Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 3

message: All of the demographics subsections need to be treated very delicately.  Aggregating the Asian sub-groups can lead to faulty conclusions about what may be a bimodal distribution.  The Income section, for example, uses the median household income metric which does not count the number of income-earners within a household, which tends to be higher among Asians.  The false impression is one of "wealthy" Asians, when you might have three adults earning moderate incomes living together in a small home.  
Also, the link provided points to an AP report republished by MSNBC--but the underlying data are from the Census Bureau.  We should link to the Census Bureau report since the data are public and the links are more likely to be stable.  At some point I will be editing along these lines.  --Ishu 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asian American purchasing power, currently at $427 billion, is the second-fastest growing after Hispanics. By 2011, the Asian buying power is expected to increase to $626 billion, a growth rate of 46%., at indolink.com
In other words, a reader could infer that incomes are growing at 46%, when most of that growth is a product of population growth.  Reading the actual reference shows that the  context refers to the attention of marketers, not of income.  --Ishu 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics subsections 

message: I think we need to develop a style guide for this page.  Two issues leap to mind, both related to individual Asian American ethnic groups. Let's please discuss any and all style issues.  
*Links to individual groups:  How often shall we link to an individual ethnic group?  Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be only once within each major (level 1) topic.  
*References to the ethnic group of individuals:  This is stickier.  Especially in the Asian Americans Today section, there's a lot of clutter.  Much of this is the list-y nature of the section that I'm working on.  But two sentences from In science are typical:
::Chinese Americans Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang received the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in particle physics. Indian American Har Gobind Khorana shared the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work in genetics and protein synthesis. 
:I suggest that we strike the ethnicity for people who have articles.  If there is a theme of progression from one ethnic group to another, it's probably appropriate to mention the ethnic groups, but in general we should avoid it.  
What thoughts do people have? --Ishu 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion of not including ethnicity when we're listing off these names of famous people.  Unless of course, their ethnicity actually plays a part in why they're notable.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, most of the individual names have been removed.  However, I think I will create a style guide.  Should it be a sub page from here, or should it be attached to the Asian American project? Ishu 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest attaching it to the Asian American WikiProject, and maybe ask participants over there for collaboration on it.  I haven't signed up as a member of that project, but I'll help by reviewing and commenting on your suggestions.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Guide development 

message: I removed Southwest (link to Southwestern United States from infobox--that article does not even provide a coherent definition of the region.  Only 10 states have >4.5% AsAm pop'n, most in NE or Pac Coast.  Only if we include California in the "Southwest" does this make sense, but Cal. is already included in "West Coast."  --Ishu 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions in InfoBox 

message: I have made a percentage list of AA for the D.C. and Baltimore areas together (although they aren't technically the same metro area): Washington-Baltimore Area Asian American Demographics.
(eventually it should have which jurisdictions are growing the fastest) I would like to do one of the San Francisco/Los Angeles areas and see similar articles for all major metro areas as well.--Old Guard 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro regions 

message: It's not a burning issue, but I think that we really need to rename this section. I'm not crazy about anything I can think of, such as:
*Notable Asian American contributions (awkward, and begs question "to what?")
*Impact on United States (same as in African American; but artificially limits to U.S.)
Any suggestions?  The current section title is vague and encourages refactoring.  A clearer title might reduce the likelihood of that and focus editing in a direction.  --Ishu 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just Notable Asian Americans?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nixed that because it's just begging to be re-list-ified.  --Ishu 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no matter what we name it, there will be editors who come here to add more names and make it look like a list written out in sentences.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [sigh]  I guess I'll just leave it alone, then.  Neither will I oppose any reasonable name change.  --Ishu 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the Asian American WikiProject was actually active.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  People may check it once a week or month and consider it to be frequent, or be neutral and have nothing to add. Either name seems fine. Seräis 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name for ''Asian Americans today'' 

message: I removed the following clause from the lead section discussion of Oriental:  
:and had the effect of distancing Asians from other Americans.
The section of the article that pertains to this discussion appears to be:
:many Asian Americans identified the term ‘Oriental’ with a Western process of racializing Asians as forever opposite ‘others,’
The reference supporting this statement is a reliable source, but it does not support the statement regarding "distancing," except as discussed in the previously referenced article on Orientalism.  --Ishu 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "oriental" issue is arguable at best.  We should try to avoid any definite wording when the article mentions it, unless a statement is well-sourced.  From my experience, at least, some think it's ok, but some don't like it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my view that this should be the only reference to Oriental, since it is relevant to the shift to Asian American.  All other views are unavoidably subjective.  --Ishu 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference checking 

message: It has become apparant that after a couple of weeks User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong never intend on evaluating my 50 citations they have removed.  Their stated reason for removing them was that they felt I added too many citations in too short a period.  Other than there not existing a Wikipedia Policy even remotely connected with this reasoning, it doesn't make sense.  Are citations no good when they have been added too quickly?  User:Ishu claims that s/he will evaluate each citation edit-by-edit to determine if they warrant inclusion in this article, but it has been several weeks and there has been no evaluations of this sort.  Will these citations ever be evaluated?  For outside observors, here is the article as it were before the 50 citations were removed.--DarkTea 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it is so difficult to discuss so many additions before you actually edit.  We've invited you to discussions, but you were busy doing something else.  Please note that silence is concensus.  I'm personally concerned about your edits because many of them are not actually supported by the sources you provide, but are conclusions that you've reached yourself based on the sources you have.  So please please please discuss before you add.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sources that I interpreted were the couple blog sources.  These blog sources did not have anything to say that could be directly translated into a concrete statement for this article, so I had to interpret them.  The other peer-revied book sources were written by sociologists about the Asian American.  I added no interpretation to these sources; I merely re-worded them to avoid plagiarizing them.--DarkTea 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See an above section I started called "Going through DT's edits".  I am honestly concerned about how you've been using some of your sources.  Many of then don't actually support the statements you insert.  For example, one source you used just recently from asian-nation.org said that it was difficult to poll immigrants to see how they voted, but you liberally "interpretted" this to say that immigrants don't vote.  So like I've said, please just discuss your additions before you insert them.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. So it's not like anyone just randomly deleted this information. It seems HongQiGong has done a lot of work and tried hard to start a conversation about these edits with no response. At least people are talking now. futurebird 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: She posted an RFC for this?  Funny how she missed the instructions on the RFC page where it said, "Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page."  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the requested link to the RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics.--DarkTea 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My citations which were unjustly removed have not been compensated

message: I don't know how many people are aware of Wikipedia:Attribution (abbreviated as WP:ATT).  It is a new policy, merged from Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.  Significantly, it is relevant to the discussions we've been having regarding sources.  The nutshell version:  
Relevant excerpts include:
*From the lead section:
:Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. 
*From Section 1.2: Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources:
:Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication.
Also relevant are:
*Section 3.1: Primary and secondary sources
*Section 3.2: Using questionable or self-published sources
--Ishu 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] 

message: FYI, Dark Tea "has decided to leave wiki b/c it is stressful as of March 3, 2007."  Of course, nothing stops any editor from revoking such a decision or returning under another user ID.  --Ishu 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah if you can't enjoy editing WP for what it is, then it's probably good to take a break.  But I'm sure she'll be back.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dark Tea|Dark Tea]] 

message: It looks like List of Chinese Americans has been nominated for deletion.  Please weigh in if you're interested in the AfD.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Chinese Americans nominated for deletion