Template talk:Asian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Mongolians and Kalmyks

Even though Kalmyk is of Mongolian orgin, they should not be counted as East Asia since Kalmykia is a republic of Russian Federation. Kalmyk only refers to these Mongolian from Kalmykia. 203.218.22.133 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Mongolians in Mongolia are not counted as Asian American in the U.S, either. Padishah5000 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? We don't have to make the same mistakes as the US statistics office (or whoever defines such categorizations there). --Latebird 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we do have to make the same "mistakes" as the U.S Government, since this template is used to define "Asian Americans", also known as American of Asian ancestry. As an encyclopedia, we are not allowed to make up our own definitions, but rather must rely on actual sources. Please find a source from the U.S Government that clearly states Mongolian Americans to be Asian American, or else I will have to keep removing the the inclusion of Mongolians in the template. Padishah5000 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, we are allowed, no: required, to use common sense:
  1. Last time I checked, Mongolia was located in Asia.
True, most defintions of Asia include ALL of Asia. We are not talking about geography though, but race. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Ergo: Mongolians are Asians (by definition)
Not in the Unites States, any more than an Iranian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Russian, Iraq or Israeli is. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Ergo: Mongolian Americans are Asian Americans (by definition)
According to which U.S government agency? Show me a factual link/citation, and I will consider it grounds for consensus. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to deviate from this very simple standard logic, then it is YOU who needs to provide sources to prove your point of view. Are you saying that the US census bureau lists the Mongolian Americans in some other category? If so, which one?
Here is my source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68180.htm - Notice no mention of "Mongols", or Central Asians in general? I am sorry, but that is the reality of "race" here in America, and it is not the job of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to try and change that definition. Padishah5000 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Or did they simply neglect to categorize them at all? Maybe because their numbers are so insignificantly small compared to others? In that case, which seems the most likely, I don't see what your actual argument is. --Latebird 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In the United States, racial classifications do not follow the logic of what many may see as a "phenotypically" racial appearance. Being from the continent of Asia does not qualify a person or entire ethnic group as Asian. For instance, people from the Near East, Central Asia and former Soviet Union, as well as Asiatic Russia, are not counted as racially Asian, regardless of how they might physically look to an observer. Mongolia, as well as Kalmyks, fall under the categorization of "white", since they come from the former Soviet Union/Central Asia and or Russia. I hope this is making sense to you. If you dislike how the U.S Government categorizes people, I suggest writing a letter to your local Congressperson and Senator. Padishah5000 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source proving my point:

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,...

Or are you seriously claiming that Mongolia is NOT in the "Far East"? Note that the examples listed are by no means exhaustive. The countries not explicitly mentioned are summarized under "Other Asian". Your other explanations are Original Research without sources. Even then, Mongolia was never part of the Soviet Union, and geographically it belongs to East Asia. --Latebird 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am stating the fact that Mongolia is in Central Asia, and the link I provided proves my claim from an official source. Mongolia is not mentioned at all as a source point for Asian-American people. Padishah5000 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I fail to see how your link proves anything, since it seems to lack any reference to Mongolia (as to Laos, Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan, some other areas it would probably include as Far East/Southeast Asia/Indian subcontinent). This link, however, seems to suggest that Asian ancestry can indeed be defined as to include Mongolia - moreover, whenever Mongolian or Mongolia is placed in some group at all, it's in a group with China, Japan, Korea etc. (app. B, p.G-11, G-99). Moreover, page B-38 seems to inply that as far as the US census is concerned, Asian americans are all those who say they are. Yaan 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, in America, you are not who you say you are, in the legal context. Just being from the Asian continent is not enough to be considered Asian. For example, if you "feel" that you are Asian, and try an claim a status as such, and you do not fit the definition, your claim will be thrown out. You must be from the listed regions, or have some ancestry that directly is, to fit the categorical definition. Putting down Mongolia will not be counted as a requirement for Asian-American status. Mongolia is considered part of Central Asia by the U.S Government, and as such is considered part of the Middle East and or former Soviet republics(even though Mongolia was independent of the Soviet Union). Kalmyks are considered Russian, and just like Central Asians, are counted as white. That is the reality of the situation. I do not like it anymore than you do, but to make this encylopedia accurate, we must do so in relation to how Asian-Americans are defined as American, by both the government, and all Asian-American organizations(which pushed for the current definition). Padishah5000 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts, Padishah. But then, the point is moot anyway. Can you please show me a Wikipedia policy mandating that we must use a definition that was only created by an US governement agency for their own internal purposes? Wikipedia generally follows common use definitions. And exactly such a definition is given (and explained in detail) in the article Asian American. Maybe you should read (and try to understand) that one first before continuing this discussion? --Latebird 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Mongolians are note counted as "Asian-American" in American "common use". As the definition should have made you aware of, being from Asia in the United States does not make you an Asian-American. This is especially true of Kalmyk-Americans, who are defined as Russian, and therefore white. This is not open to debate. The American concept of being "Asian" has nothing to do with physical appearance. After all, a person from Pakistan and a person from Japan are both counted as being "Asian" in American use, while a person from Afghanistan and a person from Kazakhstan are both counted as "white". For someone to try ans base a person's "Asianess" on their appearance, would be interpreted as racist in the American context. Wikipedia is not here to invent new definitions, or to redefine how people see the world. Like I said, if you do not like this definition(I myself do not), my advice would be for you to get in contact with your local representatives, to try and redress the issue. Padishah5000 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you kept asking for "evidence" but didn't have the decency to even read the source provided originally by Dark Tea in this edit comment and again by Yaan above. You're making it quite hard to assume good faith with this kind of behaviour. For the third time: This official document from the USCB explicitly lists Mongolia in the "Other Asia" section. Thus, even if we were to accept your fixation on the USCB definition (which I doubt we will), your position on Mongolia would still be wrong according to your own criteria. --Latebird 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that I am not acting in "good faith", then I suggest you file a complaint. As far as my position is concerned, I demand a single shred of evidence that Mongolian-Americans not originating in China are counted as Asian-American by any U.S Government agency.
As you can see here the CIA World Fact book places Mongolia in the location of North Asia:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mg.html.
As such, I have never seen any indication that Mongolian Americans as being counted as Asian-Americans. If I am wrong, then I ask for a shred of evidence that this is the case. As far as the Kalmyks are concerned, they are defined the same as any other person from Russia, as white. Padishah5000 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been given evidence directly from the USCB, which was the only evidence that you were willing to accept at first. Ignoring that now won't help your credibility. --Latebird 10:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The US Census Bureau document User:Latebird found clearly shows on page 687 that "Mongolian" is included in the "Other Asian" list of write-ins who are counted as racially Asian. Your CIA Factbook citation User:Padishah only carried weight when the argument was over the vague definition of original origin from the Far East. That US Census vague source has been supplanted by the in depth US Census source, making the question of Mongolian racial classification with the US Census no longer debatable.----DarkTea 11:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That works for me, as far as the Mongol-Americans are concerned. That is huge link, I might add. Padishah5000 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request at 3O

I see that you have more than two editors involved in this debate. With that, its relative complexity and the need for sensitivity toward national identification, I recommend RFC as a more suitable avenue. 3O is only for two-editor disputes. I'd be willing to offer my assessment for what it's worth, but I think you need more of a consensual assessment, which RFC can provide. Adrian M. H. 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It was two editors at the time when I posted the request. But as far as I am concerned, the more the merrier! --Latebird 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities, ethnicities, both?

Should the template include only nationalities (i.e., groups linked to specific, sovereign nation-states), or also include ethnic groups such as Mien and Hmong, which do not have specific countries, and which may be associated with more than one country? --Ishu 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If they consider themselves as a separate identity, I think they should be included since a country-based definition might be biased against stateless ethnic groups. --23prootie 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nepali Americans

They very much exist, Dark T. Why didn't you just Google it? Anyway, here's what I found: "Since the 1960s, thousands of Nepalis from the Himalayan kingdom have made central Ohio their home. The Nepali community has grown dramatically within the last decade, further adding to the multicultural nature of Columbus. Whether as civil servants, educators, small business owners, doctors or musicians, Nepali-Americans continue to actively participate in civic activities in Columbus."[1] I removed the Newah link b/c they're just one of Nepal's ethnic groups, the 6th largest, actually. SamEV 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

23prootie: Let's have a discussion about this before deleting, please. --Ishu 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a good solution is creating a Nepali-American article, with sources of course. --23prootie 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghans

Greyanomaly, the Ancestry heading in the sources only indicates that Afghanistan is in the South Asian region, as the ancestry codes are grouped geographically; it has nothing to do with race. If you scroll down in the first document you cited (the info in the second document you cited is contained in the first) you'll see a heading of "Race", wherein you'll find the entry "Afghanistani" under "White". SamEV (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The official race coding from the Census Bureau. You can see that Afghans are classified as white. SamEV (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)