Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggestions for Clean-up (Everybody in the pool!)

Looking over the article, I see two general clean-up items that can improve the article's quality of writing and fact-checking without elimination of meaningful content. I'm starting this discussion to see whether we can get traction on making this a good article.

1. Clean up unnecessary in-line attributions: Eliminate langauge such as "According to [source]". Just state the facts, and/or let the citation itself identify the source.
   • Example 1 from the "Education" section of "Cultural influence":
     • "According to Carolyn Chen, director of the Asian American Studies Program at Northwestern University, as of December 2012 Asian Americans made up twelve to eighteen percent of the student population at Ivy League schools, larger than their share of the population."
     • I would rewrite as "In 2012, Asian Americans were between 12-18% of students at Ivy League universities, significantly greater than the percentage of the US population." That reduces the words by half without changing meaning.
   • Example 2 from the "Bamboo ceiling" section of "Social and Political Issues":
     • "Articles regarding the subject have been published in Crains, Fortune magazine, and The Atlantic." with three citations (and wikilinks to the three publications)
     • I would eliminate this sentence and attach the three citations to one of the other sentences in the section.
2. Avoid unnecessary lists
   • Disclaimer: Asian America can't avoid lists completely. There are over 20 Asian countries generally recognized, plus languages, sub-ethnicities, and more. We need to make distinctions. Inclusion matters. But we can have a discussion about whether a particular list adds meaning to a discussion, versus whether there's a more general way to make the same point with fewer words. Clarity matters, too.
   • Example 1 from Demographics:
     • The section includes this part: "The demographics of Asian Americans can further be subdivided into, as listed in alphabetical order:" and lists over 20 subgroups.
     • The lead section already provides this information: "Asian Americans are Americans of Asian descent. The term refers to a panethnic group that includes diverse populations, which have ancestral origins in East Asia, Southeast Asia, or South Asia, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau."
     • My view is the sentence above and its list add over 70 words that don't meaningfully inform the reader and add clutter (not least because 27 of those words are repetition of the word 'Americans').
   • Example 2 from the "Social and economic disparities among Asian Americans" section of "Social and Political Issues"
     • A disclaimer: I believe these disparities are a legitimate topic. But, I also believe there is a more effective way to discuss this legitimate topic.
     • The second paragraph begins with a list: "The Asian American groups that have low educational attainment and high rates of poverty both in average individual and median income are Bhutanese Americans,[201][202] Bangladeshi Americans,[191][201][203] Cambodian Americans,[194][196] Burmese Americans,[195] Nepali Americans,[204] Hmong Americans,[191][196][201] and Laotian Americans.[196]"
     • Who determined that these seven groups are "the" groups "that have low educational attainment and high rates of poverty"? For example, Reference 201 doesn't mention any ethnic groups at all, yet it's cited for three of the ethnicities here. Using multiple citations is a good thing, generally. But using at least seven different references to compile a list of "the" groups with [feature] starts to look like original research, against WP:OR. Put differently, if these seven groups are "the" members, I'd expect to see at least one source that lists these seven, and hopefully explains why the eighth group on the list isn't "low" on [measure]. If there is no such reference, that's WP:OR in my book.
     • Even if this list is legitimate (and I'm doubtful, but please, please, please, prove me wrong), I'm not sure the list is the right way to present the point. What characteristics do these seven communities have that make them different from other "more successful" Asian American groups, and also different from other groups with "low educational attainment and high rates of poverty"? Let's find a reliable source that answers these questions to enhance the Asian Americans article, and explain why these groups have unique challenges that create conditions for "low educational attainment and high rates of poverty" (and I believe that's true).
3. Citations are a mess--very outdated, inconsistent, and/or multiple works cited in a single note
   • Example 1--Citation #2
     • Citation 2 combines five different references:
       1. Most Children Younger Than Age 1 are Minorities, Census Bureau Reports – Population – Newsroom – U.S. Census Bureau". United States Census Bureau. May 17, 2012. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
       2. "Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 (NC-EST2011-04)". United States Census Bureau. United States Department of Commerce. May 2012. Retrieved May 22, 2013. 18,205,898
       3. "Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month: May 2013" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. United States Department of Commerce. March 27, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2013.
       4. "Asian American/Pacific Islander Profile". Office of Minority Health. United States Department of Health & Human Services. September 17, 2012. Archived from the original on April 3, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2013.
       5. "Asian American Populations". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United States Department of Health & Human Services. May 7, 2013. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved May 20, 2013
     • These references are used to support the total current population number in the infobox (21,655,368 "as of 2016" per the infobox), and in the first paragraph of the article, sentence #4 (Asian Americans with no other ancestry comprise 5.4% of the U.S. population, while people who are Asian alone, and those combined with at least one other race, make up 6.8%). Obviously, references from 2012/2013 can't be reliable sources for 2016 population numbers.
   • Example 2--Citation 51
     • Citation 51 combines 5+ references in a single note to support this sentence: "The earliest known arrival is that of "Luzonians" in Morro Bay, California on board the Manila-built galleon ship Nuestra Senora de Esperanza in 1587, when both the Philippines and California were colonies of the Spanish Empire."
     • I hope we don't need more than one reliable source to support this relatively uncontroversial statement.
     • The second reference "Chronology of Filipino-Americans in America pre-1898" appears to be a personal document of no known notability, quality, or authenticity. More importantly, it cites a reliable source (Amerasia Journal) as the true source of this information. At minimum, the original source ought to receive some callout.
     • The third reference from the Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology is relatively vague, and doesn't add to this simple statement.
     • The fourth reference from E. San Juan, Jr. is more than sufficient in my view. It reads "the first men [from the Philippines] who landed one foggy morning of October 21, 1857...at Morro Bay, California [were] sailors from the Spanish Galleon Nuestra Senora de Buena Esperanza." It helpfully notes they weren't "Filipinos" since they were Spanish subjects.
   • A lot of work is needed to comb through the citations, especially because the bots are finding outdated links to blogs and other sources. I've also found broken links to Census Bureau reports.

I see that there's a school project working on this page. Some of this source-checking would seem to be a valuable contribution. Maybe the students have access to an actual list of "lowest educational attainment and high rates of poverty." Either way, these are some uncontroversial ways we can streamline the article without compromising the content. Ishu (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I eliminated the citation referenced above as #2. Unfortunately, that renumbers everything after it. I also edited the former #51, leaving two reliable sources. --Ishu (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a series of edits mostly to clean up in-line citations along the lines of #1 above. Here and there I also made some content edits, which I don't think is too WP:BOLD, but I'm making a note here so there are no surprises for anyone. Ishu (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Another thing is per WP:LEAD the current lead fails to summarize the article. If the article will ever meet WP:GA? this is a must do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Discussion regarding removal of South Asian groups by anonymous editor

On or before September 1, 2018, one or more anonymous editors began removing references to South Asian Americans. I have been undoing and otherwise restoring the removed content, but the editor(s) continued to remove the content as recently as today. In my edit comments I have noted that the removed content is supported by references and consensus, while Anon has provided no references for the edits, and Anon has not offered any comments here. If Anon continues this behavior and declines to engage in discussion, my view is we should seek administrator assistance.

Additional commentary in this talk section would be appreciated. --Ishu (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of verified content can be considered vandalism. I boldy reverted the article to its last stable version of 10 September. Given the amount of unexplained removal of content by anon-editors, who should be treated as regular editors, it could be argued that the article be given temporary semi-protection due to vandalism. Therefore, I will make the request--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ishu:, here is the request I made on behalf of yourself and WP:WPAA.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Request handled. Airplaneman ✈ 05:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

Could somebody please add Indian back to the list of groups in the introduction? An unruly IP user removed it (you can see it here) 121.214.3.52 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Airplaneman ✈ 17:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed elimination of Asian American occupation categories

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Intersection of descent and occupation to eliminate most if not all occupation categories for Asian Americans. A full list is here: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 11. It is curious that only Asian American subcategories are being singled out. For example, none of the subcategories of Category:American people of Italian descent by occupation, Category:American people of Mexican descent by occupation, Category:Hispanic and Latino American people by occupation, or Category:African-American people by occupation are being discussed simultaneously. If you have an opinion the matter, you can chime in on the discussion. Myasuda (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

@Neutrality and Airplaneman: Neutrality, your removal of content was reverted per WP:BRD as well as addition of reliable sources, only to be removed again How is Evid Based Complement Alternat Med not valid? Why is a news source not valid? Why is an undergrad journal published by Columbia University not valid? Why is a term paper at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona not valid?
Also there is this source here: Grace J. Yoo; Mai-Nhung Le; Alan Y. Oda (12 October 2012). "Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Asian-American Subgroups". Handbook of Asian American Health. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 327–338. ISBN 978-1-4614-2227-3. the chapter being this journal entry here; Both Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda are listed as "Common Alternative Medicine", or some other similar phrasing (1, 2, 3 )

Whether the discussion of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Ayurveda, medical practices belong in this article is a matter of debate, surely. That said it can be stated (and has been) that it is occurring within Asian American communities.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I explained this quite well in my edit summary, but I'll take the sources in order

• "Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Comparative Overview" - this cites mentions nothing about Asian Americans at all. It is off-topic in this article. But even if it did, the journal is also low quality. Edzard Ernst, one of the founders of the journal, writes that "the peer-review system of EBCAM is farcical" and it is "useless rubbish." [1]
• South China Morning Post: Mentions nothing about Asian Americans. Also unsuitable source for healthcare content (WP:MEDRS).
• "Ayurveda: Controversies and the Need for Integration with Mainstream Medicine" - does not mention Asian Americans, so off-topic. Also is not a reliable source; it's an undergrad journal and the author is a random "Ayurevdic Practitioner." WP:PROFRINGE, WP:MEDRS.
• Undergraduate "senior project" term paper at Cal Poly State - Does not mention Asian Americans, so off-topic. Also fails WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

So, in some (1) all of these are off topic and (2) all of these are unreliable. The new sources you bring up are also largely not usable. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Digestive Health" -- off-topic since it doesn't discuss Asian Americans, and not a reliable source. The UMD report is from 11 years ago and deals only with a single county in Maryland. And so forth and so forth. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet this source still stands and to wave it away with "so forth and so forth" ignores that both types of medicine are being practiced in the United States, as acknowledged here, here, and here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That source is probably the most on topic (as it does actually speak to prevalence in the AA community), but I do not think the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a strong or reliable source. You can bring to WP:RSN and see what others think. Neutrality^talk 03:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is it that the above editor, Neutrality, is the gatekeeper of whether a mention of Traditional Chinese Medicine or Ayurveda is included in this article? Why when there are reliable sources that verify that these forms of medicine are being practiced in the United States, should that not be included (even as a brief mention), in this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you can bring forward reliable sources that speak directly to the actual topic at hand, go for it. I don't oppose a brief sentence or two noting how prevalent or non-prevalent such treatments are in the AA community, but only if we have high-quality sources suitable for an encyclopedia. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine doesn't fit that bill. If you disagree, go to WP:RSN and seek consensus for your position. And, yes, I'm a "gatekeeper" of quality sourcing, as every editor should be; it's on all of us to monitor the sources used and to remove unsourced or poorly sourced text. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait. The last three sources I provided were published by Jones & Bartlett Learning, Preventing Chronic Disease and ABC-CLIO. All reliable sources. Therefore, the opposition to content at this point appears to be moot.

The sources verify that Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Ayurevdic, are being practiced in the United States among certain Asian American populations.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are better. Do you have proposed language for the article based on them? Neutrality^talk 14:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed elimination of Asian American occupation categories redux

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)

Earthling Americans

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:BOLD, but your questions would require a major restructuring. That kind of effort should be done with WP:CONSENSUS, and the talk page is the right place to start.

Happy editing!

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

Filipinos speaking Spanish

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 Spanish isn't common among the culture of Filipino Americans, it is verified in a reliable source. See WP:VNT. Thus the real question is how much 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 Spanish Filipino and Spanish language in the Philippines is vague, and those articles make no clear claims about how many people speak any functional level of Spanish. I wouldn't call a work describing folklore of Asian Americans authoritative on whether people in the Philippines speak Spanish. I'd hope we could find something more on-point--a linguistics book, for example. As I've said before, I'm fine if we focus on seeking WP:CONSENSUS vs. being WP:BOLD

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

Proposed change to Lead Section, paragraph 2

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 WP:CONSENSUS is preferable to WP:BOLD, so I’m proposing a change on the talk page.

Current version

Proposed revision

Although migrants from Asia have been in parts of the contemporary United States since the 17th century, large-scale immigration did not begin until the mid-18th century. Nativist immigration laws during the 1880s-1920s excluded various Asian groups, eventually prohibiting almost all Asian immigration to the continental United States. After immigration laws were reformed during the 1940s-60s, abolishing national origins quotas, Asian immigration increased rapidly. Analyses of the 2010 census have shown that Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial or ethnic minority in the United States.[5]

While Asians have come to North America throughout American history, large-scale migration began in the mid-19th century. The Page Act of 1875 restricted “the immigration of any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country”, targeting an ethnic group for the first time. Over the next half-century, additional Asian groups were excluded, leading to the National Origins Act of 1924 which effectively ended immigration from Asia until The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since then, Asian immigration has increased rapidly.

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 sub-article Asian immigration to the United States, which goes in depth to the subject of immigration. A summary of its content should be included somewhere in the article, whether it be in the lead section or within the body of the article is not stated specifically in any MOS policy or guideline that I am aware of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

References

Health and Medicine section

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.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Not an international relations article

@Rjensen: I contest the reversion made recently. The scope of this article is about Asian Americans, a group of different ethnicities with origins from certain parts of the Asian continent, in the United States. This includes more than East Asian Americans. There is a place, perhaps a new article, about international relations of the United States and certain other groups of foreign nations, but that is outside of the scope of this article. The edit after the one reverted, is more inline with the scope of this article. This addition, should be reverted, as it is an WP:OVERLINK, as it was already added into the body of the article during a previous edit.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Origin of "Asian American"

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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 Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

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)

Fixing broken references

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)

Debates and criticism section

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)

Debates and criticism section 2.0

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)