Talk:Asian quota

Unz source is self-published RSOPINION. Non-RS and partly FRINGE.

There are several citations on this page to article(s) by Ron Unz. The Unz pieces are not WP:RS, for multiple reasons. Among other problems, articles by Unz are self-published at a magazine (The American Conservative) that he purchased, or his web site unz.com. Writings by Unz should either be avoided or characterized as Unz' personal opinion, and not used for statements of fact in Wikivoice. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is also inappropriate for him to be linked in the "See also" section, as he is not directly related to this topic other than his general interest in topics around affirmative action, race, etc. (Similarly, Edward Blum should not be in "See also" section unless there is relevant, specific information about his connection to this topic). PetroPetro (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV

The entire article is written with bias. I am unsure if "Asian quota" is as widespread of a term as "bamboo ceiling" and perhaps this page should simply be merged onto that. Regardless, this page discusses issues that are being discussed with great detail right now in the courts and among members of the public. This article fails to discuss this alleged phenomenon in neutral point of view, and reads like an editorial, which Wikipedia is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FearTheTree (talk • contribs) 09:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of HarvardBruin.

I concur regarding bias of the article and agree that some administrative action is in order. If merging is the solution, merging it into into "bamboo ceiling" does not seem to be the the best fit since this topic is covered in a (somewhat) more neutral tone in articles like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the "Race and ethnicity" section of College admissions in the United States. If the article is to stay, at minimum, the article should be given a neutral name. The the title is problematic as "quota" refers to a set number of places for a given group and by using this name it implies the usages outlined in Numerus clausus). Given the issues of POV, duplicated content, and naming, I think that deletion is the best course of action. Since I am not well-versed in either the deletion process or the topic itself, I am not comfortable beginning the nomination, but would support another, more knowledgeable, editor's decision to do so. PetroPetro (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between explaining a concept or theory and supporting a concept of theory. An entry like ‘Universal grammar’ does not mean it is proven or there is a consensus that universal grammar exists within human nature. Similarly, an entry like this one simply explains the idea of a kind of racial quota; what it is, who believes where it exists, and who believes where it doesn't exist. I think this entry should be kept, as long as we can edit the article with an NPOV to say exactly that. — XComhghall (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs updating based on SFFA Supreme Court case outcome

Affirmative action is no longer legal in the USA. 134.174.140.198 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)