Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 2

Average Income discrepancies

Many other Wikipedia articles state that Asian Americans are one of the most/the most economically well-off racial group in the United States (such as the model minority article). Additionally, the income section of this article does not have a source. Chilledsunshine 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Middle Eastern Americans Within Article on Asian Americans

The explanation of U.S census policy on Americans of Middle Eastern origin must be put forward by one with knowledge in the field, free of bias, or be left from the article all together. Technajunky 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Refering to Middle Eastern Americans as having "neither been sufficiently visibly distinct as a group in America nor have they historically arrived in such large numbers" is both a fallacy, and shows a large degree of misinformed bias. Arabs and Armenians have been arriving in America as immigrants since the late 19th century. I will continue to delete this opinionated, and perhaps bigoted entry until a sufficient revision is put forth. Technajunky 19:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we come to a concensus and avoid a revert war? Hong Qi Gong 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats the plan. I will rewrite the section in a few hours. Technajunky 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good plan. For what it's worth, some people are trying to remove references to Middle Eastern people for altogether different reasons. Thanks for improving this section. --ishu 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I to have noticed what you are speaking of. I will have a revised paragraph added to the article later this evening. Technajunky 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Identity politics are always confusing issues, especially when we get into self-identification. Good luck finding "credible" sources on these kinds of topics. Some Middle Eastern countries are clearly in the Asian continent, but I personally don't know any Middle Easterners that identify as "Asian". However, that's completely anecdotal evidence and not usable. Hong Qi Gong 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I am quoting the deleted section below.

While immigrants from the Asian Middle East (e.g., Iran, Southwest Asia) are all from the continent of Asia, they have generally neither been sufficiently visibly distinct as a group in America nor have they historically arrived in such large numbers to warrant attention as a major American racial or ethnic group until very recently (see September 11, 2001 attacks). As a result, they are not considered by most Americans to be "typical" Asians or Asian Americans, and are classified as "whites" for official racial purposes and popularly referred to as "Middle Eastern". For these same reasons, northern Asians such as Siberians and peoples from formerly Soviet Central Asian states are usually not spoken of as "Asian Americans" either and are also considered to be "white" in US Census racial classifications.

--ishu 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived the Talk page - Talk:Asian American/Archive 1. You can access past discussions on the Archive box at the top right of the page. Hong Qi Gong 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian American women as TV newscasters

I've edited out this line:

Asian women as TV newscasters has reached the point of parody as a character in Family Guy.

I know what the point of that statement is. It's trying to say that there are a lot of Asian American woman TV newscasters. But this is possibly inaccurate. Do we have any studies to show how well Asian American women are represented as TV newscasters? Without a reliable source, for all we know, they could still be underrepresented. So the statement above is not appropriate. Just because the writers of Family Guy chose to parody Asian women as TV newscasters doesn't say anything about how well they are represented as TV newscasters. Family Guy is an animated TV show. It's not a reliable source on media representation of Asian Americans. Hong Qi Gong 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Health section

Specifically, the first paragraph:

The life expectancy for Asian Americans was 83, compared to 79 in Japan in 1996, and 76 for Americans of European descent. For most diseases and cancers, and indicators such as infant mortality that afflict African American at worse rates than whites, Asians have lower rates. Rates of AIDS were 3 times lower than national average in the 1990s, though they are getting closer to parity. In NYC, no births to babies expose to cocaine were recorded. In Massachusetts, the rate of pregnant smoking was only one-quarter the average. In California, the rate of heart disease was onle one-third average. Infant mortality in CA was only half the average rate. Most health studies simply omit figures on Asians rather than publicize health outcomes that are better for Asians, or state that data is insufficient to establish accurates rates for AIDS, even though Asians are a majority or the 2nd largest minority in some states.

Do we have a source for these statements and numbers? Hong Qi Gong 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps and captions

The article needs only one good map and caption. It now has two maps, and both maps and their captions disagree. The caption--if used--should match the article, and both captions do not. I think the map should include all of Asia for reference. The article already discusses why certain parts of Asia are included in "Asian American" and why other parts are not (although the Middle Eastern section is awaiting rewrite by Technajunky per previous discussion). It goes back to an earlier discussion of "redefining" Asia on Talk. The article should not focus only on self-identification as one map definition does. As I've mentioned previously, the definition of Asian American should consider (1) formal usage; (2) common usage by people who consider themselves to be "Asian American" (aka self-identification); and (3) common usage by "people in general." --ishu 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs cleanup... --Lukobe 17:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored and rewrote the Middle Eastern section and changed the map to the Asia map to illustrate all of Asia. The article now discusses which parts of Asia are typically included and excluded. Based on the Asia redefinition talk discussion, it's probably better not to say "Asia really means..." Instead, it's better use the formal geographic definitions as the reference, and then explain what's included/excluded when discussing Asian American. I think we should drop the other map, but I'm putting it to Talk first. --ishu 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory (SIT) is far to general and remote from either common or formal (i.e., legal) usage to be interchangeable with race. It certainly is too much so simply to insert it into this article in a search-and-replace mode. If the article mentions SIT, then it should discuss its relevance to race and Asian Americans. Search and replace is not sufficient treatment of this complicated subject. The article should provide some context for readers without forcing them to read incomplete articles on theories that have multiple books devoted both to support and dispute. --ishu 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias writes, in reference to Revision 60460897 (as of 00:38, 25 June 2006):

changed race to social identity b/c race is debatable but it is clear that some people self-identify as Asian Americans, so it is clearly a social identity

This comment makes it unclear as to whether DT refers specifically to the article Social identity or to some general concept of social identity. It's also unclear what DT means by "race is debatable." A few possible interpretations include:

• The concept of race (itself) is of debatable validity.
• 'Asian American' is a debatable racial category.

Whatever DT means, it would be helpful to clarify. However, if one asked 20 random people whether 'Asian American' is a racial category, an ethnic category, or a social identity, few would state it is a social identity, however one defines that concept. This is not to deny the social construction of the race concept, but my comments about social identity theory apply: The article should use commonly understood references, and provide context where the common definitions are discarded or expanded upon. However, a treatment of race as a social identity would be best for the entire Wikipedia, since it could be referenced by the various articles that refer to "racial" social identities. I also agree that the race article is severely deficient on this topic, but the social identity article is equally deficient on race. I'd like to change this reference back to ethnic and racial groupings, as follows:

As with other ethnic and racial groupings, formal and common usage have changed markedly through the short history of this term.

versus

As with other social identities, formal and common usage have changed markedly through the short history of this term.

I would appreciate other comments on this issue so that we can establish some consensus. --ishu 03:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In anthropology I learned that ethnic group is what one considers themselves to be a part of based upon certain criteria - perceived "race" (controversial term, but identity based on this misconception still exists), religion, language, culture, and common origin. Social identity and ethnic group appear to be synonymous to me. --Chris S. 04:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition: Supreme Court decisions

Dark Tichondrias writes:

[A]dded back Caucaisn/White is interchangeable but did not remove other part about cases so it is not too brief explaination. Also, in common usage Asian American not race but Asian is considered race

If this is in reference to the court cases (DT made changes to two separate sections), the issue is twofold. First, race was a component of defining 'American' for purposes of citizenship: you must be white. The second part is: "Are Asian [race] people considered to be white [race]?" That's white vs. Asian, not white American vs. Asian American, or caucasian American vs. Asian American or what have you. The decision stated that if you are Asian then you can't be "American." But just read what the article says about the implications of the two decisions:

In other words, Ozawa was light-complexioned, but not white because he was not caucasian. At the same time, Thind was caucasian, but not white because he was not light-complexioned.

Assuming this is a fair summary of the decisions (and clearly I do), 'white' and 'caucasian' are not said to be interchangeable. The Thind decision clearly states that 'white' and 'caucasian' are different since Thind is acknowledged to be caucasian but not white. DT's explanation is not just brief, it's wrong. Or we can discuss the meaning of the decisions, but that requires more than an add-on sentence. --ishu 01:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian American was just a label given to the people in the United States for whom it defined which has changed its definition over the years. The social identity of the people in power at the time refused to accept a brown non-Christian man among other physical differences. This does not mean the social identity that was excluded was Asian American. Thind was labeled Caucasian American before the trial, then stripped of being Caucasian American afterwords. This defined the social identity of the people with whom the Supreme Court judge self-identified. The judge felt he knew what people were included in his social identity. His people were White Americans and his people were Caucasian Americans and they were the same by convention. Thind and presumeably all people with original origins from the Indian Subcontinent were banned from the Caucasian American social identity. It is true that White and Caucasian are not interchangeable terms like User:Ishu claims, but European American and Caucasian American are interchangeable terms.--Dark Tichondrias 07:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I agree that all racial labels are "just labels" in the sense that they are arbitrary (i.e., not rooted in objective, mutually exclusive sets of characteristics). And yes, racialized relationships are power relationships. The discussion of these cases illustrates how these racialized relationships become enshrined into the law--but also how the are contested from within the law. The main purpose of the decision in Ozawa and Thind was to define 'white' for the purposes of naturalized citizenship, just like the article states. Dark Tichondrias's statement above:

Thind and presumeably all people with original origins from the Indian Subcontinent were banned from the Caucasian American social identity.

is not correct. The Thind decision concedes that Thind was caucasian, but goes on to make a 1/10th of a hairline distinction between caucasian and white. In fact, the decision basically excluded anyone with ancestry outside of Europe by appealing to the most amorphous racial term: 'white'. So for the purposes of naturalized citizenship, "white" is a subset of "caucasian," and not an interchangeable term.

DT's final comment:

It is true that White and Caucasian are not interchangeable terms like User:Ishu claims, but European American and Caucasian American are interchangeable terms.

is not relevant to the particular edit, mainly because 'European American' was not used at all in the 1930s, but also because the decisions refer to 'white' and establish "white" and "European" to be equivalent and "interchangeable." The decision essentially states that the equivalency is obvious by appealing to the "average man" standard.

DT's edit:

(4) These cases established White American and Caucasian American to be interchangeable terms for the same people by convention.

is not correct. We could change it to read:

These cases established 'white' and 'European' to be equivalent racial terms.

but that would be redundant, and it does not fit with the whole section about the definition of 'Asian American'.

--ishu 04:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ishu has misquoted my edit. I said Caucasian American and White American are interchangeable. I did not say European American and Caucasian American were equivalent.

The case did indeed ban all Indian Americans from the Caucasian American identity because it established Caucasian American to be equivalent to White American--Dark Tichondrias 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The information is relevant to an article about Asians because some people believe Indian Americans are still Caucasian Americans.--Dark Tichondrias 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No misquote on the edit; I'm suggesting an alternative edit that reflects the actual content of the decisions. The case excluded South Asians from white, and reaffirmed South Asians are caucasian. Therefore 'white' and 'caucasian' are not interchangeable. 'White' excludes Asians and all non-Europeans. The decision states this clearly. --ishu 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the case is stated in paragraph 2 of the decision:

Is a high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India, a white person within the meaning of section 2169, Revised Statutes?

The role of caucasian is also stated (first sentence of paragraph 6):

In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not employ the word 'Caucasian,' but the words 'white persons,' and these are words of common speech and not of scientific origin.

The decision does not define caucasian in relation to European, only white persons and European. The edit reflects the language of the decision. --ishu 02:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

I changed the tag from copyedit to cleanup. The article needs more than copy editing. I will accept my share of blame for wordiness. Here's a list of my to-dos, but let's see what others suggest:

• Definition: section needs streamlining. However, I still feel that many of the issues raised need to be discussed. Specfically:

• Asian American initially referred to East Asians only, but over time has come to include other groups, notably South Asians
• Asian American has different meanings in different contexts, for example, by immigration/citizenship status (American=citizen only sometimes; also, definition of Asia varies by who is using the term)
• The court decisions discussion (of which I am so fond) probably belongs somewhere else. I believe it is an important issue, but it is probably overkill for this section.

• History: very thin right now and needs significant expansion
• Asian Americans Today: Misnamed, compared to content, since text frequently refers to events of 1950s or earlier. Should be renamed and/or restructured. Many of the subsections (e.g., sports) read like lists, so maybe they should be converted to a "List of..." article.
• Demographics: A lot of unnecessary material has been added here that outside editors can help pare back.

--ishu 07:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Asian Americans Today: rename as "Notable Asian Americans" or "Asian American Achievements"?

Myasuda 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

copy editing query

I've noticed that this article is very inconsistent in its use of single and double quotes. I'm of the opinion that single quotes are never used unless inside another quotation. I was going to replace all of the single quotes with double quotes, but I have also noticed that many of the quoted words are words used as terms, which should apparently be italicized according to Wiki's format. Does anyone else feel up to determining what's being used as a term and what isn't? I certainly don't. --Natalie 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I encourage you to clean up what you can. If nothing else, that'll move this article along. You may have noticed that use of quotes isn't the only inconsistency. --ishu 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the quotes aren't the only inconsistency. That's just what I notice because I'm a copy-editing type of person. So I guess I'll just replace all of the single quotes and leave the whole italicizing thing to someone else. That said, I also see that there are at least 3 different percentages given for the Asian American population in the US. Yargh. Natalie 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just gone through and copy-edited this article. On top of changes to spelling and grammar, I have italicised the first usage of Asian American (other than the bolded one at the beginning) to show the reader that it is a term with a specific meaning. I have then removed all other term-designating things because the capitalisation is enough to tell the reader that we are still talking about the same term. It is actually harder to read if it is italicised or "" all the time. Similarly I have removed the "" for Asian and American as these are like normal adjectives rather than technical terms. In terms of the other instances of "" I have left them there because they are not technical terms as such, which is what would usually get italicised, but they do require emphasis. Also even though Wikipedia does specify using "" for quotes only and using italics for terms, it also often says just go with the original usage and be consistent, which the article now is. I am also removing the copy-edit tag, because in terms of spelling and grammar, etc the article is fine. Other changes necessary come under the heading of clean-up. JenLouise 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good edits, Jen. I agree with your thoughts re: italicizing, etc. --Natalie 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

is "apoliticality" a real word?

I could not find it on dictionary.com, which is the only dictionary I have handy. Anyone mind if I change it to "apolitical nature"? --Natalie 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regions box

UN subregions of Asia:

  Northern Asia

  Central Asia

  Western Asia

  Southern Asia

  Eastern Asia

  Southeastern Asia

The definition of continental

Currently, the box on the left is placed in the article. Compare this to the following image from the article UN geoscheme. While one says the region including Russia is called "Northern Asia", the other says it's called "Eastern Europe". Now what's correct? --Abdull 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

World map showing the location of Asia.

Well, nobody can blame you for clicking on the link in the map caption. The left map came from Asia (I took it from there), although the caption was changed (by someone else). The "UN subregions" reference came from the HTML comment in the Territories and regions section of Asia. Eastern Europe (subregion) clearly states that Russia is within the EEur UN subregion. However, the image description notes the deviation from the UN definitions, probably to conform with the definitions in Asia (see note 7) stating that part of Russia is considered to be in Asia. Most likely, the map to the left is a hybrid from the UN definition and the CIA World Fact Book. Compare against the image description for the image shaded in green to the right. --ishu 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

issues with the model minority section

Too many quotation marks are used here for something that is supposed to be encyclopedic IMO. For instance, "bar" and "nerd" (not to mention the usage of the word nerd here seems completely unnecessary. Any suggestions? Decafpenguin 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

editorial help?

why does this page need cleanup? the article written actually is on a pretty good scale compared to some other articles. I suggest c.n. le ph.d to help. he is an assistant professor of sociology and specializes in asian studies at amherst. Kennethtennyson 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For starters:

1. The section "The term Asian American", with its three subsections, is entirely too long and can be shortened to be more straight-forward.
2. Much of the section "Asian Americans today" is just a mish-mash of names. We might consider starting a seperate article for keeping a list of prominent Asian Americans.
3. Hardly anything is mentioned about discrimination with the exception of the Model Minority Myth and past immigration discrimination.

--- Hong Qi Gong 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

List of notable Asian Americans

I have created this article so that the section Asian Americans Today can focus on more thematic (and encyclopedic) content. I encourage all editors to clean up this section along these lines. --ishu 21:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Though I'm not sure how to restructure the section in question other than trimming it out of those one-sentence mention of names. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that we:

• move all current content to a sub page of Talk
• delete the current section
• add a note that we seek input on a thematic-oriented version of the section

The main advantage is that we would be starting from scratch and (hopefully) building a consensus for the revised section. A secondary benefit is that I am confident that people will continue to add to the list of names in the section, rather than on the actual list article. Whadya think? --ishu 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to remove the content from the section before we re-write it though. We can just replace the content when it's newly written up. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Asian Americans Today

I substantially edited this section. The previous version of the section is now on a subpage called /notable. I completely removed the section "In Science and Technology" because it was entirely a list. In the other sections, I removed people who aren't "firsts" or, like state legislators, don't seem to fit any coherent pattern by themselves. We can and should note the increased participation by Asian Americans as political candidates, for example, but that should not occur by listing every Asian American elected to state and local offices.

Please note that all of the removed names are still included at List of notable Asian Americans.

Whether we favor summary style or news style, to help Asian American to be a better article, this section should provide several coherent themes. This section originally started as a jumping-off point to connect the history section to "today." However, there is no clear cut-off between "history" and "today," particularly when several "today" events pre-date some of the "historical" events.

Suggestions for themes and organization are welcome. --ishu 01:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely plan on re-inserting a Science and Technology section though. At the very least, Dr. David Ho definitely deserves mention. The guy is influential both in and outside the Asian American community. And I can't believe this, there's actually no article on M.C. Chang. He's the freaking co-inventor of the birth control pill. That's it, I think I'm going to do a little research and start an article on him. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that influential both in and outside of one's field should be a guideline for an individual to be included in this section. David Ho is not only a scientist, but he has taken advocacy positions (leveraging his influence in the scientific community). So many of the Nobel laureates would not qualify, since their accomplishments, though significant, are confined to their field and profession. --ishu 02:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have created the Min Chueh Chang article. We should discuss who to include in a re-created section for science and technology. I think we agreed on David Ho. I think Min Chueh Chang deserves mention for co-inventing the birth control pill. Who else? - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we should retain the topic-focused organization of the section. Not that these are unimportant, but I guess I'm thinking the section should be a discussion of the status and contributions of Asian Americans as a group, with select individuals called out as examples of the trends. In politics, the "firsts" are obvious individuals, but someone who "recently" did something might also be noteworthy e.g., Gary Locke). Outside of politics, when discussing individuals, I think it would be better to stick to people like, maybe David Ho, but more like Pierre Omidyar, for business and philanthropic contributions. (I know, he doesn't "qualify" under the current article definitions as Asian American, but people like him.) When looking at particular areas, we can use individuals to broaden a discussion beyond dry statistics.

But look what I just wrote: Maybe we can't escape the categories...? I just want to avoid the list-y-ness that plagues the current revision. --ishu 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we need to avoid making that section and its subsections read like lists. David Ho should be mentioned by name, and then maybe mention that a few Asian American scientists have been Nobel Prize winners, without necessarily naming any names. I also noticed that the arts and entertainment subsection reads like a list also. But it might be difficult to edit that without omitting some editor's favourite singer or actor, only to have him or her add it back in, in a one-or-two sentence mention. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

wait a second... how can you remove that whole sectoin. first, it isn't that big of a section and second it is the most important section in this whole article. What we could do is shorten the section and then have a list of notable asian americans. Steelhead 02:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the science and technology section but i think we still need it. Steelhead 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't to be removed permanently. If you'll notice the discussion here, we were planning on putting it back on, re-written. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review this diff and you will see that several other sections were substantially reduced as well. --ishu 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal usage (definitions)

• Who is Larry Chrystal? A Google search of Chrystal+(anthropology or anthropologist) turns up no obvious matches, save for this page.
• Several of the footnotes don't seem to be relevant to the sentences. For example, note 5.
• The section about the census definition essentially says that the census definitions follow self-identification. This section is convoluted and heavily dependent on Chrystal's work, yet there are no citations. Can anyone provide citations?
• The last sentence of the first paragraph ("Some people still advocate use of...") is dangerously close to use of weasel words, since the citation provided is a first-person statement ("My racial identity is...") with no attribution to others whatsoever.

--ishu 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently deleted both references to Larry Chrystal, since there has been no response to these queries. --ishu 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Asian American culture

Someone has created an article (poorly written at that) called Asian American culture. The information contained theirin should be merged with this one and a redirect set up. If someone involved with this particular wiki-project could see to this, that would be great. I am not an expert in the area, I just noticed the page while doing some housekeeping. --Jayron32 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Education attainment

According to the wiki information, "Asian Americans are extremely well represented in the education sector, especially in the college level with the highest average college graduates at around 52% and the whole Asian people constitutes around 20% of Ivy League colleges."

I'm not so sure if those numbers are accurate. i believe that actual percentage of Asian Americans with college degrees is between 44 to 48%. Also, Asians as a whole do not make up 20% of the student population of Ivy League schools. Unless you count Russians and middle Eastern people in that percentage, I'm very sure that Asians DO NOT represent 20% of Ivy League colleges.

The only Ivy League school that meets and surpasses the 20% threshold is Penn, with approximately 22% of its undergraduates being Asian. Harvard has 17%, same with Columbia and Cornell. Yale has approximately 14%, Brown has around 15%, and Princeton and Dartmouth have about 12% Asian population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.94 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Chong

From the article:

Asians continue to be overlooked [...] For example, in the 2006 animated film Cars, a low rider voiced by Hispanic actor and comedian Cheech Marin, but Marin's longtime partner Tommy Chong was not cast in his signature hippie role...

Given that we're talking about a Disney film, do you think that Chong's unabashed love and advocacy of marijuana might have had more to do with it than his ancestry? 209.92.136.131 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They hired his partner Cheech Marin, and Filmore was played by the "words you can't say on the radio" guy. --Sugarcaddy 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more likely Chong wasn't cast because he was doing a prison term at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.45.207.50 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Is it really necessary to have a reference in the first sentence? And why is this page so long? I think this article needs some chopping. I ain't copyeditin' it till it's had some choppin'.

On a brief examination, I noticed many paragraphs have this form: X did this. Y did that. Z did this...Rintrah 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there are definitely people mentioned in this article that could be moved to List of notable Asian Americans instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Informal usage

Some concerns I have:

1. The introductory section probably should be removed. The referenced work by Sharon Lee does not provide any evidence for the claim that "non-Asian Americans" equate the term with Chinese and Japanese. The rest of this section is basically redundant with other parts of this section and article.
2. This section is laden with weasel words such as many and some without any references. The references tag has been on this section for several months now and no support has been provided. Statements with weasel words should be rewritten or removed.
3. The section combines self-definition by Asian Americans with usage by non-Asians. While intertwined, these two usages need to be differentiated.

I will edit along these lines, but comments and assistance would be welcome. --ishu 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following:

Even though Asian American is now a very widely used term in the United States, it is mostly the younger generation of Asian Americans who refer to themselves this way. A simple analogy would be the use of terms Irish American and Italian American. The double allegiance represented in such denominations (Asian and American) was largely discouraged in the early twentieth century. Ford Motor Company, for instance, encouraged all recent immigrants to think of themselves as American and not as Irish American. The American Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s reintroduced the use of such dual-identifier terms of ethnicity. Today, many younger Asian Americans speak of Asian pride.

The first sentence ("younger generation") and last sentence ("Asian pride") have been unsourced despite a reference template on the entire section for months. For the "younger generation" statement to be true (as written), two things must be true: (1) that older generations do not refer to themselves as Asian American and (2) that younger generations do refer to themselves this way. We can restore the claim with adequate references. The "Asian pride" statement also is covered in its own section.

The term double-allegiance is highly misleading, and should be avoided, especially due to the misplaced allegations of disloyalty throughout Asian American history--and immigrant history in general. This entire section may be appropriate if expanded, but it is redundant as-is, and probably more appropriate for an article-length treatment of its own. Without enough context, it just doesn't fit here, and it needs a lot more context. --ishu 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I removed the following paragraph:

Some people consider it offensive to label an Asian person with a specific nationality without certainty. For example, labeling someone who looks South Asian as an "Indian" may be offensive to Pakistani Americans and other South Asians who do not consider themselves to be of Indian origin. Likewise, calling an East Asian "Chinese" without knowing his specific national origin can be offensive to Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, and other East Asians who consider themselves ethnically and culturally separate from the Chinese. If one is using racial or ethnic terms, it is more politically correct to use "South Asian," "Southeast Asian," "East Asian," or simply "Asian."

This etiquette lesson is, at best, arguably encyclopedic. --Ishu 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos in Sports

Three photos (Wie, Yamaguchi, Kwan) is too many for the size of the section. Do we have suggestions for which one to keep? --ishu 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An amalgam of the three (similar to the four pictures in the lead info box) would be nice since each "represents" a different Asian ethnicity. If any of the three needs to be dropped, however, it should be Wie since she has not achieved a truly 'significant' victory (yet). Myasuda 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If we drop the widths down to 120 px, the result isn't much better (see below). We shouldn't make the photos smaller. We need to keep only one with the amount of copy we have. --ishu 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In sports

See also: Category:Asian American sportspeople

Golfer Michelle Wie

File:Yamaguchi kristi SS.jpg

Figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi

File:Kwan michelle.jpg

Figure skater Michelle Kwan

Wataru Misaka became the first Asian American player in the NBA when he played for the New York Knicks in the 1947–48 season. Misaka also played a key role in the Utah's NCAA and NIT basketball championships in 1944 and 1947.

Asian Americans first made an impact in Olympic sports in the late 1940s and in the 1950s. Korean American Sammy Lee became the first Asian American to earn an Olympic Gold Medal, winning in platform diving in both 1948 and 1952.

Asian Americans have been prominent in figure skating. Tiffany Chin won the US Championship in 1985. Kristi Yamaguchi won three national championships (one individual, two in pairs), two world titles, and the 1992 Olympic Gold medal. Michelle Kwan has won nine national championships and five world titles, as well as two Olympic medals (silver in 1998, bronze in 2002).

Norm Chow is the current offensive coordinator for the NFL's Tennessee Titans, after helping lead USC's offense to several NCAA championships. Korean American wide receiver Hines Ward was the MVP of Super Bowl XL while playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Michael Chang won the French Open in 1989 and was a top-ranked tennis player for most of his career.

I'm fine with either Yamaguchi or Kwan (or no picture). Yamaguchi has won at all levels in the sport; Kwan has more overall titles. As far as I'm concerned, they're both reasonable choices. Anyone else care to voice an opinion? Myasuda 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics: Health & Crime

I'm not sure what these sections add, or how the existing copy can be expanded. As I see it, the sections can spin out to encompass all of the various subgroups, or these sections will be a hopeless, misrepresentative aggregation of data on different groups. I would appreciate comments from others. --ishu 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I say remove both sections. The first paragraph of crime can be moved to the "Asians as a model minority" section. Health can be removed altogether. Myasuda 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted both sections and reworked the crime stat, but the Model Minority section is a mess, so it didn't fit in well at all. --ishu 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Restructuring

I performed a major restructuring of the Terminology section. After significant downsizing, the Informal usage section was combined with the rest of the section.

The Formal usage section needs to be pared as well. My ultimate goal is to have minimal sub-divisions in the Terminology section--possibly none at all. I'll confess a fondness for the legal definitions paragraph (long-time editors already know this). However, it belongs somewhere else--possibly not even in this article. The Formal usage section should probably be restricted to a discussion of the evolution of the census categories and their effect on government programs, research, and policy development. That would make a good jumping off point for discussions of the development of communities, I think.

Input from others is welcome. --Ishu 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "Legal definitions" section and am placing it here for "safekeeping" until (if) a better place can be found.

Legal definitions of Asian American were developed in several key Supreme Court decisions that pertain to naturalized citizenship. Historically, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted naturalized citizenship to "free white persons". In the 1922 case Takao Ozawa v. United States, Mr. Ozawa, an immigrant from Japan, claimed to be eligible for naturalized citizenship on the logic that his skin complexion fit the definition of "white." The decision held that white referred exclusively to Caucasians, and so Japanese were not eligible for naturalized citizenship. The next year, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the court reversed this logic. Mr. Thind argued that South Asians should be eligible for naturalized citizenship because they were considered to be Caucasian, consistent with the Ozawa decision. Thind deployed a reverse logic in Thind, writing that "[I]t may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them to-day". This decision interpreted the term white persons in the Naturalization Act to refer only to people of European descent.

--Ishu 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider the major restructuring to be complete. I'm going to move on to the Asian Americans today section, as it now needs more attention. --Ishu 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)