Talk:Military history of Asian Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMilitary history of Asian Americans has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 21, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
June 25, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Article Expansion references[edit]

As was said about the political section, that much more can be said about the military section that is not even three sentences long. Furthermore, it has had an expansion tag for a considerable period of time, with no expansion by other members. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Links to be used for section revamp:

The above links will be used as I continue to revamp this section--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to be used for section revamp, World War II:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference links:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Ideas[edit]

Perhaps there should be a section that specifies unit and individual recognition of Asian Americans in Military Service? Perhaps there should be a section about Asian American POWs, there are many interesting stories that perhaps are notable to mention such as 1 2 3 4 5 6 --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new lead[edit]

In the peer review it was suggested that the lead be expanded. Therefore, I propose that the lead be rewritten as follows:

Asian Americans, who are Americans of Asian descent, have fought and served on behalf of the United States since the War of 1812. During the American Civil War Asian Americans fought for both the Union and the Confederacy. Afterwards Asian Americans served primarily in the U.S. Navy until the Philippine-American War.
At the beginning the 20th Century, Asian Americans would begin to attend the United States' military academies and the first incidents that would lead to Asian Americans being awarded the Medal of Honor. World War I saw Asian Americans serving as "non-whites" in the National Army. After World War I, Asian American service fell into obscurity until World War II when significant contributions were documented by Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and Korean Americans.
With the desegregation of the United States Military in 1948 segregated Asian American units ceased to exist, and Asian Americans continued to serve in an integrated armed forces. Actions of valorous Asian American individuals continued to be recorded in the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts, and Asian Americans have continued to serve until the present day.

Opinions, suggestions, critiques?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving no opinions, suggestions, or critiques I will replace the current lead with what is above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Military history of Asian Americans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I won't be able to make it through the full article tonight, so here's some preliminary comments on the early sections. I hope to finish tomorrow. So far this article looks good in terms of completeness and depth of research, and I'm learning a lot reading it. So far my biggest concerns are with clarity in the prose. I've done some copyediting myself as I've gone along for both grammatical and stylistic reasons. Please double-check me to make sure I haven't inadvertently added any new errors, and please revert any changes you disagree with.

  • "Asian Americans began to attend U.S. military academies and the first incidents that would lead to Asian Americans being awarded the Medal of Honor" -- to say that "Asian Americans began to attend ... the first incidents that would lead to Asian Americans being awarded the Medal of Honor" doesn't seem complete. Perhaps rewrite as "Asian Americans began to attend U.S. military academies, and the first Asian Americans were awarded the Medal of Honor"?
  • [1] does not seem like a reliable source. I'd suggest simply removing the "Pierce's picture hangs in the Gettysburg Museum" as it seems a bit trivial anyway.
  • "Pierce's, and other Asian-Pacific Islander soldiers of the Civil War, actions was the subject of a House of Representatives resolution" -- this sentence needs to be rewritten a bit for grammar, but I feel like this one could also use a little more context. Perhaps mention the year, the fact that it passed, and that the resolution was to honor them. "In 2007, the US House passed a resolution honoring the actions of Pierce and other..."
  • "Asian Americans were drafted as "non-whites" filling out the "white quota" into the National Army" -- this confuses me--non-whites were used to fill the quota of whites?
  • " they too would not see combat" -- who is "they" here--Asian Americans, or Asian, Hispanic and Native Americans? It also appears to contradict the next sentence. I wonder if it would be better to write "few of them would see combat".
  • " Private Henry Chinn, who was killed in action in the Argonne Forest as part of the Lost Battalion,[54][55] and Sergeant Sing Kee, another member of the Lost Battalion, who earned the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions.[56][57] and Sergeant Major Tokutaro Nishimura Slocum, who fought in the 328th Infantry Regiment, 82d Infantry Division" -- this does not appear to be a complete sentence--right now it's a list of three nouns with long modifiers. There's also a period where a comma is probably wanted.
  • "In the Navy, at its peak more than 5,700 Filipinos enlisted during World War I" -- what does "at its peak" mean here? Did 5,700 Filipinos enlist total during the war, or was there one "peak" day when 5,700 Filipinos enlisted?
First set of responses
I am surprised that you had to go through and do so much copy editing! Sorry. I had ran it through Microsoft Word twice per section, and thought it up to snuff. -sigh-
I would not be opposed to the rewarding proposed to the lead if you feel that it is more fluid.
The Gettysburg Discussion Group, is a non-profit organization whose focus is collecting information and providing education to visitors about the battle. They have been used as a source or highlighted in multiple books.
  • Fair enough. It's a minor statement in any case.
I would not be opposed to the rewording proposed for the sentence regarding the 2007 House Resolution about Asian American service during the Civil War.
Regarding the World War I quota, yes, that confused me too as well, but the source is more clear. However presently the website for the Institute of Historical Research appears to be down. If you wish to strike that sentence, I would not be oppose to it (or comment it out).
  • It would a shame to strike mention of the quota system, which seems quite relevant and important. Can other sources be found for this if the original source is down?
From what I can remember, the source indicated that non-white soldiers were not suppose to be assigned to combat units. However, a few did, and thus did see combat. I am not sure if those who did had voluntarily enlisted prior to the draft, or what their specific circumstances were. As for the "they too did not see combat", this is referring to the majority of the Asian American draftees, who did not see combat like the Philippine National Guard. As for it not being a complete sentence, it is actually suppose to be a list of those who I can verify did see combat.
  • Got it. I think the version is clear now.
As for the Filipinos in the Navy question, the actual sources says "By 1917, there were some 2,000 Filipinos in the U.S. Navy, a number that would spike to over 5,700 by the war's end,..."
Would you suggest a rewording?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what was throwing me was the word "enlisted", suggesting there was a point at which this many men enlisted all together, rather than were enlisted, if that distinction makes sense. I think the new wording is clear on this point.
Here are the changes I have made based on your first set of comments. I hope this remedies the issues that were brought up in the first round.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great--I'll take a more detailed look in the morning. Sorry to see from your user page that you've got the flu, by the way! Hope you feel better soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm progressing towards being better. I am just happy I am not one with a severe case now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think that addresses the above, save for the quota issue. I'll continue working on this off and on throughout the day. I'm battling a longterm sinus infection of my own, so I think I'm stepping out to urgent care for antibiotics at some point! We'll see how I hold up, but I apologize in advance if this review moves slowly for a bit. Thanks again for your quick responses and your hard work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Starting a new section since most of the above is addressed, but see the note about quotas.

  • " but not without some difficulty,[58] or overcoming legal obstacles." -- Are "difficulty or legal obstacles" alternatives here?
  • "however, there is no record of Asian American service members earning accolades in the interwar period outside of the service academies" -- this needs citation to demonstrate that it's not original research.
  • Broadly speaking, this article would be helped by adding some social context on racism and stereotypes toward, and legal status of, Asian Americans at various eras in US history; these are implied throughout the article but not often directly addressed. In the Japanese-Ams in WWII section, for example, 1-2 sentences clearly explaining the background of internment could be included. I don't think you'd need to go far outside of the sources that this article already uses to include this. The Salyer article has some good background of stereotypes and legal issues for Asian Americans in WWI-era America. The passage of the Nye-Lea bill as a result of Slocum's lobbying seems worth addressing specifically. [2][3] This source puts Filipino American service in the context of anti-Filipino laws.[4]
  • "For Europe this period ended in 1939" -- what is "this period" here? The interwar? It's a bit of a non sequiter; maybe start a new paragraph here.
  • "active" --what's going on with the four wikilinks hidden in one word here? Consider reworking this part per WP:EGG.
  • "From that point on Asian Americans were on the front lines for the U.S. civilians of Oahu, including Japanese Americans, assisted with aid efforts following the attack" -- the "for" in this sentence confuses me--can you rephrase this for me here so I can understand its meaning? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review[edit]

Though this article is developing well in many respects, it still seems to me far from meeting criterion 1a (clear and concise prose). I skipped ahead in the article to look at a fresh paragraph as an example.[5] The sort of persistent minor errors here included hyphenation (all-Nisei is a compound adjective), tense (" the two Nisei units combine"), redundancy ("combine together"), capitalization ("White officers"), and an unneeded article ("including the liberation of the Dachau"). The phrase "including the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp" should also be clarified--it's not clear what this is being "included" in. (The problem may be the intervening phrase "leading it to be one of the most decorated units in the European Theater"; perhaps this could be broken off into a separate sentence?) As a side note, the section also has a sourcing/minor POV issue in praising the "huge contribution" of the Military Intelligence Service while sourcing to a site that appears to be by veterans of the service (you might consider attributing this opinion in-text). I'm also concerned that a newsletter of the Japanese American Veterans Association might not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources--we don't know its standards for fact-checking, and it's not impartial, which are two warning signs. I should emphasize that none of these are a big deal in themselves, and I feel a little petty even mentioning some of the above; the problem is simply the persistence of the issues.

What I'd recommend is submitting this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and getting a close edit before resubmitting; that should take care of the biggest issue here, which is the grammar and occasional odd syntax. You might also check in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to see if anyone there would be interested in helping. Less urgently, I'd suggest adding in some of the social context I mentioned above. Though I'm not listing it at this time, I think you've surely got enough for a Good Article here, and that this is well on its way--I'm very grateful for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

A very minor issue, but should this use US instead of European date style per WP:STRONGNAT? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the United States military has a culture of using day month year in its documentation. You'll find that many articles about the United States military keeps with this usage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Asian USMC officer[edit]

Something about Kurt Chew-Een Lee should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please see this diff.
Please keep the suggestions coming!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAVA sources[edit]

I have opened up a discussion at WP:RSN#Japanese American Veterans Association.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an opinion by Nick-D, I have replaced references that went to JAVA sourced material, and hid content that could not be verified through other means. I am having difficulty finding a RS regarding the number of Asian American general/flag officers, and important number IMHO. There is this story from Newshour but it doesn't say anything about Asian Americans specifically. Any assistance in finding a new source would be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the Newshour story is this report dated to February 2010. It doesn't give raw numbers as the JAVA source does, and there is a comment by User:Binksternet, who supports the opinion that JAVA is a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at RSN has been archived. An interested editor can find the discussion here:
It is my opinion that there is a plurality of active editors at the discussion whose opinion is that JAVA is a WP:RS, but that no consensus has been made with all active editors in this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White[edit]

I noticed that White has been de-capitalized again. However, it is short for White American. Generally, if Black American (more commonly African American) were used, and shortened to Black, it would remain capital; correct? Same goes that Asian is kept capitalized. Please help me understand if I am in the wrong.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I have no preference either way. The reason I decapitalised it was because the article seemed to use the decapitalised version in preference to capitalised (by my count before I changed it the non capitalised version appeared eight times, while the capitalised version appeared once). I have no objection to it being changed back, but then all mentions should be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did not realize there was that discrepancy; non-capitalized is fine then. Plus it is keeping with the Oxford Dictionary (external link).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Military history of Asian Americans/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion[edit]

I ran into various small items but was able to tweak them myself. North8000 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist[edit]

Well-written

  • Meets this criteria sufficiently for Good Article. To go to the next plateau, you might want to seek out and use some sources that get into other overall aspects. (culture, acceptance, motivation etc. that also make it "flow") My gut feel that there is a huge amount of facts presented here in a very slightly "choppy" manner. Not big deal and fine for GA, but that be a nice effort if you want to take it to the "next level" beyond that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

  • Meets this criteria. Suppifiently broad and comprehensive to mee GA criteria. See "Well written" section for a few suggestion if you care to take it to the next level. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Meets this criteria. Article has 17 images. All are free, so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! What an immense about of interesting material has been included in this article! North8000 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(I have "duplicated" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded.)

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! What an immense about of interesting material has been included in this article! North8000 (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reviewer[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article. Please let me know how it can "flow" better, perhaps I should take it to WP:GOCE?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Islanders[edit]

Is this article written just about Asian Americans? The article mentions Pacific Islanders but does speak about them distinctively apart from the term Asian and Pacific Islanders.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to the Asian Pacific American grouping that use to be more common in the past. Therefore some statistics or sources lump both Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans in one source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American War[edit]

Interestingly the Mexican-American War is not mentioned in this article. Was there simply no known Asian American combatants in this war?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Military history of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Military history of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

@Narky Blert: please revert yourself. As can be seen from the source, it does not specify target. So to specify a specific target, it would be original research on our part.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Links to DAB pages are errors (which get picked up by User:DPL bot), are unhelpful to readers, and need to be resolved one way or another. In this instance, I've added footnotes explaining the difficulties and neutrally setting out the options. (I came across the problem last week of what all the sources called "A near B" in the Czech lands in C15. There are 51 modern places called A, none of them particularly near any of the 8 places called B. All I could do was add a footnote basically saying "it's anyone's guess".)
I notice that the same source says Bombay. I'd wager that that was the port which people sailed from, but that they may have come from all over Bombay Presidency (which was huge). But, no-one knows. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I received the DAB notice when I made the edit. Thanks for your assistance regarding this matter, hopefully the footnotes help the readers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Military history of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Military history of Asian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_Asian_Americans&oldid=1209063517"