Talk:Asian people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asian people article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Asians were not the first immigrants

The following line is in the article and needs clarification / correction: "This is due to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants being the first immigrants into the United States"

American-Indians were the first immigrants, then there were the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.17.220 (talk) 22:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence to say, "first Asian immigrants". Now it is a true statement.----DarkTea© 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Or possibly not, since American Indians entered America from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.163.185 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglophone section

I was dismayed to see that the 'Anglophone' views represented were basically 'white' views, to the exclusion of non-white English speakers. I have corrected this now.

In India, which has the largest number of English speakers in Asia, and the largest number of non-white English speakers in the world, the word Asian is uniformly used in news and other media to refer to people from all parts of Asia, with terms like 'West Asia' or 'South Asia' used where greater precision is desired.

Additionally I also qualified the paragraph dealing with the exclusion of West Asians (Middle-Easterners) to make clear that the paragraph reflects a US-centric view.

Splitpeasoup 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, you'll be able to source this POV.----DarkTea 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it really cannot be argued that this is anything but a U.S centric view. One only need to compare the definitions of neighboring Canada to see the difference in definition and usage. Padishah5000 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Here you go, DarkTea:
http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/1_86/55.pdf
http://www.colorq.org/MeltingPot/Asia/IndianWestAsians.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Asian_cinema
http://www.saja.org/stylebook.html
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/7571.shtml
http://www.asiantruth.com/
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/03/29/stories/2005032902030200.htm
*Now* are you going to remove that OR tag?
-Splitpeasoup 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the Menon source is very relavant to this issue about the "Asian" in Europe. In it Menon claims that Asia was concocted by a European imagination. It says that Russia and the Middle East were considered part of Asia because they were not part of Europe. Although not granted the status of a European, Russians and Middle Easterners were never labeled as Asians in Europe.----DarkTea 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Menon also says that the Middle East is a region of the original conception of Asia, but not a region of America's current conception of American Asia. S/he contends that America's Asia includes the Far East, Southeast Asia and to a marginal degree the Indian Subcontinent. S/he claims that there is a large desire for South Asian American non-Muslims to distance themselves from Pakistanis and Middle Easterns. Although a type of shared identity may be formed with South Asian American who look like Middle Easterns, Menon concludes that "West Asians"/Middle Eastern Americans are not considered to be Asian Americans.---DarkTea 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Menon says that in "Asia", there is no Asian identity. S/he claims that WWII Japan developed an "Asian identity" as a front for their desire to conquer Asia. Other than that s/he says their is no "Asian identity" in Asia.----DarkTea 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The other links only suggest that in India there does not exist an American conception of Asia, but they don't discuss the issue.----DarkTea 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English-speaking countries? Immigrants? That's it?

I am also troubled by the subtitle of the article:

"This article deals primarily or exclusively with the definition of Asian in English-speaking countries, mainly referring to immigrants or descendants of immigrants living therein."

I understand we are dealing with the use of the word in the English *language*, however it serves no purpose to solely focus on the use of the term in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. There are English-speakers in other parts of the world, you know.

And why the term should chiefly refer to immigrants, I have not the faintest idea.

The article completely ignores the use of the term by the entire body of English-language media and scholarship in South Asia, as well as all other parts of Asia and the world.

Splitpeasoup 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should the most populous continent in the world be defined by english speaking nations and the few immigrants who have travelled to these countries. Readers want to know about people from Asia more than they want to know about Asian immigrants. Maybe a separate article can be made for immigrants to english speaking countries. I find this notion to be too US-centric.Muntuwandi 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Describing people by face

The phrase "describing people by face" is used twice in the article. I can't work out what that means. Is there another phrase which means the same thing which is clearer and could be used instead? Hobson 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, is anyone going to object if I remove references to "describing people by face"? My best *guess* is that it means describing (categorising?) people by appearance, but I'm loathe to change it to that as it is only a guess. If anyone feels a sentence such as "Of course, in Asia, the word "Asian" has a more localized definition when describing people by face, and is more inclusive when describing Asians by culture" is important, could they explain what it means? (by the way, why "of course"?) Hobson 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
After waiting a couple of days for replies, have taken the sentence out as I am not sure it means anything. If someone adds it back in, could they try to find langauge which makes the meaning clearer please. Hobson 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia before Myanmar

in the beginning of the article, should be in alphabetical order... not a big deal, but I can't edit this article, so yeah...

[edit] additional imformation to add to United states section.

71.77.60.153Randall Tallent, May 4th

According to the US Census Bureau, natives of the Indian Subcontinent are considered both "White" and Caucasian.

[edit] Official Names

Wouldn't it be more accurate that North and South Korea be labled as (respectively) Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea? There's already a People's Republic of China and Republic of China instead of China and Taiwan. Tiffany 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity template

I have serious doubt and confusion about the ethnicity template on the right. It should be like white people article and get rid of that template. Asian people are very diverse. It should encompass worldwide view. "Asian people" is not "asian" in some parts of the world. I have serious reservation about this template. It would be far easier to put that template on white people though. Please discuss this and get rid of it. 71.208.117.226 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is cited. Sociologist Paul Thomas Welty claims that the East, South and Southeast Asians are an ethnic group.----DarkTea 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You will have to elaborate on that, since I do not see how "Asian people" can be considered as a single ethnic group, or how the opinion of a single sociologist should carry the weight of an entire article. Padishah5000 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Although Welty does not a clear argument for the Asian ethnic group, his expert sociologist opinion is WP:RS and can be WP:V.----DarkTea 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The one quote you have presented so far deals with the scope of Welty's book, not with any definition of a single "Asian" ethnic group. --JWB 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are central Asian countries completely omitted here?

Simple. This article uses the U.S governments concept of an Asian identity, which excludes Middle Eastern and Central Asian peoples from the definition of "Asian", even if they come from the continent of Asia. Therefore, people from the Middle East and Central Asia are considered and counted as "white". Padishah5000 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Welty says that they are Middle Eastern in his book. Welty does not consider Middle Easterners to be Asian people in his book.----DarkTea 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So, then where does Welty draw the line? Does in place the borders of Afghanistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan as the borders between Asia and...What? Europe? Does he try and event a continent called the "Middle East"? Padishah5000 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


  • Asian people → Asians — 'Asian' is the adjective (i.e., the demonym) for people from Asia, not 'Asian people' -- the plural Asians makes more sense and is reflected in article titles for other groups (e.g., Russians). Alternatively, the article can be moved back to Asian (people). In either case, Asian can be made into a redirect (c.f. American), though I'm unsure why it was moved from 'Asian (people)' to begin with. Corticopia 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Asian people → Asian OR Asian (people) — 'Asian' is the adjective (i.e., the demonym) for people from Asia, not 'Asian people'. As well, 'Asian' currently redirects to 'Asian people', so this move is appropriate and shouldn't be problematic. Alternatively, the article can be moved back to Asian (people) and Asian made into a redirect (c.f. American), though I'm unsure why it was moved to begin with. Corticopia 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) —Corticopia 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, as nominator. Corticopia 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • reaffirmed for move to 'Asians'. Corticopia 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose', this has been moved from Asian to Asian people. This should stay like African people and White people. Asian means it is related to "Asia," and it doesn't really mean it is people. We should be very specific and understandable. That would be nonsense view. Move "white people" to white, move african people to "african", etc. That is nonsense. Extremely oppose. Asian has been changed to be disambiguation page. Good idea67.41.157.5 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Besides the fact that the anonymous editor at this IP address only began editing two days ago, and thus has no real weight herein (and I wonder if it is a regular editor in disguise), there is an alternative to move it to 'Asian (people)', which is also acceptable. Corticopia 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thus, I have reverted the responsive retrofitting of 'Asian' for now. Besides, 'Asia' does not mean 'Asian'. Corticopia 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The anon makes a valid point, and you should refrain from being dismissive of editors simply because they appear to be new.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Other points notwithstanding, can you point me to the policy which legitimises assertions from anonymous IPs, and new ones at that? Corticopia 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm the anon.user. Coricopia assume good faith. Just because someone is anon. doesn't mean he/she is new. He/she might not have the time to log in. Assume good faith as long as you can. 67.41.157.5 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "[Adjective] people" is the standard form on Wikipedia. With regard to the specific proposals, "Asian" is ambiguous and "Asian (people)" simply adds two unnecessary punctuation marks. -- Visviva 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Is 'x people' standard; is that prescribed somewhere? And if 'Asian' is truly ambiguous, I hardly see how the addition of a parenthetic to it would be problematic, particularly if 'Asian' becomes a DAB. Corticopia 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Never mind, I forgot that this convention has broken down considerably of late; see Koreans, Russians, etc.
  • Suggest move to Asians, and dabbifying Asian (with links to this article and to Asia, and perhaps others). -- Visviva 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was just about to suggest that; I'd support a move to Asians, retrofit Asian as a DAB, and make everything right as rain? If agreeable or if there are no objections, I will nullify this RM, and place another (since we can't just move it there). Corticopia 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I would suggest redirecting "Asians" to "Asian people." Make it similar with the african people and white people articles. Have Asians redirect here 67.41.157.5 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Why? That seems overly complicated: besides, depending on the context, 'Asian people' is an oxymoron a tautology; 'Asians' really isn't. I will refactor the RM (or create one anew) as per Visviva. Corticopia 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move as currently suggested (just for the record). But I wonder if anyone thinks that "Asians" could be seen as pejorative in a way that "Asian people" is not? Just tossing that out there... -- Visviva 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think it's an issue (or should be), particularly if a slew of other ethnicities groups are similarly titled (e.g., c.f. Indian/Indians) -- besides, it's merely a plural of a common term e.g., found in dictionaries. Perhaps a move to 'Asian (people)' or just 'Asian' should be reconsidered? ;) I also wonder, though, if your concern can be applied to 'Asian people' too (i.e., treating Asians as objects). Corticopia 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You're probably right; it just happened to cross my mind as I was typing. Specifically it occurred to me that it was probably not coincidental that we have an article at African people and not Africans -- but the particularly raw sensitivities in that case probably don't apply here. -- Visviva 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, Indian/Indians is actually a dab page with the article on the people being something else, quite likely to avoid the perjorative feeling Visviva mentioned. Above you said Asian people was oxymoronic, but I really fail to see what you mean. Oxymorons are contradictions in terms, there is nothing contradictory or oxymoronic about the phrase Asian people--or are you saying you can't be Asian and a person at the same time? These days there doesn't seem much consistency (as Visviva points out), so it wouldn't be without precedent to rename it to Asians, but I kind of prefer "X people" since it can work for everything (and just the plural can't, as someone pointed out below) and seems more "encyclopedic." (A quick perusal of other encyclopedias turns up things like "Turkish peoples" but no "Turks," for example.) --Cheers, Komdori 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment To clarify: I'm unsure if 'Asian people' is encyclopedic, and perhaps even less so, than 'Asian'. It seems odd, even superfluous, to retain the current title as opposed to 'Asian(s)' alone or 'Asian (people)': I mean, while there are many sorts of people (ethnic and other groups), 'Asians' is clear and not ambiguous. To rephrase (and I apologise for oxymoronic confusion above, which I've edited): it's analogous to making references to 'American people' or 'European people' or 'Caucasian people', when just the pluralised adjectives (without people, or that in parentheses) would do (but not in the cases of 'Japanese'/'Portuguese' peoples, as DT stated below). As well, per the common naming convention (and if search enginesare to be trusted or valid), there are 746K instance of 'Asian people' online, as opposed to 11.8M for 'Asians' – a ratio of 1 to 15 in favour of 'Asians'. Corticopia 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the clarification, I immediately understood (and agree with) much of your argument based on the edit. It might be good to move this article, but I'm just wondering where the best place for it. It seems that "Asian peoples" (rather than people) might fix some of the issues (it makes it clear we're talking about the different groups of people who live in Asia). This goes with the example of Britannica's "peoples" articles. Encarta comes back with a "People of Asia" article when I searched for Asian people. I am sure your google result is valid, though I'm not sure if we should base it completely on that. I kind of think "White people" and "Black people" are probably good titles, and it's kind of nice to match those (even though there are many more examples of "Whites" and "Blacks" than "White people" and "Black people.") I don't like to "bind" page moves together, but it might help me know what your philosophy on this move: would you suggest those articles be moved to Whites and Blacks respectively (there is really no dab issue with those, either, Blacks for example redirects directly to the Black people page with no dab page)? --Cheers, Komdori 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I, too, wonder about the ideal location for this and similar articles. I don't think moves to 'Whites' and 'Blacks' would be prudent: the singular and plural forms might be unclear without any modifiers, whereas 'Asians' and similar demonyms are not. That being said, I don't like inconsistency; however, I really don't like 'x people' in this particular instance either, for reasons stated above -- basically, it reads wrong. However, it sounds right when applied to 'White people' or 'Black people'. I guess that's why I had initially suggested moving the article to 'Asian (people)' (how about 'Asian (demonym)'?) -- that format can be replicated for any number of groups, without worrying about if the term itself is correct or unclear on its own (e.g., 'Black (people)' which DABs 'black'). Or maybe, as per this RM, 'xs' if the demonym is unambiguous ('e.g., 'Asians', 'Americans'), but 'x (people}' if it is ambiguous (e.g., 'Portuguese (people)', 'Black (people)'). I hope this makes sense. :) Corticopia 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The present name makes it very clear that the article refers to people from the whole of Asia, but "Asians" on its own has different popular meanings in different parts of the world, ie it refers primarily to South Asians in the UK and to East Asians in the U.S. Nothing is gained by introducing this ambiguity, indeed it creates issues that need to be dealt with in the article, but would clutter it up. Beorhtric 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This ambiguity is not mitigated through the title's current location, but in fact is complicated by it. First, it doesn't conform to the common naming convention. Second, a major function of this article already is to distinguish different reckonings of the term Asian(s) in different parts of the world. Dictionaries invariably list these definitions under Asian. I mean, even in your commentary above, you did not once refer to Asian people, South Asian people, or East Asian people but to "South Asians" and "East Asians". Retaining the current title conflates a notion and term that should be fairly simple. Corticopia 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
East Asians and South Asians can be clear without Asian itself being clear... he does have a point that those in the US instinctively picture those from the East and the UK often the South when presented with an unqualified term. I'm not sure if that should affect the naming or not. --Cheers, Komdori 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe so. In the context of the proposed move, this is somewhat of a non sequitur: the distinction of usage/understanding of Asian is not really a matter of debate -- even the OED indicates this dichotomy in the UK and US regarding Asian. To put it another way, this would have to be dealt with regardless if the article was entitled Asian, Asians, Asian (people(s)), et al. Alternatively, Asian people does not any more clarify that dichotomy of usage -- say, an American, upon visiting this page, may not actually know what to expect with the current title (as opposed to Asian(s)). Corticopia 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
Nonsense if we move this. We are talking about "Asian" and "people," not just "Asian." That is confusing with things that are Asian. Nonsense! 67.41.157.5 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: I believe this objection applies only to the previous proposal. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Opposse DAB"A disambigulation would be unsuitable for the term "Asian" because none of the disambigulation links are framed by the concept of "Asian"; they are all framed by the concept of "Asia". If the disambigulation went to Asians, Asian culture, Asian language, and Asian religion, then it would be fine. On the contrary, the only similar articles are culture of Asia, Languages of Asia and Religion in Asia. The "culture in Asia" article includes Middle Eastern and Armenian culture which would not be called Asian culture. The religion in Asia says nothing because the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions come from 6 region Asia. The relevant article would be Eastern philosophy which shows a map of the Dharmic religions of 3 region Asia. This is what people in the US would be refering to if they say "Asian religion". The Languages of Asia article again includes non-Asian people who wouldn't be refered to as speaking an Asian language. Basically, the term Asian doesn't disambigulate to the "of Asia" articles. Since "Asian" won't disambigulate to any suitable articles, it shouldn't become a disambigulation page.----DarkTea 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand... "X in/of Asia" and "Asian X" should generally have the same scope, I would think. If there are problems with the scope of those articles, those problems should be addressed, but needn't affect this present discussion. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Through multiple entries/senses for 'Asian', for instance, dictionaries illustrate the validity of retrofitting it into a DAB. I think 'Asian' would DAB to all applicable spots -- including those peoples in particular subregions. And, as we all know, the scope of the concept of 'Asia' is much wider than stated above. Corticopia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The term "Asian" should redirect to the "Asians" article and not be a disambigulation page. That dictionary's format for organizing its article has no bearing on Wikipedia. Their entry is also overly simplified, labeling the "Asian" as something coming from Asia. The current citations in this article from reliable-source sociologists indicate that there are more intricacies than that simple definition. In the US, the term "Asian" does not refer to Middle Easterners. Since the "of Asia" e.g. "Religions of Asia" articles are not organized around the Asian ethnic group, a disambigulation of the term "Asian" to them would not be fitting.----DarkTea 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"Comment" "Asian people" can change its name to Asians. Many other ethnic articles to this. The ones that don't like Japanese people don't do this because they have no plural/singular distinction.----DarkTea 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Good point about Japanese, et al., in which case 'x people' or 'x (people)' would be more appropriate (compare with related languages). Corticopia 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More specific name

This article deals primarily or exclusively with the definition of Asian in English-speaking countries, mainly referring to immigrants or descendants of immigrants living therein.

Synonyms include Asiatic[1], or Asian Continental Ancestry Group.

This indicates a more specific title is needed. Most of the conflict here seems to be because of the natural expectation that an article with a general title will have broad content and definitions. Here are some suggestions:

  • Asian minorities in English-speaking countries
  • Asian Continental Ancestry Group (US Census)

--JWB 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure of this: even my volume of the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Asian' (roughly) as a demonym for people of Asia and, depending on locale (UK or US), people of different subregions of the continent (Southern and Eastern Asia respectively). There are also usage guides and entries, [1] [2], solely devoted to this different usage.Corticopia 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're unsure of? --JWB 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto -- my point: if a more precise article title is needed, it needn't be one of the (tortuous) names you propose but something far simpler (per the common naming convention): Asian, Asians, Asian (people), Asian people, Asian peoples, etc. Is there a reason why the above noted groups/names cannot be dealt with in such an article? I think the multinomial terms/constituencies you've indicated above can be equitably dealt with in said article, if not already. If you mean something else, though, then I truly am unsure what you mean. Corticopia 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The current article seems to be narrowly focused on Asian-origin people in other parts of the world, particularly the US and governmental classifications there. Either the article should have a more accurate title, or focus should be expanded. Editors most active on this article seem to favor the narrow focus. Expanding the focus raises all these questions of what belongs in "Asia" articles and what in "Asian" articles. --JWB 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel the proposed titles of "Asian minorities in English-speaking countries" and "Asian Continental Ancestry Group (US Census)" would violate the WP:NAMING condition by not being names "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize".----DarkTea 09:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAMING#Be_precise_when_necessary says to use an unambiguous title rather than just the simplest possible one. (By the way, Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_historical_contexts also says to use a historically correct title rather than anachronistically simplifying to a current term.)
Asians in English-speaking countries and Asians (US Census) are simpler and still unambiguous. Asian diaspora is also not taken and is comparable to African diaspora, etc. --JWB 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAMING also says to name articles "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", meaning that unwieldy titles such as "Asians in English-speaking countries" shouldn't be the title name. In this case, WP:NAMING#Be_precise_when_necessary does not apply to "Asians", because "Asians" clearly means the Asian race. I think "Asians" is the best title.----DarkTea 07:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the best solution is simply to expand the scope of this article. We should have an article on Asian people, and I can't think where else it would go.-- Visviva 11:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that recent edits have moved the focus of the article away from the topic in favour of a narrow viewpoint (namely Welty). The title of the article as it is would have been sufficient in its previous format (circa March 2007), with definitions listed by country. As it is, either the content or the title should be changed as they are somewhat inconsistent. Flyrs 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that the scope of this article should be expanded -- after all, this is an encyclopedia, which should contain comprehensive treatments of topic matter. Corticopia 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well a lot of encyclopedias tend to make the the two topics a bit more distinct. The two topics might be worth separating--"People of Asia" describing the people who live in Asia, perhaps regardless of their race, and "Asian minorities outside Asia" being a quite different topic. I think that's how the people from India are treated (if I'm not mistaken, it's split into two such articles). --Cheers, Komdori 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is still entirely "Asians outside Asia" and very minimal background about Asia. In light of the above discussion, I'd like to suggest that the current Dark Tea-authored article text on that subject be moved to a new article with that title, and maybe creation of an infobox on Asian minorities; and that we revert this article to the previous state circa March 2007 which the other editors in the discussion prefer. --JWB 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welty's Cultural Information

User:Flyrs claims that s/he is removing the Welty section on culture per WP:WEIGHT, but I believe Welty's view point is not already in the article. The 3-region POV is already in the article under governmental definitions, but Welty's POV is a sociologist POV. Even if these two POVs should be grouped together, allowing for their separate attribution, the information Welty provides on culture is not already in the article. Welty's cultural definition is mostly not written using the singular debatable Asian category; although some of his cultural definitions are written under the singular Asian category, most of his cultural description is done for each of the 3 regions. Regardless of the contentious definition of Asian we use, the three regions are in almost all conceivable definitions, so the removal of his cultural description is unwarranted. The ethnicity information box is cited with Welty as the WP:RS who claims Asians are culture. I do not understand User:Flyrs reasoning for removing this citation yet so she should respond here.----DarkTea 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation was not removed, it was condensed to two sentences. Five paragraphs using one source is a little excessive. Also, Welty does not claim that there is an Asian ethnic group, he claims that there are cultural similarities. At any rate, that template design for Wikipedia is used for ethnic groups specifically; not in broad groupings of people such as White people. It would even contradict itself within the article in such sentences as In Malaysia and Singapore, their three largest ethnic groups, Malays, Chinese, and Indians, are all considered Asian. A template also clearly excludes and includes certain peoples, which can only represent one view, meaning that a template can not represent a global view on the subject. Flyrs 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The ethnicity template is inappropriate for this contentious issue because it only takes a single POV. It should not be in the article where multiple POVs exist.----DarkTea 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Flyrs 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


I do not understand why you disagree with Welty's synopsis of the internal cultural similarities in each Asian region. A cultural description of each region does not have to take a stance on the Asian definition. When we find a cultural overview of Central Asia, we can add it and the cultural section will be complete. It will then show all the cultural regions without taking a stance on the definition of Asians. I do not see why one source cannot be used as a citation for multiple paragraphs like you claim. Is there a Wikipedia Policy that advises this?----DarkTea 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree or agree with his synopsis, it was more the format in which it was presented. It seems to me that a paragraph saying Welty saw three distinct cultural regions etc. is all that is needed. At any rate, I haven't removed it, but it does seem a little one-source heavy (no idea if there's a Wikipedia Policy either). Flyrs 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deamericanized

this article needs to be deamericanized because there is already an article for Asian American. Muntuwandi 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed the protection of the page by accident.

However, I reverted it so it's ok now. but why is this protected anyway? I'm still not familiar with the rules and policies of wikipedia and I'm learning it in the process. thanks. If you would be so kind. And I know how to protect and unprotect a page now. so thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs).

The template doesn't actually affect protection, it only lets users know about it. Only admins can protect and unprotect pages, and it's normally requested at WP:RFPP. It was semi-protected because it's a common target for vandalism. The protection log is here. I could try unprotecting it if anyone's interested. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual inaccuracy

"Korea and Japan As early as 1920, Japanese and Korean elites had a conception of Asia as the civilization of the East in contrast to Europe." Who in the world posted this ridiculous sentence?

Japanese people generally do not consider themselves to be "Asian people." "Asian people" in Japan refers to people from the Asian continent, and especially those from Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand.

That quote is cited from an WP:RS. I'm sure that not all Japanese residents share this view, but I don't think the author of the paper made this up.----DarkTea 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just connotation vs. denotation. The use of "Asian" as "foreign Asian" or "Southeast Asian" is for convenience, similar to "Asian" as shorthand for East Asian in the US and South Asian in Britain, and does not mean Japan is actually outside of Asia. --JWB 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic peoples

why in "see also" are not mentioned Turkic peoples people?

[edit] Good start but could be better

I am surprised that no one has drawn on the vast scholarly literature on Asian nations and ethnic groups. Has anyone read Thongchai's Siam Mapped, Duara's Rescuing History from the Nation, or Chatterjee's The Nation and its Fragments? These would be good starts. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American bias

User:Padishah5000 feels that the classification of Asians by individuals is biased to the United States perspective, but most of its sources are not from the United States. Only Paul Welty is in the United States. Keith Lowe is in Canada. Sudra Ramachandran is in India. I would like Padishah5000 to explain her/his self.----DarkTea© 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Welty, a largely unknown scholar, represents a very singular and American viewpoint, and reflects undo weight in the article. Padi 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You said he represents a "singular" viewpoint. Yes, he is the only American out of the three. He is also a notable scholar whose work is incorporated into California universities' libraries. Your accusations have no merit.----DarkTea© 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A simple google search reveals that Welty is a virtual unknown as an academic, and as a result, his input into this article is unequally weighted in accordance with his stature as a scholar. Welty also reflects a notion of Asia and "being" Asian which is not generally understood and acknowledged outside of the United States, and one that is also open to much controversy. Padi 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar Search shows exactly 4 references. The only one of those references whose text is available online includes Iranian-Americans among Asian-American groups, contradicting the definition of Asia that DT claims is in Welty's book. (As noted earlier, Welty is only defining the scope of his book and not trying to propound a general redefinition of Asia.) The other stuff referenced to Welty is extremely simple, practically cliche statements that could be referenced from almost anywhere. Some of it (eating wheat, extended families, literacy and scholarship) could apply to people in many other parts of the world, and at least one statement is obsolete since many countries other than Japan are now urbanized. --JWB 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is very interesting, and seems to contradict the manor in which Welty's work is presented in the article. Padi 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Where in Wong and Hines' essay do they cite or discuss Welty?----DarkTea© 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Google HTML rendition cuts off the bibliography. Follow the link at the top to the original PDF and Welty is cited in the bibliography on page 115. --JWB 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Welty says multiple times the extent of Asia and the Asian people. "It is the great merit of 'The Asians' that is puts main emphasis...for the main areas of Asia from Pakistan round to Japan."(Foreward, IX), "...it has become customary to group the Asian people into the three regions of South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia..."(Prologue, pp. 3) "The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia." The map of Asia on page 23 labeled the "Population of Asian Countries" does not include Iran. Similarly, the map of the "South Asian Subcontinent" on page 28 does not include Iran along with the written description, "South Asia includes the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Maldives and Bhutan."(Welty, pp. 58)----DarkTea© 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"main areas of Asia from Pakistan to Japan" does not exclude the possibility of non-main areas not in that range. The others all relate to the scope of his book as we went over earlier. The use of "Asia" and "Asian" in his book is synecdoche, no different than British use of Asian as shorthand for South Asian or US use of Asian as shorthand for East Asian. It sounds like he is also leaving Central Asia and Siberia out of the scope of his book. --JWB 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that if Welty said that the "main areas of Asia [are] from Pakistan to Japan" that he may be including Russia or the Arabian peninsula as minor areas?----DarkTea© 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The most heavily populated areas are within the triangle formed by Pakistan, Japan and Java. These are the most economically and politically important areas. They might also be most typically Asian if you view the characteristics of these densely populated societies as typical, but they are not all of Asia. --JWB 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
To quote from DT's own website pushing the original concept of "Tripartite Asia" along with a blizzard of other neologisms: 'The statements made here may be at odds with the common understanding of the term "Asian"'. --JWB 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In contrast to neologisms and redefinitions, Welty claims that his definition of the Asian "has become customary", implying that he's expounding the characteristics of the common definition of Asian.----DarkTea© 02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote you give above says that it has become customary to categorize S, E, and SE Asians. It does not mention the less populated areas of SW Asia, Central Asia, and North Asia, so it is not clear whether he is really excluding them, or just neglecting them in the context of this discussion (the obvious conclusion considering the declared scope of his book). As usual, you are citing a sentence that does not directly state what you want to prove, but might possibly be interpreted to imply it as a side effect.
Another note, Welty also wrote textbooks covering other regions, such as the Middle East. Excluding Iran and west, and what was the Soviet Union at the time, from this book may simply be avoiding double coverage. --JWB 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Aisan People

I am from Central Asia (and I am a Turkic, and I am from the Former Soviet Union), and I could say that we conisder ourselves as Asians (defintely not as white, the logic is "I am not white nor black, so I am asian"). So I have a question if I in United States is not condisdred as Asian, how I considered? the article has no iformation 'bout that :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.67 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I also see no link in the article to mongoloids, however we were ruled by descendants of Genghis Khan, and we proud of our history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.156 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Turks are classified as part of the white race by the US Census. Although you may like being associated with the Mongols due to your presumed Mongol ancestry, there does not exist any special affinity of the other Asians for the Mongols.----DarkTea© 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kazakhs1.jpg
are these turkic people white?!
(the guy in the upper right corner is a royal who is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan and he is a grand-son of the last kazakh' khan)
  • Wouldn't it rather be Anatolian Turks who are classified as white? Central Asian Turks, like Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Kazakhs, probably wouldn't be classified as white. Turkic peoples are very heterogeneous. Funkynusayri 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In United States, most people will not know how to consider you. The good news is, you can tell them whatever you want. :)

A Kazakh guy I knew looked like Americans of half European and half East Asian descent, which is a common combination in some areas of the US.

US Census codes the 5 Central Asian republics as Asian countries (so are Turkey and Israel), however the 3 Caucasus republics are coded as European. [3]

US Census records most people in US who were born in 4 of 5 Central Asian republics (no data on Turkmenistan) as white (around 85%) with most of rest as Asian or "Two or more races". [4] [5] [6] [7] However, most emigrants from the Central Asian republics are from the European nationalities there, and there are no separate figures for people who were registered with Central Asian nationality in the former USSR. (For that matter, Census records 11% of people in US born in Asia as white [8]) --JWB 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

he-he I know a guy who's father is white (a russian), and his mother is an asian (a korean) - when he lived in Kazakhstan he always, people who met him first time always thinked that he is a kazakh :-)
however I've seen about 15 chinese girls (Han-people - ethnic chinese) and one of 'em (from the North China) is really often confused with kazakhs even when she silent (she lived in Kazakhstan the most of her life and when she speaks rusain or kazakhs her pronciantion is not a pronciation of a foreigner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.227.160 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)