Talk:Wasian

Per my revert here , I don't think it's necessary to have a "list of Wasians" in this article. People who are notable for being "Wasian" can be (and are) appropriately cited in the prose. This article is specifically about the term Wasian and not a catch-all for all people of White/Asian descent. A list also easily verges into WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTCRUFT. Wracking ^talk! 02:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is List of hāfu people. From WP:LISTCRUFT (thank you for pointing me to that!), Wasians seem to qualify as "a "List of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." Mayo Code (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mayo Code, please note that Wasian is a specific term that should not be understood as encompassing all people of Asian and White descent. The term is not a purely factual and neutral descriptor, and there are WP:BLP concerns with identifying people as Wasian if they have not self-identified as such. See, from the HuffPost article cited in this article, Washington cautioned against dubbing people as Wasian if they have not yet publicly acknowledged their multiracial identity as such. "My one caution is that people can’t use it for other people. You can only use it for yourself," Washington said. Wracking ^talk! 16:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's a descriptor. We don't need to follow the opinion of a non-Wasian professor to use it, when actual experts like Rebecca Chiyoko King-O’Riain (also cited in the piece) have been publishing about it since 2022. Not everyone who is listed in the list of Hāfu has publicly identified as such. Mayo Code (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please cite a policy-based reason for including such a list. Other stuff exists is not a strong argument. Wracking ^talk! 20:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for your efforts Wracking. Let me shatter your (probably coming from your spanish side) worry of Wasian becoming a catch-all noun for people of White/Asian descent like we have seen in your South America with the word mestizo.

The definition of "Wasian" for this Wikipedia article:

In the original narrow sense, Wasian is an extremely precise term defined as follows (the definition is induced from contemporary use* and is sufficiently met if the following three necessary conditions are given):=

1. One white and one asian parent; AND

2. First-generational, novel in modern times- Both parent's countries have no profound historic admixture (i.e. no geographical proximity like in Central Asia, no scaled settling like in South-America). In other words, the individual relationship is unprecedented in historic scale and characterized by its first-generational novelty.

3. "Wasian experience" - This component of novelity is tied closely to the third and last requirement: The typical filial wasian experience of not being able to relate fully to either parent. Which is not given, when both parents are wasian or not mixed in the way under 1.

Examples:

People who don't meet the definition:

Due to 1. Keanu Reeves, Bruno Mars are not Wasians in the narrow sense.

Due to 2. Central Asians are not wasians in the narrow sense.

Due to 3. Descendands of wasians or other mixes that "numerically" would result in wasians lack this characteristic wasian experience of isolation from both parents. Therefore people like Stanley Ho (e.g. mostly multi-generational wealthy wasians) are not included.

People who are Wasian:

• Bobby Murphy
• Brian Bulatao
• Daniel henney
• Demis Hassabis
• Henry Golding
• Hikaru Nakamura
• Laidback Luke
• Hikaru Nakamura
• Melanie Perkins
• Nicole Scherzinger
• Nicole Shanahan
• Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
• Rosemarie Albrecht
• Rob Bonta

'*Language evolves by text. Spoken and written, among others. Langauge has included the descriptor Wasian traditionally in its one-and-only narrow sense as it is reflectedin Pulitzer-Prize winning novels such as "The Sympathizer" and in animated movies "blue-eyed" samurai. Other mediums (such as the music video of laufey) also understands Wasian in this very narrow sense.

It will reflect badly on you, Wracking, if u continue to not understand or deny to try to understand a word that is not more ambigious than the word "tomato". Wasian is alexem already as we speak and will make the process into public and private records (i.e. national term archives, collections of words lexems like dictionarries including with explanations of its morphology).

I hope this helps you reach the same understanding of earlier posters here. I have also added again the above mentioned people meeting this originary definition of the word Wasian.

Thanks and kind regards,

Jacklemann Jacklemann (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please keep your comments focused on article content (not contributors), and based on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and reliable sources. Wracking ^talk! 22:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think 'as "Asian" usually refers to East Asians in American English' in the Definition section may be too definitive in its language; the Oxford English Dictionary definition contradicts it. Hoanhunter (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That statement is cited to reliable sources. Use of Oxford English Dictionary (which is based in the United Kingdom) would be original research. Wracking ^talk! 16:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mayo Code, please cite a policy-based reason for this edit . Several reliable sources have mentioned criticism of the term and the event; it violates WP:DUE to not cover this. Wracking ^talk! 20:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The fact that a South Asian blog and two news sites from India decided to publish an attack on organizers for an event in New York City is not relevant to an article about an ethnic group. Why should an article about an ethnic group become a pile-on with attacks from India on people who just organized/attended an event? Mayo Code (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The CNN source you added to the article also mentions criticism. What is the policy-based reason for excluding sources because they are South Asian? Wracking ^talk! 20:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Who from that video do you want to attribute the attacks to? This isn't an article about a couple of events. Based on the page you linked, I don't think any of them are significant enough to include an attack from (neither are the kids who organized or attended a meetup to include an attack on) in an article about an ethnic mix. It seems unnecessarily mean spirted to shoe-horn this in. Mayo Code (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please cite a policy-based reason for excluding criticism. This is an article about a slang term, not an ethnic group. The discussions of the term and event are not "attacks", and neither is it "shoe-horning" to include information that multiple reliable sources have discussed. The previous text the event generated criticism for allegedly excluding mixed Asians of non-white and non-East Asian descent implied that Asians of non-White and non-East Asian descent were critical of it. How do you think it should be attributed? Wracking ^talk! 20:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article is about both the term and people who fall into the group described by the term.

I don't think it should be included. But from the page you sent, if we include it, we need to attribute it (so please specify who's attack you want to include) and then we need to decide if they are so significant that it is "due" to include an attack from them in an article about such a large group of people. Why is someone I've never heard of's opinion about someone else I've never heard of important?

If you want to write about people upset about the event so much, write an article about the event. Mayo Code (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have posted about this issue at WP:NPOVN. Wracking ^talk! 20:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The page you linked also specifies that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." and "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)"

Your content used weasel words to attack the organizers and did not attribute the attacks. Mayo Code (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not "my content"; and this doesn't justify removal, it means rephrasing may be warranted. Wracking ^talk! 20:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I just added a source from CNN where it discusses that people making these criticisms have been other mixed-race Asians. lullabying (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Mayo Code, I also disagree with this edit ; the source specifically cites scholars who discuss "South Asian exclusion" regarding Asian identity in the United States. Wracking ^talk! 21:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Sorry, I added back the info without checking the discussion. I am also against removing it as the criticism is shown in multiple sources. If the discussion results in removing it, then so be it, but I don't see why it shouldn't be added for now. The edit summary provided for removing it was The "criticism" was all from Indian/South Asian publications, we should not include these kind of attacks on the organizers, which makes me wonder if there is a conflict of interest. lullabying (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I concur that we should include the full spectrum of coverage of the meetup from reliable sources, which includes critical coverage. Sdkb ^talk 19:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Bit late to this discussion but I agree with Wracking, lullabying and Sdkb that critical coverage should be in the article.

  Mayo Code's characterising of these articles as an "attack" and "pile-on" makes me think they're taking any criticism of the term personally. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 03:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Wracking, please cite where in the source you find the definition of Hapa you inserted in this edit. The source used for this sentence states that "The term hapa is in use both in California and further afield in Japan"; the Wikipedia article also notes that use of the term has spread. Mayo Code (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That phrasing was meant to concisely refer more explicitly to the controversy and limitations of the term ("The term is not without controversy as those of native Hawaiian descent feel the term should not be used by non-Hawaiians or outside of a Hawaiian context."), which is also discussed by other sources (e.g., [1]). But I recognize there may be a better way to summarize it. Wracking ^talk! 21:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Per WP:ISAWORDFOR, the intro paragraph should probably be rewritten to focus on the concept of mixed white-Asian heritage rather than just the word "Wasian". I'll leave it to another editor to carry out that change. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The conept is not only about the number 50-50. The word "Wasian" in its correct and traditional use in literature, text and media is restricted to a set of people that fulfill two additional requirements:

2. No century-long geographical (no central-asia) or historical (south america) proximity.

3. Being able to not relate to either parents (this excludes "second-generation" wasians and similar phenomena. Jacklemann (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I disagree, I think WP:WORDISSUBJECT applies here. The word Wasian is a neologism, and this article is not about all people of White and Asian descent. If that were the case, "Wasian" would not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Wracking ^talk! 22:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The coverage is almost entirely about the concept, not the word, so I don't think that applies.

Another way to look at it: We aren't going to have two separate articles on both the concept and the word. And when we need to choose one, our standard practice (per WP:BROADCONCEPT) is to use the broader topic, and cover the narrower one within it.

I'm not sure all the sources would agree with Jacklemann about how Wasianness is narrower than general mixed white-Asian heritage, but regardless, that discussion, anything to do with mixed white-Asian heritage, and anything else about the term itself are all most appropriately covered in this article. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 00:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think some concepts and the words that name them are so closely intertwined that the word-as-a-subject can't be excluded from the subject of the concept, and this is probably one such case. Like Wracking said, the word is a neologism, as is the concept also new. I would agree that "Wasian is a word for..." is not a good way to begin this article but neither is "Wasians are..." Perhaps a better solution could be "Wasian is a neologism for people who..." followed by a description of the concept? Nothing wrong with noting that an article subject's title is a neologism in the lede sentence, whether the article subject is the word itself or not. It's rather a quite important aspect of such subjects, imo. ~2026-30333-18 (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• All unassessed articles
• Wikipedia requested photographs in New York City

• Noindexed pages