Talk:Mongolian Americans

Foo American

As with the other Foo American articles, this article needs to discuss their arrival in the US, settlement and achievements. Thanks Hmains 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is a Foo American article? And yes, all those ideas like appropriate additions of information. --IanVG (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mongols

I've recently been reading that the mongols are divided into various different ethnic groups, and that would apply to mongolian americans, too. Also, i've read that there are also non-mongol peoples in Mongolia. Gringo300 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure these issues are important to this particular article. And if there any non-Mongol people living in Mongolia that kind of information would likely go under an article that relates to foreigners in Mongolia, not Mongolian Americans. --IanVG (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mongol, Mongolic, and Mongolian

I'm under the impression that the term Mongolian is more of a nationality than an ethnicity. It looks to me like the term Mongolic American would make more sense than Mongolian American. Gringo300 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, like Chinese American and Burmese American, we're already talking about the nationality. Thanks though. Chris 07:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, before I go any further, I need to ask: Would an American of Achang descent be considered a "Chinese American"? I'll need to know before I can go any further with this... Gringo300 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of Wikipedia articles, unless there are significant numbers of Achang in the U.S., then yes it would go under Chinese American. If there is a large or historically significant population, like Hmong American or Tibetan American, then it would have its own article. Go further with what? Chris 05:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to begin with, generally when people talk about "the Chinese", they mean the Han ethnic group. However, the Han ethnic group are NOT the only people from China. Well, technically, there are TWO Chinas... It looks to me like the "Chinese" in Chinese American is a reference to ethnicity rather than nationality. I'm under the impression that the term "Chinese American" usually means "Americans of Han descent". I have no idea how many Achangs are in the United States. Gringo300 06:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which people? When Americans, for instance, speak of "Chinese", most mean someone from China, and truly have no idea the number of ethnic groups, just as during the Cold War Americans used "Russian" to refer to any denizen of the Soviet Union, whether they were ethnically Russian or not. The CA article never mentions Han once, I checked. Unless you can source your claim, it is an assumption that the commonly understood use of Chinese-American refers primarily to the Han. I still don't understand what you are planning. If it is to break up this article into smaller ones by ethnicity, don't. Chris 06:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to see whether or not the term "Mongolian American" is an officially recognized term among anthropologists and similar such people. I've heard that it wouldn't be the first time there had been a Wikipedia article going outside of officially recognized terms if it isn't. See what happened to the "Malaysian American" article. Gringo300 07:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Chris on this matter and what he has said in general about this type of category. And creating lots of subcategories with few articles just invites proposals that they be deleted and/or upmerged. Result: just wasted effort for no benefit. Hmains 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found an article on Kalmyk Americans, and apparently they are one of the Mongolic peoples. However, i'm not sure if there are Kalmyks in Mongolia, so that might not be relevant to this article... sort of. I'll have to check... Gringo300 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongolian American Cultural Association

Not sure how three paragraphs of language like "completely inclusive", "His Reverence", "welcomes as members" etc., citing no outside sources qualifies as anything but an ad, regardless of where it was merged from ... per WP:WEIGHT, this needs to be cut way down. I've made my views known about the appropriate level of mention (none) and got reverted; per WP:1RR, I'll wait for other editors here to come to consensus about this. Also, is their name "Mongolian American Cultural Association" or "Mongol American Cultural Associaition". Anyway, in my opinion, one sentence would be quite generous; maybe mention their role in the 2000 Mongolian culture festival in New York: Collins, Glenn (2000-05-11). "Putting Mongolia on New York's Map; Festival Planners Intend to Show What the Asian Country Is All About". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-05. Cheers, cab 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to trim out what I agree seem like unencyclopedic terms, but I would like to know your reason for bias against inclusion of this organization. The article that was merged actually predates this one, but was merged so two stubs would be more useful. There are similar articles on hundreds of similar cultural diaspora organizations throughout the Wikipedia, and your "one sentence would be quite generous" sounds like you have an issue with them. I don't share your slash-and-burn views, but I am eager to hear why, and meanwhile I am going to cut out the unencyclopedic stuff. Chris 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with a separate article on the MACA if that article can actually do something other than repeat what they say about themselves (i.e. WP:RS). I'll admit to severe bias against such organisations in general due to my bad experiences dealing with the self-proclaimed, self-important community leaders who made up several organisations for members of my own ethnicity in cities I've lived in. Those experiences drive my view that articles on immigrant/diaspora populations should focus on issues like basic demographics, migration history, cultural adaptation, and interaction with other population groups (stuff that affects the community members on daily basis), not organisations. Haven't got anything specific against the MACA, though (I'm not Mongolian and never lived in Chicagoland).

I guess the real issue is how relevant they are to the overall Mongolian community in their area; the Chicago Encyclopedia article doesn't mention them, but another organisation founded in 1998, the Mongolian American Association. Might be the same one (they did get several other names wrong in that article too), but I'm not so sure.

Now, climbing down off my soapbox, "Western Sunid, South Mongolia" = Sonid Right Banner, Xilin Gol League? (incidentally jawiki and frwiki have better coverage of administrative divisions of Inner Mongolia than enwiki; I've been meaning to hack up some script to port those over here, but never had time). Cheers, cab 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

reply, okay, I feel better-I don't know of their significance to the community, not being a member of that community. I do know that their materials and contacts are of value to the Central Asia program at Indiana University, which is how they came to my attention in 1991. I would support a reworking of the section into an overview of available community groups, or something. I just wanted to make sure there was no axe-grinding against them in specific.

Also, anyone game for bulking up the available information from those other wikis? You're right, there is a gap. But we _way_ have them beat when it comes to arcane episodes of 1980s TV shows. ;) Chris 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If noteability of the organisation cannot be established by reliable third party sources, then it has no room in WP, neither as a seperate article nor as a section in here. If we don't have more than a passing mention in a NYT article about a festival, then all we're left with is indeed an advertisement. Given the colorful language, I somehow doubt that they are the most important Mongolian organization in the US, if they are important at all. --Latebird 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Japanese American which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How is a talk about Japenese Americans relevant to a discussion about Mongolian Americans?--IanVG (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is this page not named Mongolians in the United States

Why is this page not named the same way that the (seemingly) equivalent article about Mongolians living in the U.K. is? Is there a reason for that? I think that the U.K. page, Mongolians in the United Kingdom, on this topic is better formatted than the U.S. page. Anyone have objections to changing the current AMCA subheading to a more general "culture and community" subheading? --IanVG (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Loads of Demographic Stats from the Pew Research Center

I am not the most experienced on writing/discerning what is important demographically, but if anyone does have an interest, there is data available from the Pew Research Center available on a bunch of different statistics related to the Mongolian population in the U.S. Link is here. --IanVG (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relation to Kalymk Americans

The introduction paragraph mentions that Kalymk Americans fall within the category of Mongolian Americans. Should these pages be merged? --IanVG (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reordering of Article Sections

I think that the subsections on state-specific Mongolian-American activities and history seems odd to be the first thing to read for this article. I am going to move the demographic section and culture and community section to precede these sections. --IanVG (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)