a distant fourth, but has more Asian Americans than the entire state of Hawaii. Castncoot (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree as it is verified that the plurality of Asian Americans continue to reside in the West United States.
"...almost half (46%) of Asian-Americans live in the West, which is where 40% (1.65 million) of the Asian-American population growth occurred from 2009 to 2014,", Nielsen 2016
"Asian Americans continue to be geographically concentrated in the West Coast and Hawaii. More than one-third of single-race Asian Americans (4.1 million) live in California, and an additional 538,000 call Hawaii home,". Population Reference Bureau 2004
"Nearly half of Asian-American adults (47%) live in Western states, double the share of U.S. residents overall." Pew 2012
"The Asian population continued to be concentrated in the West, and the Chinese population was the largest detailed Asian group." United States Census Burea 2012
Additionally, as a proportion of total state population only California and Hawaii have Asian American populations that are great than 10% of their total population. Asian Matters for America Therefore, to continue to emphasis NYC as was previous the case, is still UNDUE. The larger than 1,000,000 population of Asian Americans in the State of New York should be included in some form, but it shouldn't be given a highlighted presence.
As a compromise I suggest the following: we utilize Regions= section to state that the plurality of Asian Americans are within the Western United States and metropolitan areas elsewhere, then utilizing the Template:Infobox ethnic group to list the states with the 10 largest Asian American populations (to include in combination): California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the first half of your approach. (Actually, your statement about the proportions is incorrect and outdated, as New Jersey is also in the 10% club.) First of all, California and Hawaii are 3,000 miles apart and have no reason to be fundamentally grouped together. By that logic, if the West comprises half of the geographic area of the United States and 40% of the Asian American population growth between 2009 and 2014, then the remaining half of the geographic area of the country experienced 60% of the Asian American population growth between 2009 and 2014. And Hawaii has a relatively unremarkable Asian American population in absolute numbers, while the NYC metro area has nearly 2.5 million (10.6%) and the D.C. area has close to 900,000. I indeed don't see ANY reason to highlight Hawaii or the "Western United States" in the infobox at all. The NYC metro also has a more broad-based Asian American population than any other metro. As a state, Hawaii has very few Indian or Bangladeshi Americans, for example. On the other hand, I don't mind listing the top 10 states in the infobox as you have suggested. The other option would be to go back to the way it used to read, with just the top three metros "and metropolitan areas elsewhere". Castncoot (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I highly disagree with Castncoot's attemps to de-highlight the extremely verifiable facts that the majority of Asian Americans continue to reside in the Western United States, and have a majority of the population in Hawaii (the only place where this occurs at the state level). The editors continued emphasis to highlight the Asian American population within the New York City Metropolitan area, at this article and elsewhere IMHO is well meaning but creates undue weight of content in articles with a national scope. Emphasis of Asian Americans (and its sub-populations) in the New York City Metropolitan area is best left in articles where that subject is its primary scope, but it should not be over emphasized here. It would be like overemphasizing the importance of In-N-Out Burgers in an article about Burgers in the United States.
The "go back" as was changed to that by the proposing editor in July 2017, which removed "especially Hawaii, the West Coast", which is verified by the United States Census Bureau report on Asian population in the United States following the 2010 Census. If we look back historic versions of the article one of the most stable versions of the regions portion of the infobox was "Throughout the United States, especially Hawaii, the West Coast, and major urban areas elsewhere" 2016, 2015. In 2014 it read "Throughout the United States especially major urban areas in the U.S.". In 2013 & 2012 it read "Throughout most major cities in the United States; especially the West Coast and Hawaii". In 2011 it read "Throughout the United States Hawaii · West Coast[2] · elsewhere across the country[3]"
By removing mentions of Hawaii and the West Coast from that portion of the infobox it actually does not "go back" and wants to move away from long established consensus. @Ishu, Dark Tichondrias, IceBrotherhood, Myasuda, Latka, and Thegreyanomaly: I ask those editors with significant contributions to this article (whether by amount of text added or number of edits done) to weigh in on this issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, emphasizing NYC & DC would still be UNDUE. Please see this link to the 2010 census data. While there are 8 million Asian Americans in the West, the populations in the Northeast (3.4m) is smaller than the population in the South (3.8m), but larger than the population in the Midwest (2m). Moreover, the population in LA area (2.4m) outside the population in the NYC area (2.2m), which itself outsizes the SF area (1.8), all of which outsize DC area (0.7m).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I'm satisfied with the text in the infobox, and regard the call-out of the Hawaii and West Coast Asian American demographics as appropriate. I think dropping the text "Throughout the United States, especially" and the insertion of the word "several" in front of "major urban areas" would make it more accurate. — Myasuda (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Myasuda: then what you're suggesting would be something like "West Coast, Hawaii, and several major urban areas elsewhere (including the New York City metropolitan area)"? Would you also include the list of ten states with the largest Asian American populations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Without the inclusion of the list of ten states with the largest Asian American populations, it entirely excludes Asian Americans in the Southern United States whose population is larger than in the Northeastern United States & Midwest United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no issue with including the list in the infobox. — Myasuda (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That good to hear. As for the "10% club", an editor above forgot to list Nevada and Washington as well. One of those states will not be in the list of top 10 Asian American populations, due to Nevada only having the 17th largest Asian American population (by state). As a note, that 2017 Pew Research source discounts the Multiracial Filipino Americans, which make up more than 1/5th of total Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, DC is a part of the South and NYC is a part of the Northeast. Yet NYC and DC have more in common than NYC has with Pittsburgh or DC has with Knoxille, Tenn. Los Angeles has more in common with NYC or Las Vegas than it does with Eugene, OR. Yet Eugene is on the "West Coast" but Las Vegas and NYC are not. Cheyenne, Wyoming is also in the "Western United States." What you're ignoring is that the Asian American population of today has chosen to zero in on 10 or 15 large metropolitan areas throughout the country, regardless of region, where jobs and economic opportunities abound. If anything, Asian American population is growing slowly in Hawaii. Listing the top three (or four or five) metropolitan areas, and then saying "and metropolitan areas elsewhere", would be far truer to the real demographic trends of today's Asian American population. And I do believe that using the word "notably" aptly describes the NYC metro, rather than simply "including", because as you see in the superscript reference, today's new Asians from abroad are immigrating to the NYC area by a large margin over any other metro, including second-place Los Angeles: add up the top source Asian countries (sending at least 10,000 immigrants to the U.S. in 2014) - China, India, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, and you get 47,856 new immigrants alone that year for NYC and 31,404 for Los Angeles, if I've done my math correctly. I believe that three metros- NYC, LA, and SF- all are justifiably described as notable - but you insist on lumping LA and SF into "West Coast", when I think such conflation is no longer valid (as with the Eugene, Oregon example). Castncoot (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I actually forgot to add Pakistan in that comparison: including Pakistan, that would be 52,656 for NYC and 31,960 for Los Angeles. Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
How about this: "West Coast, the New York City metropolitan area, Hawaii, and other urban areas elsewhere"? Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
How about no. Plenty of references show that a plurality of Asian Americans live in the West United States. Hawaii is still the highest proportion of Asian Americans as a share of the total population, and the suggestion provided by Castncoot completely ignores the South (which includes Texas and Florida), which still outsizes the Northeast (which includes the NYC metro area).
The insistence on emphasizing NYC metro area IMHO is unnecessary. Including it yes, emphasizing it no.
The unilateral change in the text in July 2017, was bold, but IMHO UNDUE. As for predictions, of NYC outnumbering any other metro area as far as total Asian American population is concerned in the future, please see WP:CRYSTAL. All reliable sources still verify that the LA Metro area has a larger Asian American than the NYC metro area. When the time comes when that is not the case, then we can revisit it, but it still won't change the plurality of Asian Americans included in the West United States. It still won't change the fact that Hawaii has the highest proportion of Asian Americans in their total population (something even California won't achieve
Presently, the third opinion of Myasuda (talk · contribs) appears to have a preferences for "West Coast, Hawaii, and several major urban areas elsewhere (including the New York City metropolitan area)". I will compromise and be OK with that language. But will Castncoot (talk · contribs) compromise and be OK with that language?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I already said that DC is part of the South. And what Myasuda actually said above is, "Overall, I'm satisfied with the text in the infobox, and regard the call-out of the Hawaii and West Coast Asian American demographics as appropriate. I think dropping the text "Throughout the United States, especially" and the insertion of the word "several" in front of "major urban areas" would make it more accurate. — Myasuda (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)". That includes the word "notably" for the NYC metro area. I will reluctantly accept Hawaii being called out, but only if the NYC metro area, with over three times as many Asian Americans as Hawaii (and far more notable diversity within that Asian American population), is listed before Hawaii. If your argument is that Hawaii has a higher percentage of Asian Americans than NYC metro, then the argument holds true for Hawaii over the West Coast as well, and therefore the current text should be maintained (incorporating the "dropping the text "Throughout the United States, especially" and the insertion of the word "several" in front of "major urban areas"" that Myasuda suggested). Castncoot (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
And if we are going by proportionality alone (using Pew Research source), than it should read "Throughout the United States, notably Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Washington, with concentrations elsewhere in several metropolitan areas (including the New York City & Washington metropolitan areas)". While proportionally in metro areas Honolulu (42%), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara (31%), San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (23%), Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (15%), Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville (12%), Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue (11%), and San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos (11%) all have higher population concentrations than that of NYC Metro and DC Metro, they are not elsewhere. Actually, NYC Metro area is not elsewhere as it is partially in New Jersey. Moreover if we are using a 10% concentration as a limiter (as does Pew Research), DC metro should be dropped as well, thus reading: "Throughout the United States, notably Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Washington, with concentrations elsewhere in several metropolitan areas)"
Stating "Throughout the United States" verifies that each state has an Asian American population, emphasizing concentrations (which the regions section of the user box is used for) and providing the list of the states with 10% or over concentrations gives a good list of states in this section, then noting Urban & suburban tendencies by noting metropolitan areas (while specifically calling out the NYC metro area) all seems to meet WP:VER, and doesn't give WP:UNDUE. Moreover, providing the top ten largest populations by state below that shows were total populations live.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Nice job on that! I like this: "Throughout the United States, notably Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Washington, with concentrations elsewhere in several metropolitan areas (including the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas)". Note that I added "D.C." after the mention of metro Washington to disambiguate it from the initially mentioned Washington state, and this will thereby acknowledge the Southern metro with the highest Asian population. Can we agree on this? Castncoot (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Castncoot: so is 9% concentration what you believe is a good cut off point, rather than 10%, cause if it is 10% both NYC & DC metro areas do not make the cut off, this would also increase the list of states. Also NYC Metro area is included in New Jersey, so if we're listing all 9%+ metro areas, than plenty of metro areas go ahead of NYC & DC. Would you be OK with that?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Are we really back to square one again? I simply can't believe it and am confused now. I thought you had just proposed something above, including D.C., and now you're retracting. For your information, the NYC metro area is at 10.6% (nearly 2.5 million). This is an encyclopedia, here to educate and not to manipulate statistics. The NYC metro since the past 10 years or so has been consistently receiving the highest number of new Asian immigrants annually and has by far the broadest basis base of any metro area in its Asian American constituency. As far as I see it, the use of greater proportions is far less significant, because it often simply means that there are fewer non-Asians; what's so impressive about having fewer of another entity, please enlighten me? D.C. is number four by absolute numbers. The NYC metro area's Asian population is notable by all four metrics of notability: 1) absolute number of extant Asian Americans; 2) absolute number of new Asian immigrants annually; 3) diversity in Asian American constituency; 4) and proportion of its total population. Now THAT is notable. Period. Castncoot (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The content which was recently added, which appears to have the backing of all presently involved in this conversation is based off the official count from the 2010 United States Census. The link provided by Castncoot is from an American Community Survey estimate. If we are to use one, we should use one, if we use the other we should be consistent and use the other. If we list NYC and Washington metro areas, why not list all the other metro areas that have greater proportions than 10% (many of which have larger proportions than NYC and Washington metro areas)? Why is Castncoot so hard set in including specifically the NYC metro area?
This is why we have an entire sub-article devoted to this sub-subject at Demographics of Asian Americans.
This is why someone created an article dedicated to that sub-topic.
It would be like insisting insisting that specifically Vietnamese Americans be listed in the infobox, while not making an effort to want Chinese Americans and Indian Americans in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll repeat it again if you'd like: As far as I see it, the use of greater proportions is far less significant, because it often simply means that there are fewer non-Asians; what's so impressive about having fewer of another entity, please enlighten me? The NYC metro area's Asian population is notable by all four metrics of notability: 1) absolute number of extant Asian Americans; 2) absolute number of new Asian immigrants annually; 3) diversity in Asian American constituency; 4) and proportion of its total population. It's the "all-rounder" metro with regards to the Asian American population, and THAT is notable. And that's why, in answer to your question. Castncoot (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
?????...I can't make heads or tails out of that statement. Castncoot (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It's nearly 2020 now, so it makes no good sense to use 2010 data. I would be OK with this phrase: "Greater Los Angeles, the New York City metropolitan area, the San Francisco Bay Area, and other urban areas elsewhere." Stick to absolute numbers and three metros (as the vast majority of Asian Americans live in metros), and use the most current census estimates available. And then list the top 10 states by absolute numbers below it. Doing anything else like using proportions or initially including Hawaii (which will be included in the top ten list) simply opens up an ugly Pandora's box of problems. Castncoot (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe I had similar concerns regarding 2000 United States Census data in 2011, before the 2010 data was published in 2012. That said the 2020 census has not yet occurred and CRYSTAL still applies.
@Castncoot: The language which is proposed in your most recent comment, is that in exclusion to all other language, or in addition to other language?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Updated census estimates are valid, RCLC. They're used all over Wikipedia. No need to wait until the decennial counts or restrict oneself to those. The language I propose is in exclusion of all other language, as it is factual and non-controversial, and the list of states images the other side of the fabric, namely the broad distribution of Asian Americans, absolute numbers included. Castncoot (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It's also factual and non-controversial that the West United States has the plurality of Asian Americans, that even the more recent estimates can verify. Therefore, "Urban areas throughout the United States, with a plurality in the West". This statement encompasses about 95% and 45% of the total Asian American population respectively. This does not exclude any of the highly populated metropolitan areas where Asian Americans may reside, nor single out any specific state or metro area.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That is not only controversial, but entirely meaningless, because the area you are describing covers about 45% of the land area of the United States and an even greater extent including water, stretching from Lihue, Kauai, to Barrow, Alaska, to Glendive, Montana, to Jal, New Mexico. That means the East United States contains (nearly) 55% of all Asian Americans, sparing a portion of the Great Plains as neither. If you add up Boston, NYC, Philly, D.C., and Atlanta alone, you get 4,344,422 Asian Americans, and that's not even including Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, Albany, Hartford, Pittsburgh, and other areas in between. It's also not counting areas just slightly to the west or south, including Cleveland and other OH metros, Nashville and other TN metros, and obviously Florida's metros. Flying between Boston and Atlanta takes less than 2.5 hours, and the cities are less than 1,000 flying miles apart. Flying between Honolulu and Denver takes 8 hours, and the cities are over 3,000 flying miles apart. The fact that Los Angeles and San Francisco make up two of the top three already speaks volumes, and by the way, the two compose a large portion of the "West United States"'s Asian American population. Then we have the list of top ten states and their absolute totals. To go beyond that and artificially (and meaninglessly) call out the "West United States" makes no good sense, and is frankly WP:UNDUE. Castncoot (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It does make sense as many reliable sources give due weight that the region, The West, defined by the United States Census Bureau (Which then further subdivides the nation into Northeast, South, & Midwest), emphasis the plurality that Asian Americans reside in the West. I am not synthesizing this. The sources give this significant WP:WEIGHT. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. Castncoot has a problem with the Census definition, and ignores the weight given it by reliable sources; that's not something that can be fixed on Wikipedia.
If anything the continued demand to include the New York City Metropolitan Area in the infobox is undue, as sources don't emphasize its 2+ million population in the scope of the entirety of the total population.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Your third source alone actually states, "There are almost 800,000 (single-race) Asians in New York City alone — this is more than twice the number in Los Angeles." That aside, the sources are generally outdated and therefore unreliable, and the majority don't even state what you're trying to portray. We're here to educate the global Wikipedia audience, the majority of whom doesn't know the difference between the "Northeast" (a small geographic area) versus the "Eastern United States" and a majority of whom may not even understand the definition of "plurality". WP:NOTABILITY supersedes domestic jurisdictional boundaries. Generally there's a "gold, silver, and bronze," and then the rest. We should mention three metros and cap it there for the intro, and then mention the list of the top ten states. This gives the most accurate picture to the global audience that can be notably and verifiably referenced with reliably updated estimates. Let the reader then arrive at their own independent conclusions — we shouldn't be telling them how to interpret the actual numbers. Castncoot (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of New York City, there is a new notable angle here which I just noticed. The source which you referenced as I quoted in the paragraph above is obviously outdated, as New York City proper has now become home to over 1.25 million Asian Americans (14.9%), the only city in the U.S. to cross the 1 million mark. Perhaps we should also list the top three city propers in total Asian American population within the infobox. That would be New York City (1,256,671), Los Angeles (512,073), and San Jose, California (371,514). But again, perhaps we really should not explicitly point it out, but rather let the reader notice on their own, that NYC has more Asian Americans than Los Angeles, San Jose, (and by the way, also San Francisco (313,526)) combined. (WP:CALC) Castncoot (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That is New York City proper compared to Los Angeles city proper. We have been using their metro areas thus far. It's nice that the above user wants to ignore what reliable sources say. Again, reliable sources, even more modern ones still note the plurality of Asian American reside in the area defined by the USCB as The West, not the Northeast, not the Midwest, and not the South. Nice way to cherry pick statistics in the last paragraph there. I provided an exhaustive list of references, and what was provided were statistical tables. While we are both saying things that are factual, we are giving weight to different things entirely. Moreover, by limiting to the city proper the above user is completely changing how we are defining geographical areas. Best at this point we leave that section blank, and that people go to the sub-article about the sub-topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picking can seem to occur with almost any perspective. Blank is fine with me. Castncoot (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus confirmed, blanking it is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Hkaur27 and Jessicapierce: I noticed that there was a content dispute here. I see that Hkaur27 (talk · contribs) is editing due to an assignment from a class. May I remind editors that content needs to be verified, neutrally worded, and should be only given due weight. Wikipedia is not a place to fight for social justice, or any number of other things. It is also possible, that the content which was added, then removed, might already be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia or in the article itself. This appears to be the case with the content which Jessicapierce (talk · contribs) removed. Perhaps the reference that was utilized Hkaur27, can be added to existing references per WP:CITEBUNDLE?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation Clean-up: Citations to an entire book

There are quite a few examples of a statement being "supported" by an entire book without any specific page numbers provided. I'm inclined to remove those citations, but in the interest of being WP:CAUTIOUS, I'll be compiling a list here first.

An example of a specific citation is in the "Census Definition" section of "Terminology," which contains this sentence: "In 1977, the federal Office of Management and Budget issued a directive requiring government agencies to maintain statistics on racial groups, including on 'Asian or Pacific Islander'." The sentence is attributed to Frank Wu's book Yellow, on page 310 of the 2011 edition. That is a citation that can be verified with a copy of the book.

An example of a problematic citation is in the "Model Minority" section of "Social and political issues," specifically this sentence: "Stereotyping Asian American as over-achievers can lead to harm if school officials or peers expect all to perform higher than average." This sentence is "supported" by a citation to the same book, but without a page reference. I would replace this with a citation needed tag.

I reviewed all of the current references in the article, and these five are attributed to an entire book. (That's a lot fewer than I'd expected, a good thing) It's unreasonable to ask a fact-checker to read 200++ pages of a book to find a few facts. The burden is on the writer to point a reader to the specific source.

Section/subsection Text Reference Comments/Suggestions
Terminology/Debates Because of this shared experience, the term Asian American is still a useful panethnic category because of the similarity of some experiences among Asian Americans, including stereotypes specific to people in this category. Ono, Kent; Pham, Vincent (2009). Asian Americans and the Media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Chou, Rosalind (2012). Asian American Sexual Politics: The Construction of Race, Gender, and Sexuality. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Omit these two references because there is one good citation
History/Early Immigration Chinese sailors first came to Hawaii in 1789 Kalei, Kalikiano (August 12, 2010). "The Chinese Experience in Hawaii". University of Hawai`i Press. Retrieved January 14, 2011. Remove as it shows permanent dead link and one other source remains
History/Early Immigration Forming part of the California gold rush, these early Chinese immigrants participated intensively in the mining business and later in the construction of the transcontinental railroad. Chang, Iris (2003). The Chinese in America : a narrative history. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03123-2. Remove, as someone should be able to source this well-known fact.
Social and political issues/Race-based violence Attacks on Chinese in the American frontier were common, this included the slaughter by Paiute Indians of forty to sixty Chinese miners in 1866 during the Snake War, and an attack on Chinese miners at Chinese Massacre Cove in 1887 by cowboys resulting in 31 deaths. Arif Dirlik; Malcolm Yeung (2001). Chinese on the American Frontier. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0847685322 Remove. Two other paginated citations remain
Social and political issues/Model minority Stereotyping Asian American as over-achievers can lead to harm if school officials or peers expect all to perform higher than average. Frank H. Wu (2002). Yellow. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00639-7. Remove. There are numerous citations available

Ishu (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits made. --Ishu (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation Clean-up

The current cite 21 supports this statement:

  • [People] with origins or ancestry in North Asia (Russians, Siberians), Central Asia (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, etc.), Western Asia (diaspora Jews, Turks, Persians, Kurds, Assyrians, West Asian Arabs, Afghans, etc.), and the Caucasus (Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, etc) are classified as "white" or "Middle Eastern"

The citation contains all of the following six references:

  1. "COMPARATIVE ENROLLMENT BY RACE/ETHNIC ORIGIN" (PDF). Diversity and Inclusion Office. Ferris State University. Retrieved August 9, 2014. original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
  2. "Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience". Arab American Institute. Arab Americans by the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University. April 4, 1997. Archived from the original on August 26, 2014. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
  3. Ian Haney Lopez (1996). "How the U.S. Courts Established the White Race". Model Minority. New York University Press. Archived from the original on August 11, 2014. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
  4. "Race". United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2014. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.
  5. Kleinyesterday, Uri (2015-06-18). "New U.S. census category to include 'Israeli' option - Jewish World Features - Haaretz - Israel News". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  6. "Public Comments Received on Federal Register notice 79 FR 71377 : Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2015 National Content Test : U.S. Census Bureau; Department of Commerce : December 2, 2014 – February 2, 2015" (PDF). Census.gov. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  • Reference 1 is simply an original document from a university that lists its racial classifications. My view is this is borderline Original Research, and should be omitted.
  • Reference 2 only supports that Arabs are considered to be "white"
  • Reference 3 is an excerpt that reviews the court cases from the 1920s, including Ozawa and Thind. It does not contain any references to current interpretations.
  • Reference 4 is a broken link
  • Reference 5 is very interesting and is related to the topic, but it doesn't really state that any of these groups are classified as "white." (The census forms clearly say that they are, but I did not see a statement in this reference.)
  • Reference 6 is a 78-page transcript of public comments in response to a notice in the Federal Register. I did not review all 78 pages.

I propose we eliminate all 6 references and replace them with a link to the actual 2010 census form. Even that document doesn't really support the concept that these groups are all "white" because it doesn't define that term. (Yes, we can all ask "why?") --Ishu (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should simply restate the statement entirely to read, "People with origins or ancestry in North Asia (Russians, Siberians), Central Asia (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, etc.), Western Asia (diaspora Jews, Turks, Persians, Kurds, Assyrians, West Asian Arabs, Afghans, etc.), and the Caucasus (Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, etc) are not classified as Asian Americans, according the U.S. Census Bureau", and then use the reference you've provided. This bypasses the whole controversy, and in fact, just sticks to the topic of the article at hand. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Question: Can anyone provide a source that says either that the groups in this list are NOT Asian, or that they ARE white? Some like the "Middle East" are classified with "white" per the 1997 standards. But those standards are from 1997, and they don't define "Middle East" so the "North Asia" and "Central Asia" groups above are not clearly in any one group. Making things muddier, the 2010 Census form allows one to free-form write-in a country. This is why I don't like lists, and I really don't like lists that aren't supported by references. --01:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong in simply using the actual 2010 census form that you just provided? The statement in this article doesn't have to read that these groups "are classified as SPECIFICALLY NOT Asian Americans by the Census Bureau" – it just needs to read that these groups "are NOT SPECIFICALLY classified as Asian Americans by the Census Bureau" – may I point out the significant difference in meaning between these two phrases... Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This goes into the question of the scope of this article, which largely follows the United States Census Bureau definition, which also plays into a factor for WP:WPAA scope. With the MENA ethnicity being contemplated (but not included in 2020 census) I feel that it falls outside of the scope of this article, and in some way that should be incorporated into the terminology section, thus explaining why certain peoples from the Asian continent are not within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad we're having this discussion, but I'm a bit lost. Can you guys make some suggestions here for illustration. I'll put my thumb on the scale here by re-re-re-stating my dislike of lists. North Asia, Central Asia, and other regions all have their own articles. I don't see any reason to list their respective countries in this article. Separately, I believe the Census bureau reclassifies freeform countries. Either way, its methods must be published, so we don't have to guess. Isn't the burden of citation fall to wheover adds content? --Ishu (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't help myself. The Census Bureau's American Community Survey just follows geographic conventions. See the 2016 results, for example. --Ishu (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notable People

Folks--This article runs >8,000 words, excluding the lead section. Of that, nearly 3,000 words are in the Notable People section. The article has six main content sections, and nineteen "level 1" subsections, of which seven are in "Notable People". There are nine "level 2" subsections, with seven in "Notable People". Devoting >1/3 of the article to what is essentially a listicle of people isn't encyclopedic content, but is really a semi-indiscriminate list of information.

For example, in Sports alone, there are 40 individuals, and we could add dozens more, such as World Series winner Lenn Sakata. I don't want to debate whether he makes the list. My point is that the section is already too cluttered with names, that anybody can add "one more name" to that list, and that a list doesn't tell any meaningful story.

There is thematic content buried in the current "Arts and Entertainment", "Business", and "Military" sections that begins to tell the story of Asian Americans. But that content is just lost among what must be >100 names. Can we create a consensus to strip out the listicles and make the article a summary of information? Ishu (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

At the Filipino American article, all that has been WP:SPINOUT to a sub-article/standalone list page. There has already been a spin-out articles from the notable people section, such as Asian Americans in arts and entertainment, Asian Americans in government and politics, and List of Asian Americans. As such, content about those sections of the section under discussion should only have a summary paragraph (matching the lead of those sub-articles) on this page.
More over the emphasis on "queer writing" on the page, while it is not included in the sub-article gives it undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ishu: May I suggest the following sub-articles Sport history of Asian Americans, Science and technology history of Asian Americans. This leaves the much under developed Business & Journalism sections left on the main article page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me be WP:BOLD and suggest we abolish the entire section, relegating its content to other articles. That is the approach taken by African Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, and European Americans (but see fun fact, below).
Fun fact: In the article European Americans the Notable People section is limited to a list of US Presidents of European descent! And guess how many presidents are on that list? Ishu (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I recommend KEEPING the notables. A major controversy re Asians and not the other groups = "model minority" and the notables are highly relevant to that issue. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
At present the article is 175kB+s including references, but it is 96kBs of prose, thus getting close to WP:TOOBIG, therefore while it need not be right now, it doesn't hurt to plan for when another sub-article is necessary. For instance since Model minority already has its own article, does the content that is here, that isn't duplicated there, need to be here? Shouldn't it be moved there? Also, shouldn't the section "Social and economic disparities among Asian Americans" be a subsection of that article, as it is disputing the model minority concept? Those two sections make up 6.4kBs of prose. Then again all the content in the notable section is presently 17.1kBs. Even creating sub-articles from that section, summaries of those sub-articles would need to remain, so we can expect that to cut down to 8.05kB of prose.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"too long" depends on content--in this case there are discrete clearly marked sections that interested readers can choose from. Not many will want to read it straight through. When immigration is debated in USA a major question is whether the newcomers make valuable contributions, and the Notables section speaks to that issue--it's a matter of browsing to read about people in fields that interest the reader. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of length, a list is not encyclopedic, counter to WP:ENC and WP:PLOT. The Model Minority concept is a legitimate topic. Immigration in the US (and elsewhere) is a legitimate topic. A list of people adds very little meaning to any topic. A list of people barely qualifies as prose, and this one is a "who's who" in Asian America. A thematic discussion of Immigration or the Model Minority would be a far better use of 3,000 words. Other folks, please weigh in. Ishu (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ishu and Rjensen: there are presently 3 editors here. Therefore, WP:3O is out. It might be easier to form a consensus with a small group of editors who are knowledgeable about the topic. However, if anyone wants to open up this to more editors, they are free to do so per WP:CANVASS & WP:DR. If I may, I think there are three current streams of thought:
  1. Eliminate it
  2. Spin out
  3. Keep/expand.
Does this sound like a rough summary of above?
If the answer is Eliminate it, per WP:NOTCATALOG, this definitely needs an RfC cause than arguably any List of insert ethnicity here will find its way to WP:AFD quickly. For example of a possible outcome, while presented as prose, as part of a general topic, such as Military history of Asian Americans would survive, it could be then that List of Asian Pacific American Medal of Honor recipients would find its way to the waste basket (unless it were merged into the history article as an embedded list).
Given that the article is already 96kB of prose, would expanding the notable Asian Americans section be a wise use of space in this article? If we look at the sub-articles that have been spunout from it, there are well over 100kB of prose within those articles. What other than summaries of those sub-articles belong?
Perhaps this is why I suggested Spin out as a solution. It reduces the size of this article, keeping with WP:TOOBIG, but doesn't eliminate the content from Wikipedia entirely.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
good plan--here's my thoughts. a) In the first place, I do not consider the size issue to be a decisive matter, because readers pick and choose what they want. Every section is clearly indicated and if someone is uninterested in the topic they certainly know how to skip it. (after teaching undergraduates for a while, I discovered that they were expert at skipping parts of the assigned readings they figured would not be on the test.) Those length limitations were designed for much simpler less complex articles that the eduitoes thought people would be reading from start to finish. They were designed in the days of telephone modems. b) My more substantive argument is that Asian Americans have been the subject of extreme nasty hostility since the middle 19th century and the Muslim element among them is especially a target of high-level hostility in 2018. The section on notables gives a strong rebuttal to the false and ugly stereotypes. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My "eliminate" proposal probably sounds more harsh than I want it to be. I'm really closer to "spin it out" or maybe "clean it up". I'm making the (possibly wrong) assumption that most or all of the article sentences that say "[name] is a [category]" are already listed in the articles titled "List of Asian Americans in [category]". Anything we "eliminate" from the main article can and should go into the "list of" or "Asian Americans in [category]" articles. Look at Asian Americans in arts and entertainment. That article is >9000 words in 12 categories, but the "Arts and entertainment" section in this main Asian Americans article is a concise 100 words. We can improve those 100 words, but this example squares with the logic of WP:TOOBIG.
More practically, the main article section now called "Notable people" was titled "Notable contributions" at least until January 2017. What if we spin out the lists and also build a consensus to use the Notable contributions title? Vigorous editing would be needed to avoid re-list-ifying of the section. RJenson, I agree with all your sentiments. I just disagree that a big list of names accomplishes much. Ishu (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Ishu makes sense.  :) Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I found the edit changing "Notable contributions" to "Notable people". It was done during a period of vandalism, with no discussion. There's no reason to doubt good faith, but I suspect the section name change slipped in among the vandalism. Given that the section was titled "Notable contributions" for nearly a decade with no controversy or discussion, I recommend this is a case for WP:BOLDness. (It's semi-noteworthy that the prior "contributions" section title didn't discourage list-ifying.) Ishu (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the return to the historic section title "Notable contributions".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to talk about some style guidelines and standards for this Nnotable contributions section. There are a lot of paragraphs that read something like this: "[Name1] was the first [ethnicity1] in [sub-area1]. Later, [Name2] was the first [ethnicity2] in [subarea1]. In [sub-area2], [Name3] was the first [ethnicity1] to [notability criteria]...." The Sports/Basketball section is the most notable example of this problem, but Science and Technology/Space does it, too. The Demographics subsection has over 20 ethnicities listed. I don't even think it's a good idea to have 4 ethnicities for each sub-section or field, never mind 20. Business already has three subsections (fashion, technology, and finance).

Suggestions:

  • If someone is Asian American, let's just say what they're notable for and include their ethnicity only when it's relevant to their notability. Nathan Adrian is an Asian American who is notable as a three-time Olympic medalist. He is not notable for being hapa, so why should we mention it? If he were a hapa-rights activist, then he'd be notable for being hapa, for example.
  • Inclusion matters, but we can take things too far. I won't stick my neck out and say where to draw the line--maybe we can figure this out. What we can't do is have 20 ethnicities x 5 sub-areas x 7 main areas = 700 people.

Ishu (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's create these articles to get this moving:
--Ishu (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Folks--Having spun out the Sports content to its own article, I propose we reduce it to something like this:
See archived version of this page
We can edit this and add to it, but we've got to draw some lines here for this article. The content lives on... but I don't think it should be here. And we'll keep working on the other Notable People sections after this one. --Ishu (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me . . . — Myasuda (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but no need to emphasize a particular sport in the first paragraph, just mention professional sports in the 20th century.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I went WP:BOLD and stripped it way down. We all are gonna have to be vigilant to keep it encyclopedic. --Ishu (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notable Contributions: Science and Technology

This is going to be a pain. Methinks this section is where we make or break a consensus. What are the rules? Here are some suggestions:

  1. This article is about Asian Americans, so it's not relevant to reference specific ethnicities
  2. In general, the first Asian American may be relevant, but not necessarily the first [ethnicity]-American

Those are the easy ones. Let's try harder:

  1. For the purposes of the Asian Americans article, my view is the article should favor people in science and technology who are notable among the general public versus those notable within a scientific or technology community. Those societies are small, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of them.
  2. We should emphasize awards and prizes known to the general public, such as Nobel prize
  3. We should emphasize award winners whose contributions have some application that can be explained to the general public. To give one example (chosen at random), Shiing-Shen Chern won the Wolf prize, but his article does not even explain why.

I'm putting this out there to start a discussion. If we don't have some guidelines, then it's listicle-time. --Ishu (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Created new article, spun out content, and stub-ified the current section. What do people think of making this more about "how" and "why" Asian Americans contribute to Science and technology, and less about "who" made the contributions? That way, the "whos" are focused in the "List of" and "Asian Americans in [topic]" articles. --Ishu (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that when it comes to science and technology, the "how" isn't much different for Asian Americans than any other aggregate group. For first generation Asian Americans, however, the "why" may be driven in part by the fact that expression of one's technical skills and prowess in science and technology is less hampered by non-native English language proficiency than other fields. Many Asian immigrants also seem to have benefited from good education systems that drills in math and science fundamentals. Of course, reliable sources would be needed to support any such assertions in the article. — Myasuda (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
An administrator has proposed deletion of Asian_Americans_in_science_and_technology. I can't carry this water singlehandedly. --Ishu (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Admin says there aren't sufficient justifications for the unique page on the topic of Asian Americans in science and technology. I am at a loss to support it myself. It makes me question whether the content was suitable even for this page in the first place. Ideally we should have a consensus whether to bring the content back here or not. I do not believe we should. Opinions are invited. --Ishu (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I am the person who added the prod. It was in my role as a new page patroller, not as admin. Any way my opinion is that for list articles that someone should have published a similar sort of list. Because it is hard to pick whose name should appear, there is not a clear inclusion criterion. If every notable person is included it will be a huge list. If you just want to include the first and Nobel prize winners it may as well stay in this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sports

I see clean up continues, with a new sub-article. Perhaps what should be included in this page is a summary of the sub-article, as well as a short list of Asian American firsts within the field of sports.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Americans/Archive_9&oldid=998781376"