Talk:Model minority/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Model Minority Myth

I've never heard of Model Minority used in a good way academically. In fact, it is usually called a myth, not a serious idea. See Gary Okihiro's Is Yellow Black or White for an example of motivations behind its use.--BlueSunRed 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dilbert comic

[Copied from User_talk:J3ff#Dilbert_comic ]

Fair use images of this sort need to be explicitly discussed in the text if they are going to be used in this way. See WP:FU. I removed it because it seems largely irrelevant to the place it was put, and the discussion of whether or not Indians were a model minority was an almost insubstantial part of the article. If someone were to write up a section on Indians as model minorities, on how this is reflected sometimes in the U.S. with certain stereotypes, and mention that the character in Dilbert is an example of this, then I could imagine it being in the article without question. --Fastfission 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth

This article seems to be an apology for this myth, not an objective, sophisticated exploration of the history of the concept, nor of those who reject the concept. I cannot believe that the "Genetic factors in racial disparities" section is even taken seriously; even the studies which claim to establish a link between "race" and "intelligence" (the criteria for establishing both are highly contested and amorphous) have serious methodological flaws, and have not been taken seriously in most academic circles. Was Rush Limbaugh the author of this article? [User:Musica -ed.]

Hi Musica. Half of this article is devoted to history and criticism. You are welcome to add more. The race and intelligence section of this article functions as a synopsis of the issues dealt with in race and intelligence as they relate to this article topic. Your statements are addressed in that article and its subarticles. (use the signature button to leave your username) --Nectarflowed ^T 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with the overall viewpoint, this is a very biased article that reads more like an op-ed than an encyclopedia entry. The part about "and, OF COURSE, the Chinese Exclusion Act" as if your average layperson is going to know what that is especially gives it away and in no way belongs in an encyclopedia. And like other people pointed out, the near-total exclusion of other model minorities makes it even more biased. My suggestion, however, is not to rewrite it, but to re-title it "Asian-Americans and the Model Minority Myth" or "...and the Model Minority Phenomenon". That would make rewriting it ten times easier. I'm willing to bet the author was the president of their college's Asian-American club - not that that's bad or anything.

Oh yeah, and that section titled "Partly Genetic Explanation" is ridiculous. It needs to be made clear that only a few people feel that way and that their viewpoint is not taken seriously by the wider scientific community (or the sane American community for that matter). The person who wrote how J. Rushton and Hernstein/Murray or largely discredited - their discussion post on this matter should be cut and pasted there. I would do it, but then that whole section needs to be reorganized.

Perhaps the part of this article, about Asian Americans, should include some detail about the specific Asian American groups? Like, this article mentions the high academic rates, but I last read that groups such as Vietnamese Americans have below average academic (college student percentage, etc) rates. Maybe this could help explain the "myth" part - because of lack of detail and specifics when talking about Asian Americans. Peoplesunionpro 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling the phenomenon a myth is ridiculously POV. [User-Balrog.]

Other model minorities?

-Are there any other model minorities out there worth mentioning in the article?

I'm not sure. I've only heard the term "model minority" in reference to Asian Americans. — J3ff 18:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it also applied to Indian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Persian-Americans, and in an historical sense to Jewish-Americans prior to assimilation. But it is most often used in reference to Asian-Americans of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent.

The term model minority was first applied to german americans before the onset of WWI, the fact that Germans were so well respected in American society is one of the reasons that Wilson decided to stay out of the war for so long

Response:

Jewish-Americans aren't a "model minority" to the extent that Asian-Americans are. Their large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration: many of these students come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.

Indian-Americans certainly have model status. A factor similar to Asians is self-selection: with millions of candidates for immigration and limited admission to America, those that are successful tend to be superior in some way to their less-successful peers.

RE: [Jewish-Americans'] large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration [making them less of a 'model minority'].

Any racial minority group seems to meet the requirements of being considered a 'model minority group' through a high degree of success measured in factors such as income, education, IQ, and crime rate. A history of discrimination may also influence inclusion. Jewish-Americans meet these requirements*, though (as pointed out above) Jewish-Americans are assimilated. (*See Race_and_intelligence) --Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jews were restricted from most of the prestigious schools in the United States for the early part of the 20th century by an informal Jewish quota. This was a time when Jewish Americans had below average wealth, but Jews were very overrepresented in institutions like the City University of New York. I think you will find that most of the Jewish American generation that can afford to send their children to exclusive east coast schools came from average backgrounds, but were considerably more likely to attend college than other Americans.--Pharos 03:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "model minority" as applied to Jewish Americans is not referring to today's highly assimilated US Jewish population, but to the immigrants and their children of the early 20th century.

On a Related Note:

Whoever wrote this article originally, and to some extent those who edited it later, seem to continually be forgetting that "Asian American" includes those of South Asian descent (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.), and South Asians make up a large majority of "Asian Americans." Although the terms "Indian American," "Pakistani American" etc. do exist, South Asians are still "Asian Americans." This article probably needs to be worked with a little so it is not centered so much on those of East Asian, and also include those of South Asian descent.

There is a bit. Check the fourth paragraph under "Self-selective immigration". It makes sense to lump together East Asians and South Asians in that section. I'm not sure why South Asians are not as represented in US media as East Asians, but the article is probably reflective of that. ViewFromNowhere 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

East Asia refers to China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Southeast Asian is from Burma to Vietnam to Indonesia. South Asia referse to the Indian Subcontinent. Being politically correct, by the USA goverment, being Asian means you are from any of these countries. Thus, Indian-Americans are included in the "model-minority" status. In fact, I saw an Asian census, and Indian-Americans are at par with Japanese-Americans in wealth.

Response: You have absolutely no grounds for claiming that Jewish-Americans "aren't a model minority to the same extent that Asian-Americans are." Firstly, you have no clear standards defined for what's 'more model' and what's 'less model'-- frankly, I think your standards are simply that Asian-Americans are YOUR role model, so case closed. Secondly, your comment that "Their large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration: many of these students come from relatively wealthy backgrounds," smacks of typical anti-semitic rhetoric, that is, "The Jews have all the money." You must be an east coaster going off of personal expereince, because east coast schools had nothing to do with this conversation, but since I am an east coaster, I will retort that Asian-Americans are usually doing pretty ok there financially, themselves, and you know why? For the same reason that many Jews are: THEY WORK HARD AND PUT A HIGH PRIORITY ON EDUCATION. You have absolutely no right to claim that Asian-Americans do this any more than Jews. Finally, this idea that you are carrying through, of Asian-Americans coming to this country harder-off while Jews just walked in all financially set, is COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. The majority of Jews in this country arrived within the last century, and the majority of them were peasants fleeing the Cossacks, or the French, or the Itallians, or the Germans, and they got off the boat at Ellis Island with $1.75 in their pockets, not knowing English, and having no idea what they were going to do now that they couldn't be a fishmonger anymore. The majority of Asian-Americans, however, came here with a good bit more education, and a specific idea of what they were coming to the states for, ie. left after the cultural revolution to come to the States and get their college education here. The demographics are completely different, and here's why. The political climate that sent the majority of Jews to America was one in which the elites were well off and the nonelites were being persecuted. The poltical climate that sent the majority of Asians to America was a politcal climate in which the nonelites were accepted and the elites of society, ie doctors, lawyers, professors, anyone with soft hands or who planned on having soft hands in the future, was persecuted. So I would argue that Asians came here doing pretty good, frankly, and they're well-represented in "exclusive east coast schools", as well as wonderful schools throughout the country, as are Jews. Frankly, I think this whole discussion is ridiculous; I'm Jewish and, my entire life, my best friends have been Asian. There is a reason for this, and that is because we operate on a level moral and intellectual playing field. My point in writing this is not to compete for "who's more model"; I'm not saying that Jews are more model than Asians, I'm just saying Asians aren't more model than Jews. And the sooner we we realize that we're equally 'model' than the sooner we can start learning from one another.

modelminority.com

Should this link [1] be included in the External Links section? Most of the articles on modelminority.com seem to be about irrelevant stuff, but this particular article seems to have some merit, prima facie. ViewFromNowhere 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It does look like it has some good references. The default stance would probably disqualify the link on the grounds that the author and site of publication don't meet notability requirements (unless it can be shown otherwise). However, looking at the article on it's own merits, I think statements such as the following disqualify it from being linked to from a reference work: "The rhetorical power of this widely accepted stereotype was not lost on the Reagan administration, which had grown uncomfortable with the societal progress minorities had made under affirmative action and sought to eliminate legal and governmental remedies for diffuse but systematic racial discrimination in the private sector."--Nectar 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, could you explain your comments? I don't understand how notability requirements apply here, or why POV is grounds for disqualification. Instead, one could argue that it should be included on the grounds of WP:CSB. --Wzhao553 06:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that site appears to have been referenced in some academic articles, and one article at least even refers to that article.ctrl f stereotype Looks good for inclusion.--Nectar 08:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research. --Wzhao553 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article on model minority glorifies something with an underlying negative connotation. It provides many references in support of this myth as in talking about genetics and so forth, but fails to take into consideration the negative side of such a label. Therefore, the article seems to be gravely imbalanced in its neutrality.--Ryz05 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah despite the improvement over the appalling state of the article a year ago, there are parts that just give me a laugh and go "some nerd wrote this". I removed the, to paraphrase, "white people have a wider pool to choose from hence lower scores" for its ridiculousness. However, upon reconsideration, maybe I should keep it in for the time being. It would be a big immediate flag that there is something fishy going onHeaven's knight 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked tirelessly for months to provide the negative side of the stereotype in balance with the theories on its truthfulness. Someone has obviously gone through and deleted everything that's not glorifying of the stereotype. This is a terrible, terrible article now and I believe it should be completely scrapped and begun again. It's been manipulated to such an extent that I don't think anyone could ever make complete sense of it again without massive, massive edits. Starting from scratch would be much easier. arobotar 1:43, 20 May 2006

I don't want to scrap it. Maybe you can link to one of previous versions when it was good, and we can re-incorporate those parts? ViewFromNowhere 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Self selection

The article mentions the self selection aspect and the immigration of various Asian groups but in a quick read through, fails to discuss the issues surrounding blacks, specifically that they have mostly descended from those who were brought to the US and enslaved. While this may seem obvious to many, it's easily possible there will be people less familiar with US history who might not recognised this. Nil Einne 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Asian American section

Hi! I was working on the Model Minority section of Stereotypes of Asians and came across these related articles:

• Bill Sing, "'Model Minority' Resentments Spawn Anti-Asian-American Insults and Violence," Los Angeles Times 31 February 1989, p. 12.
• Greg Toppo, "'Model' Asian student called a myth ; Middle-class status may be a better gauge of classroom success," USA Today, 10 December 2002, p. 11.
• Benjamin Pimentel, "Model minority image is a hurdle, Asian Americans feel left out of mainstream," San Francisco Chronicle, 5 August 2001, p.25.
• "What 'Model Minority' Doesn't Tell," Chicago Tribune, 3 January 1998, p.18.
• Ronald Takaki, "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority," The New York Times, 16 June 1990, p. 21.
• Felicia R. Lee, "'Model Minority' Label Taxes Asian Youths," New York Times, 20 March 1990, pages B1 & B4.

which I thought were very good. These are only a handful of a whole slew of articles about the innacuracies and usually damaging effects of the Model Minority myth. Hope you find them useful! --Drenched 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Culture Section

• This section requires some major reworking. While I support a section on Culture for explaining why AsAm are the model minority, the current writing reflects none of the work done by academics on the subject and the last sentence, “Many Asian Americans will say that a not-so intelligent person who works diligently in his or her studies will surpass one who is naturally gifted…” is written in a way that borders on furthering racist stereotyping. (I felt like editing in Confucius Say…)
  • A responsible explanation of culture would break the discussion into two commonly understood theories centered on culture: Folk theories of success or Cultural models of success, AND Relative Functionalism. Both theories look at a specific phenomena within the MMM regarding AsAm educational success.
  • The limits of a cultural explanation for MMM occur when we consider the heterogeneity of AsAm. Since there is no monolithic AsAm culture, and because attempts to define “traditional Asian culture” are complicated by acculturation/enculturation factors the use of culture as a predictor of success becomes problematic. However given the frequency of this sort of explanation amongst the population for any generalized behavior of a minority group, it is important to address.

Citation: (APA style)

• Kim, E.Y. (1993). Career choice among second-generation Korean Americans: Reflections of cultural model of success.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 224-248

• Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920

Dezertfx21 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup or scrapped and rewritten

Asian Americans are labeled as model minorities because they have not been as much of a "threat" to the U.S. political establishment as blacks, due to a smaller population and less political advocacy. This label seeks to suppress potential political activism through euphemistic complements.

who the hell wrote this? Obviously someone not very happy with the label. regardless, it's bias as hell, and thus I'm removing the sentence. I haven't been able to proof-read this whole article, but I am sure that this article is full of tidbits like these. thus, I think that we should Either perform some heavy cleanup on this page, or scrap it and rewrite it entirely. Stevo D 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this statement cannot be presented as a "fact". It should however, be left in as a theory. I have personally seen many white supremacists and conservatives use the model minority stereotype as a way of attacking African-Americans. ie, "if Asians can come here and succeed, why can't blacks succeed?". I also find it very interesting that you are suggesting a complete re-write or deletion of this article as you have tried to do the same thing with the "Asian Stereotypes" article. In that article, you presented contradictory arguments for deletion. At first, you criticized the article for having too many stereotype categories. Then when the community decided to remove one of the redundant categories, you complained about the deletion. I don't know if you are just playing at being a professional contrarian or what, but the more stuff of yours I read, the less and less I am inclined to believe that you are operating in good faith.OneViewHere 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Asians model minorities?

For an article so long and based 95% on asians I find it hard to believe that all that came from 3 sources and I only see two quotes in the whole article. I'm no demographer but aren't jews more well of in general than asians. Even if that is not so why is the article so asian oriented. They have 1 billion in china 130 million in japan 200 million in indonesia 80 million in the philpines and vietnam and laos, isn't it by chance going to dictate that of all those people from their trying to come to america it is going to be the smart ones not the illerate stupid ones who can't read or write?Even if asians are smarter than the rest of us can I ask why this article is so american oriented? In Toronto Canada all the poorest communities are made up of fresh of the boat asians (indians and chinese) so I don't see how they are model minorities especialy when so much of them steal and are on the news every day for running illegal things like grow ops, prostitution rings, illegal distribution of movies etc.

The reason this article is so "Asian oriented" is because the term "model minority" is most often used in reference to Asians. (Asians in America specifically) Also, you seem to be completely missing the entire point of the article, which is that the term "model minority" is a *stereotype*. OneViewHere 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

"The majority of welfare recipients have always been white"

Citation, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk • contribs)

Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-selecting immigration?

If you buy this theory, does it mean people who stayed in India, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand ... are more likely to be less intelligent? It isn't too convincing. -- Toytoy 10:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it means that those who have who have succeeded in relocated themselves halfway around the world are more likely to be "driven" individuals, and may also be more likely to succeed in education and work life.--Pharos 04:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• No. Those that stayed include the wealthy and intelligent that are better off in their native country, who benefit from a more classist system, etc. ViewFromNowhere 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making the flawed assumption that the actual group possessing power and wealth in those countries completely corresponds to the entire segment of the population that may fairly be regarded as intelligent. Please read up on the history of the grossly inequitable class structures in China and Japan, where a tiny percentage of the population traditionally controlled all the power and wealth while more than 90% toiled in abject poverty. This situation changed in Japan only after 1900 when it started developing a lot of heavy industry, and in China only after 1980 thanks to the economic liberalization under Deng Xiaoping. The books of Edwin Reischauer and John King Fairbank are the usual place to start. Also see the work of Barrington Moore, Jr. --Coolcaesar 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that intelligence is the sole cause of wealth. I think it's the other way around. Wealth allows you to be better educated, which corresponds to "intelligence" as defined as the ability to perform well on intelligence tests. ViewFromNowhere 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is slightly overexaggerated, the extent of the self-selection bias at least. But nonetheless it's something to consider. 01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This idea of "self selection" is semantically misleading and should be retitled. If this section is referring to the phenomena of recent immigrants entering with higher levels of education otherwise colloquially referred to as the "brain drain;" the section misinterprets the causality. The 2nd paragraph seemingly brings the conversation back into an area that coincides with what is regularly taught by Asian American Studies academics. The early history sections are total assumptions and without serious citation (published works) should be removed. This history presents the idea that immigration, while small was possible, and these small numbers of smart wealthy merchant's progeny would account for the later model minority status.Dezertfx21 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Addition

The following was recently added to the article:

Asians are often found to be one standard deviation about the IQ of the general population. Furthermore, Asians are often found to be good at understanding, analyzing and remembering or applying patterns. These findings are disputed.

Where is the source for this? These statements seem to emphasize that the "model minority" stereotype is true. Simply putting that these "findings are disputed" does not make it NPOV. I feel this edit should be removed unless a source can be found. — J3ff 11:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not just those statements, but the whole passage attempts to provide a theory for the genesis of the stereotype with no source or support. It also has an air of illiteracy about it which should be edited out in any case. Demi 11:16, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

When you say "whole passage", do you mean the paragraph the quotes were taken from or the whole section "As applied in the United States"? —

J3ff 11:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean the paragraph, introduced by As large numbers of people ... and concluding with the statements you call out above. -- Demi 20:25, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article is terrible. I don't really have an interest in improving it. However, I did insert the sentences about the IQ and pattern-recognition abilities of Asians. This comes from data in the controversial books, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The Bell Curve. This is why I said that these findings are disputed. I included this because I thought it would add a different theory. That said, the above average IQ of Asians isn't really what is disputed - rather, it is the validity of IQ tests themselves. However, I do not mean to debate this controversy here. (Just so you know, I'm not Asian, and I'm not trying to promote any ideas of racial/genetic superiority.) I merely wanted to add another theory to the article. Edit at will. mat334 | talk 17:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed up the non-NPOV paragraph. Unless someone has an objection, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Rikurzhen 04:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me — J3ff 08:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removed ridiculous ethnocentric bias. removed "enormous" and "very hard" in describing the work-ethic of ALL asians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.227.107 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

"Despite studies that suggest whites, on average, have higher IQs than blacks, Gargi Bhattacharyya, Liz Ison and Maud Blair have found in their study that IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent." Reference for this? I could not find this work anywhere. I found several works by these authors but none that touched upon IQ and none that claimed that IQ differences were "virtually non-existent." All studies MUST have a reference.

Bias

This article says "Asians" but from the context it can be seen that it is really talking about Orientals. Be aware that Asia goes further west and south than China.

It is also from an almost totally American perspective. — Chameleon 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the term Pacific Islander as "Oriental" is as offensive as the N-word among African Americans. Pacific Islanders are not rugs or a specialty food section, which is what Oriental refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.91.83 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is very biased. The article criticizes African immigrants and downplays their success while ignoring the problems in the Asian stereotypes. If it is worth mentioning that there are white African immigrants than it is worth mentioning that Indian immigrants form a large portion of Asian immigrants and the acheivement of Asians would be much lower without them. Persian Americans should also not be considered models because they have small numbers(If the page on them is right. YVNP (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions the bachelor degree rate but not the associate degree rate. This is misleading because the pdf shows only 20.5% have an aa degree. This seems to be an attempt to imply Asians have more academic success at the lower levels than they do. The comparison to blacks is unnecessary and is unsourced. I see wikipedia wants to overlook this one. :/YVNP (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And where did 1 out of 4 Asian college students graduating from elite universitites come from? original research of course. That number needs removal because it is a synthesis to convince people. Also why is there no mention of the iq average. That would be most important here.YVNP (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A wikiwarrior is born every minute

This starting to suffer from synthesis, censorship and plain bias. Semi protection neededYVNP (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

complete hogwash on "ethnicity"

It is reference to race, not "ethnicity". Seems someone tied to claim ethnicity so they could reference jews or some such, who are not "model minorities" becuase they are not a racial minority. Very clever, but nonetheless wrong.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged

This article has been tagged for bias along with original and unwarranted claimsYVNP (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Little edit

I deleted "(especially in Great Britain)" as nowhere in Britain refers to Asians of any stripe as 'Asian country'-Americans. Not being in America and that. 77.102.174.175 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

White South Africans

"Another example of negatively viewed success is whites in southern Africa. Under colonialism, whites continued to cling onto power in nations such as Zimbabwe and South Africa long after world opinion had turned against white rule. However, not all of their success can be attributed to their monopoly on power. According to the University of the Western Cape [3], in South Africa over the period 1995-2000, average black incomes dropped 19% and average white incomes rose 15%. Given that there was a black-led government in power for the whole of this period, it is difficult to substantiate an argument saying they got this wealth by anything other than merit alone." This statement is not entirely true and is highly misleading. We all know that government don't make changes in days they take years to implement substantiative changes. In fact the BBC article that is cited makes it quite clear that why whites in South Africa are rich and the black are per capita poorer "Waged employment is vital to poor households in South Africa, partly because colonial land-grabbing and apartheid destroyed the black farming economy in order to create a cheap labour force." Thus it becomes quite clear that the white government in SA stole the land of blacks gave it whites thus leaving them w/o means to make any money which created a group of people who had to work for wages below what they otherwise would have. It also explicity states that whites destroyed the native South Africaners economy. Luckly the South Africans people are very forgiving and chose not to reditribute the wealth that most whites got through stealing, in fact if I recall correctly Mbeki BEE failed to pass into law http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2763131.stm "The South African government failed to push through legislation on black economic empowerment last year"

In fact the article cited above by the bbc directly contradicts the non-cited source "'The government will lay greatest stress on black economic empowerment that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development and not merely redistribution of existing wealth'"

I'm not saying this should not be in the article but it should defintely take into consideration the major problems I point out. Also coming from a country that was dominated by Nazis I have somewhat a problem of the portrayl of white south africans as a model minority. As the article made claer above "Waged employment is vital to poor households in South Africa, partly because colonial land-grabbing and apartheid destroyed the black farming economy", thus much of white south african wealth is based on theft that comes from dominating another people. I don't know if this is really a model minority. If we were talking about whites in China I'd definitely agree that as a model minority, but we don't know how much of the wealth white africans have obtained through business skill and how much they have attained by simply being part of an army who took over another country. This country went from colonisation to apartheid- where black people had their land taken from them and given away to white people for free- if the situation where vice versa I couldn't imagine anyone suggesting blacks as a model minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.27.30 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims

Claims such as "this is regularly used for racialist comparisons between minority groups" need to be sourced and attributed please.

This article has been picked from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/model-minority

last year when I happened to see it here I read a specific paragraph which after a while been removed! here it is:

Other / European American US groups

Jewish Americans are in some interpretations considered a model minority. Mormons have also been identified as exhibiting model minority characteristics.[21] Iranian Americans can be considered a model minority, due to above average rates of academic success in the United States[22]. Furthermore, in some US cities where European Americans do not make up the largest ethnic group such as Atlanta or Detroit, the European American population in general can somewhat be regarded as a model minority considering their vastly lower crime rates and higher personal incomes and educational attainment.

Just read the original report and article by the main source as www.answer.com as I posted the link above and see the one who changed and picked a fraction of the whole was not loyal to the main article.

I do expect you based on the undeniable facts and evidence I provided, correct that forged posted at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.164.238 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Armenians, Arabs, and Iranians lumped as "Muslims"

Armenia is not a Muslim country; the people are largely of the Armenian Orthodox Church. They should not be lumped with "Iranian-Americans" and "Arab-Americans" as Muslims. Even at that, Iran has a significant Armenian minority, and many Arab-Americans are Christians. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jews only get 1 sentence?

for as group of people with 20% of all nobel prizes and the ridiculous amount of jewish entertainers and businessmen out of 0.01% of the worlds popualtion you think theyd get maybe a whole paragraph for themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.12.251 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, Jews aren't quite so visibly different as they once were. They can't be identified by surnames; almost any German, Slavic, or Spanish/Portuguese surname can be a "Jewish" surname. It's easier to recognize Armenian-Americans by the patronymic "ian" common among Armenians. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the Jew, I think it's because a lot of successful Jews (both science and business) are not in the US. And the article is about minority in the US. So even though with all the numbers you said, as they correspond to the Jews population in the whole world, they get only 1 sentence here. This doesn't not mean I understate the Jewish achievement. I completely agree that they are the group with the smartest average people as well as the smartest top people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.58.85 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-selective immigration hypothesis

Its already been tagged as suspect, but I have major problems with this hypothesis, mainly it totally ignores that the basis of the Chinese community in the USA were for the most part semi-literate unskilled/semi-skilled coolie labour working on the railroads and in the mines. I'm not questioning that such a hypothesis exists only its veracity. KTo288 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Any source for that? From what I've read most came here during the 60s —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Minorities?

This is a racist page. What makes Asians minorities? They are actually the most populous racial group in all the world, why are Americans so politically correct? Crud3w4re 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this point is so obvious that no one felt it needed to be articulated: This article refers to Asians living in places other than Asia. It's primarily referring to Asians in America specifically. And as Asians make up 3% of the US population, they can indeed be called a "minority".OneViewHere 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's POV. Then shouldn't Italians be considered a minority? It's irrelevent. This whole "minority" thing is racism. Crud3w4re 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what makes blacks minority? - signed by anon IP

"Black people" were considered a minority, as in a mathematical small percentage of the U.S. population (between 10-15%) compared to a "white" or European-American majority (60-70%) of the U.S. population. Asians are about 5% of the U.S. population, if not more than that and the higher socioeconomic mobility rate could be that more Asian-Americans live in the West Coast states (i.e. Hawaii, Cal., Ore. & Wash. state) where the average personal income is higher than the Northeast states, compared to over half of African-Americans live in the Southern/Southeastern states (I.e. Ala, Ark., Geo., Lou, Miss., Tenn., No. & So. Carolina) known for lower average personal income rates than the Northeast states as well. Economists long studied the impact of where one lives does determine their annual income, social mobility, access to education and employment, and welfare receipency rates. They found African-Americans and whites in the rural counties of the "deep south" are disportionately poor than most blacks and whites in the New England states, while Asian-Americans and all other races residing in the urban areas of California are more likely to be affluent, than Asian-Americans not residing in California. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arab Americans

The article states that: "Large numbers of Arab Americans and Iranian Americans are also considered a model minority, due to above average rates of academic and commercial success in the United States[20] despite the wide cultural differences between mostly Islamic and western/non-Islamic countries". Source is:http://www.isgmit.org/projects-storage/survey2005/Sarkhili06-EducationIranianAmerican.pdf ; however I while that sources talks about the success of Iranian Americans it just mentions the word Arab once, when it states that there was a survey that asked if a person was Persian, Azari, Kordish, Gilaki or Other(Lor, Turkeman, Arab, etc.). The article does not talk about Arab Americans being a modell minority. So i'll change this.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

I see mention here of some authors on IQ differences among human groups. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Italian Americans and Jewish Americans

Two ethnic groups in the United States known to made a completion of entering the American culture and in 3 generations, families can be found in upper-income and upper-middle class levels. They are considered to be white or Caucasian due to their origins are in Europe, but a century ago the Italians and Jews, esp. coming out of Poland and Russia were portrayed in a negative manner or not called white people than the "WASPs" or native-born Americans of Protestant Christian background felt threatened by their different cultures and religious practices. I know about white ethnic groups such as Polish Americans and Irish Americans made the transition from being "minority" or "foreign" to the present-day status of a "white" and "Americanized" group, thus had been assimilated when they become more prosperous and economically stable. The problem with "model minority" myths about non-white or extra-European ethnic groups like Armenians, Japanese and east Asians, and with African immigrants in the USA is to indicate they aren't white but have an ability to lift themselves out of poverty, are racially inflammatory myths indeed. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Genetics

Am I just stating the obvious when I say genetics should be mentioned in this article. Isn't it pretty much proven that there's a genetic component to intelligence/economic success and that this is correlated with race? 68.144.197.216 (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish-model immigrants

This is going to need some sourcing. The opposite is the conception in popular culture, they're seen stereotypically as violent thuggish louts, with few career prospects outside of manual labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.205.32 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indian-Americans

I cannot understand why this article places so much emphasis on East Asian Americans and ignores Indian Americans.

According to the 2004 census, Indian Americans had the highest university education attainment (64%, versus the Chinese at 48% and the general population at 24%). They had the highest proficiency in English, one of the lowest poverty rates, and also the highest income out of any national origin group. Ironically, this fact is shown in the chart on this very web page, yet all the text surrounding it barely mentions this.

-Apr2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.146.113 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look here:

http://www.asian-nation.org/demographics.shtml

South Asian Indians are actually outperforming every single other group and are consistently on the :top of socioeconomic indicators. Odd, isn't it, how these stereotypes work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.174.208 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is disappointing that Indians are extremely neglected, almost as if Indians are not Asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.67.109 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Filipino Americans

I don't want to sound like a racist jerk but I live in an area with many Filipinos adn many of them make below average incomes and are involved in crime. Now I now this may just be an odd specific situation but it dosen't seem so, at least from what i've seen living in southern California. If someone could prove me wrong with viable data i'd promptly shut up :D 69.235.203.205 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research

This article is gradually turning into a WP:COATRACK of various success stories. Please let me remind you that the term was coined in a quite specific context. If you want to go outside of this context, you have to provide solid references that someone called, e.g., Jews in pre-Nazi Germany a model minority. Another situation: I am sure that, e.g., in some African countries a particular tribe grabbed state/economic power despite being minority population. Are they "model minority"? I doubt this was the intention of the original coinage. So, once again, references, please, that in a particular country a particular minority was called "model minority". Otherwise, sorry, goodbye your hard work :-) Loggerjack (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like common sense. Meanwhile we have stuff about Asian Americans being concentrated in tertiary institutions in only a few states- which might just have something to do with Asian Americans being concentrated in only a few states. Not really very helpful. I also find the idea that institutions for Asian Americans did not receive money based on race until recently is a valid argument against the stereotype odd- surely success in spite of being treated equally with caucasians should prove the opposite. Nevard (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed edit: Other US "Model Minority" groups

A hundred years ago, Jews were often portrayed as a model minority. Today, Jews are no longer being portrayed as a model minority.

Iranian Americans may be considered a model minority, due to above average rates of academic and commercial success in the United States despite the wide cultural differences between mostly Islamic and western/non-Islamic countries.

In South Florida, many of the middle- and upper-class descendants of Cuban refugees that fled the Castro revolution are known for their high rates of business ownership and commercial dynamism in the region. Many U.S.-born and U.S-raised Cubans also have college degree attainment rates and income levels that are higher than the U.S. averages.

Members of LDS Church, also known as Mormons, are said to possess traits and socioeconomic success rates associated with "model minority" groups, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise. The church is held highly in matters of family values, communal volunteerism and work ethic.

Armenian-Americans also have a higher socioeconomic success rate than the U.S. average. Many Armenian immigrants came to the US in the early 20th century to escape religious persecution from the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East.

Other immigrant ethnic groups, like Chilean Americans and Argentine Americans are reportedly to have a high number of college-educated and white-collar professionals, in contrast to most other Hispanic or Latin American nationalities.

And in recent years, more white Americans assumed Native Americans are getting "rich" off Indian gaming operations on Indian reservations across the country, which itself is a new version of the stereotyping against Native Americans who fought for rights to run Indian gaming as part of tribal sovereignty guaranteed by the US government.

According to the London Daily Times, Nigerians have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority."

According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate for native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate for native-born African Americans. In an article by Clarence Page for the Chicago Tribune 43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population. The article beginning with the lines "Do African immigrants make the smartest Americans?" was meant to call attention to the dubiousness of affirmative action.

Similar to the Asian American population, attainment rates vary widely between countries. Nigerians have both the largest number of immigrants as well as the highest educational attainment and income statistics, while some smaller African immigrant groups, such as Somalians, have been less successful.

The paragraph regarding African immigrants from Africa was kept or reedited for further accuracy, but no more mentions of other social groups perceived to be "successful" in socioeconomic terms above the median average American. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The first 3 sentences have reliable sources, unless the article only pertains to Asian Americans of both East Asian and South Asian descent, while the mentioned groups are Middle Eastern and Mediterranean European origins. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese probably should not be included

First I am a Vietnamese in Canada, so please no flame here. (I am not a Vietnamese hater) I am just trying to be logical here.

Anyway, I had a look at the article and saw at the low high school graduate rate. (only better than Hmong, Cambodian and Laotian. Doubled the national average) I don't understand why with these low numbers, Vietnamese are included here.

Of course, there are some very smart and successful Vietnamese in the US. However, it is the fact that the majority of the Vietnamese Americans are refugees after the Vietnam War. So other than a few families of high-ranked members of the South Vietnam government, and people who are really persecuted (well-educated and had to leave the country to avoid retaliation), the rest are mostly poorly-educated peasants and farmers. They were shocked to see living standard going down so dramatically. From being the people who received tremendous money from the US, they later were part of an ill economy that was heavily sanctioned.

In some sense, they are similar to the illegal immigrants these days who want to be smuggled into rich countries in hope for better life. The difference is that at the time, if successfully left Vietnam, they would almost be guaranteed to received legal status. Therefore, it was a very good incentive for poorly-educated people to leave the country.

Also, I'll make a note in the 'Self-Selection Hypothesis' about Vietnamese regarding this refugees fact if no one challenges my argument.

Finally, I really dislike the habit of exaggerating which has become something more and more common in Asian culture. Have a look at many of China's government exaggerations as well. This kind of behavior makes the whole community look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.29.87.54 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point entirely. The term Model Minority is all about *STEREOTYPES*, and Vietnamese get lumped in with all other Asians under the model minority stereotype regardless of the demographic particulars.OneViewHere (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are more successful. Making $4000 more than white americans.YVNP (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The data does NOT show high school graduation rate of those going to school in the U.S, it includes Vietnamese who drop out in Vietnam, the majority of which was during the Vietnam war. Vietnamese have among the highest college graduation rates of all ethnic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.26.76 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bachelor's degree table biased

While all US citizens have not attended college, foreign ethnicities arrive to the US after it is certain that they will be attending a university. Hence, the percentages are biased. 95.14.143.198 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged as dubious a claim attributed to the "London Daily Times". There is no mainstream newspaper by that name, Googling suggests that it may be this personal blog, but this is not likely. This is an important issue since the rest of that paragraph is based on this "finding" attributed to the "London Daily Times". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've searched this through the Amazon book preview feature & I think this checks out. When I search for "Chinese" in the text I get 10 results one of which reads: "They [Africans] are now just ahead of the Chinese the most academically successful minority in previous studies.[20] Yet the author of the Bell Curve and all its ..." When I search for "Sunday Times" I get an endnote numbered 20 which cites the following source: Sunday Times 23 Jan 1994. The article title is "Africans move to the top of Britain's Education Ladder". So I think they just got the newspaper title wrong but it might be worth taking a trip to the library to verify this. If you really want me to I could probably dig out the Sunday Times article FiachraByrne (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can't link to it due to copyright violation, but if you search for the title of the Sunday Times article you only get 4 results. One of these is to some Google Group and if you log-in you can see the whole article which confirms the content above. Also you see the citation used here [2] - see bottom of that page. I think it's legitimate. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate language?

"which is a vast stereotype that dehumanizes the struggles and experiences of the extremely diverse Asian American population" "When there are repeated and very specific types of images, stereotypes become internalized and reinforced by individuals." (see media portrayal) Really, "vast?" That is an opinion, and a dubios one at that. The source for this opinion is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.199.74 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it as OR and improper tone. 68.228.86.242 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I took it out. If anyone wants it back in they can discuss it here. Thanks for the input!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Religious minorites in lead

Regarding this material: User:Evildoer187 wants to take religious minorities out of the lead but does not explain why. Since Jews are specifically discussed in the article, it seems appropriate to include the word per WP:LEAD as it sums up important (and seemingly undisputed) material in the article. What is the rationale for removing it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Jews are not a religious minority. They are an ethnic one.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you figure that Jews are not a religious minority? I don't dispute that Jews are an ethnic minority.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is more defined in terms of ethnicity than religion. One is Jewish if born to Jewish parents, while the same can't be said of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Source list of possible use for editing this article

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed Edit: Other countries

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

In Germany the Vietnamese have been called model minority, because while many first generation Vietnamese immigrants live below the nation's poverty line, their children are successful in gaining access to Germany's university preparatory schools, the so called Gymnasien. Their success has been called "Das vietnamesische Wunder".[26] ("The Vietnamese Miracle"). A study revealed that while in the districts of Lichtenberg and Marzahn, Vietnamese account for only 2% of the general population, but make up 17% of the prep school population.[27] (see also: Vietnamese people in Germany; Academic achievement among different groups in Germany).

In the United Kingdom, the Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian and West African immigrants are often considered to be model minorities. Many of the immigrants came with little or no financial resources to begin with when they arrived. Same goes to Jamaican British, Arab British, Iranian, Pakistani and other Asian communities in Great Britain.

A sizable percentage of Romanies in Western Europe are reputed to be upper-class, despite the fact that the majority of Romanies in Eastern Europe are not, where they are a disadvantaged ethnic group. Alike Jews, successful Romanies are subject to negative contradictory ethnic stereotypes of a "cheap/gaudy" but a "wealthy/con-artist" people.

In some areas of Australia such as Sydney and Melbourne, East Asians, South Asians and Jews are considered model minorities. This is often illustrated by the representation of these groups in selective schools compared to population proportion.

In developing (third world) countries once were colonies of European nations, "White" and European-descended minorities are usually on the top of the socioeconomic structure of these countries, for examples: White South Africans, Anglo-Indians, Spanish-Filipinos, British Hong Kongers and European Singaporeans.

Throughout the world, the Greek Diaspora are depicted to be small shopkeepers and peddlers, but their work ethic and academic education standards have made the overseas ethnic Greek communities move upward in socioeconomic mobility, and Greeks share the same cultural characteristics of an advancing "model minority".[dubious – discuss]

In South America, the Arab diaspora community, often represented by ethnonational groups of Lebanese people, Syrians and Palestinians are portrayed to hold economic power and social prominence, and a number of megacorporate business families in Latin America (i.e. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Central America) are of Arab Christian and/or Palestinian descent (see Arab Chilean and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Chilean#Economic_influence_in_Chile ). In Mexico, Carlos Slim is among the world's wealthiest personalities, in fact a billionaire of Lebanese and Syrian descent. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What's so special about being able to go to a Gymnasium? Every idiot is allowed there.--77.0.111.59 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has serious issues

I really don't think that this article meets encyclopedic standards. It contains ample original research, speculation, and is generally highly politicized and lacking in neutrality. I came looking for a definition and explanation of 'model minority' but found a critical theorist's position paper.A typical example is in calling the term a 'myth', when in fact statistically significant group differences do exist and have political and social consequences. It would be much more fitting if a 'criticism' section could be created to ennumerate arguments against the concept, instead of having them complement almost every sentence. I am new to editing and added a couple of tags to the article as well as in-line tags to warn readers of the most serious issues(but maybe I shouldn't have because it already has been tagged as 'multiple issues'? In any case this article needs serious work to be Wikipedia-worthy and not misleading/politicizing to the general public. Edward Laurence (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's too many inline tags for anyone to think about. You might try starting a talk page section for each problem you have with a sentence as you place the tag, otherwise it's not going to be possible to discuss things productively. Read the section about "When not to use this tag" in the documentation of Template:Citation needed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Asian American immigrants are already from elite background in their own country?

The model citizen sterotype neglects that immigrants from countries like India and China in the last decades are usually middle-class or above migrants, with enough 'connections' and wealth to afford to migrate and all the baggage that entails. Though they may be considered poor by US standards, just think out of a billion plus population, you are not really getting the illiterate peasants winning greencards unfortunately, these are people with degrees, family businesses, doctors and lawyers, those on skills lists America wants. Some Asian migrants are often paying invesment bridging visas in Canada or Australia. Many also have relatives working in government which enable them to obtain passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.29.12.193 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian Americans

Excuse me, just for blacks here, but shouldn't Nigerian Americans be included in this as well? After all, they are the (read) TOP educated group (foreign born or not) in the United States http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ancestry/table_01.txt. They have academic records comparable to Asians and Indians (I'm separating Indians because Indians aren't racially Asian). So just for the sake of kicking the "Asians are genetically hardwired to academically succeed and blacks are genetically hardwired to be on the bottom of the social barrel" theory in the balls, please?

"Indians aren't racially Asian"

Huh? Asians aren't a race. I think you're referring to Mongoloid race, which the vast majority of Asia is not a part of. Moreover, many Indians are of Mongoloid ancestry like East Asians. Indian boxer Mary Kom? 47.17.119.222 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)AyanP

That's an interesting table. Of the selected ancestries included, Nigerians, Iranians, and Egyptians look pretty tied, with the Iranians and Egyptians exceeding the Nigerians in total percentage with a college degree or higher, though the Nigerians are .3% ahead in graduate degrees or higher. I notice three ancestries that should probably be compared are not included in their comparison (Ashkenazi, Chinese, and Japanese). Chinese and Japanese have higher mean IQ's than other asian ethnicities, so the total Asian rate of education may underestimate the rate of these groups.

To respond to your question, small groups (50,000) that are mainly in the U.S. under special circumstances, such as highly skilled employment or advanced education, seem to be not be directly relevant to this article, which looks at social groups. Sampling the top 50,000 of any social group (Nigeria has a pop of 130 million) would produce very high figures. --Nectar 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But he said Nigerian Americans, not Nigerians. Asians as a whole are also poor, illiterate, etc. - what percentage of Chinese people in China can read? You'll be surprised. Also, I seem to remember reading a while back that Caribbean and African blacks, after the initial establishment phase, have average income levels not just higher than "American blacks" but than the average US income overall. It was brought up in the "slavery as a root cause of underachievement" refution (since Caribbean blacks are likewise ancestors of slaves). Adam Mathias 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The text above and the link refer to Nigerian Americans. Even East Asians in China are thought to have mean IQs higher than the European mean. Richard Lynn does a meta-analysis of 101 studies of East Asians' IQ in a book of his to be published this year. That's an interesting thought regarding Caribbean blacks.. that'd be interesting to get data on that.--Nectar 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point Adam Mathias. Now Nectar, hon, be very cautious of Richard Lynn's figures, whether they are in Asia, Europe, or Africa (especially Africa). I've glanced at his non-peer reviewed book, and judging from a pure scientific validity standpoint, it's the worst book I've ever read. His figures for European countries are massaged and manipulated, the same goes for Asia and Africa, in some instances he is actually contradicted by his own research. Example, in one study alone there were five erros, in one fucking study. The largest study on Asian Americans (cited by James R. Flynn) failed to find the fabled "Asian intellectual superiority" over whites, also, there's a page by Dienekes Pontikos called "Greek IQ" which espouses the same theory, and points out that when Processing Speed is taken into account, Asians do not exceed whites in terms of g. Look it up. Peace.

IQ scores, literacy rates (where China and Mexico tie), etc. show not much. This article is not about biological differences in intelligence. It doesn't matter how poor and destitute and illiterate and if you say so unintelligent Xians are in Xland, it matters whether they are a real or perceived (and of course we should elaborate in the article about that) so-called "model minority" in the country in which they are a minority, that is, in that country, they achieve "success" at rates above other minorities or above the average or above the majority. That is, model minority does not imply model majority. In fact, few countries have model majorities. In America, Chinese are considered above-average in education, etc. Go find an American in China and you'll see he's the cream of the crop too. Surprise surprise, people who have the wherewithall, motivation, means, and education to make it in another culture may often appear "superior". Of course, this effect lessens as the barriers lessen, meaning that Mexicans you meet in Germany will be more educated than the average German or American, but Turks you meet will be less. In the USA, Mexicans are not considered a model minority, but Turks are way above in their education levels. Because of the natural selection created by barriers to getting here. Here at university (in the USA), me and my roommate even have a rule to describe the phenomenon we see in our fellow students: the poorer (and farther) the country they're from, the richer they are. Which is why the Mexicans clean the bathrooms, and the (one or two) Bhutanese study computer engineering. Is it IQ? Unlikely, since races are not even pure in the first place. All that matters for this article is the perception. In the US, Nigerians and Senegalese may be. In France and Italy, they are boat people. A minority by definition is a minority not in the earth (aren't we all) but in some country. Adam Mathias 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of previously peer-reviewed research doesn't need to be peer-reviewed before publication if review occurs afterwards. It doesn't seem likely that 100 studies identifying a trend all have transcription errors in the same direction, and Dienekes doesn't make that claim. Lynn discusses some possible confounding factors in studies of cognitive ability in Asians,[3] for example, that they are known to tend to be late maturers compared to the ethnic groups in relation to which they're being tested. --Nectar 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Because race is a social construction and changes over time, the stereotype of the model minority presents a racism dressed up in nice clothes." This is a debatable point, and it seems to me that this artocle should get a NPOV flag, and an editing.

I was about to mention that and it turns out not only did you already mention it, but you put it on the bottom of the page where it's easy to find... Anyway, I agree. "Race is a social construction" is something that a lot of people don't accept, and the article has no business assuming it as fact. Ken Arromdee 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any talk of IQ only works to discredit any conversation on this subject. As stated above the model minority can only be objectivly approached assuming social constructions of race thereby allowing us to focus on the socio-economic ramifications and begin to unpack the limits of this stereotype. However I would argue that this is not the job of an encyclopedia, and instead more readings should be offered instead given this aritcles disputed nature.Dezertfx21 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

98% of China's youth and college age people are literate; don't try and justify anything with "gut feeling" research, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.227.107 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Asians really have high IQ. There are pseudoscience of why Asians have lower processing speed. There is a thesis that defends it: http://www.ifw-kiel.de/VRCent/DEGIT/paper/degit_11/C011_063.pdf

It says physical movement times are slower in Asians processing speed is higher.

Thus, I turn to the Jensen Box. Jensen created a simple test of information processing speed that has been widely used by psychologists interested in intelligence testing. The Jensen box has a home button and between 1 and 8 buttons with lights. Initially, all of the buttons with lights are turned off. When one of the buttons with lights turns on, the test subject takes her finger off the home button and presses the lighted button as quickly as possible. One might expect this skill to be uncorrelated with IQ, but in fact button-pressing speed (known as reaction time) is correlated by an average of –0.35 (Jensen (1998), 204). The correlation is greater (in absolute value) when there are more buttons to choose from.

Again, one might believe that this correlation simply results from social norms and acculturation: People who try harder on IQ tests might also be people who try harder on button-pressing tests. But if that is the case, it is difficult to explain the following fact: The correlation between reaction time and IQ derives almost entirely from the speed with which one lifts one’s finger from the home button (a measure known as decision time). There is little if any correlation between movement time (the time between finger removal and the time when the lighted button is depressed) and IQ (Jensen (1998), 211-214, 230-231, 242). If reaction time were simply a result of “trying harder,” one would expect both decision time and movement time to be correlated with IQ. And according to a massive psychology literature summarized in Jensen (1998), it is decision time, not movement time, that has a robust correlation with cognitive ability however measured.

Unfreeride 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Africans don't migrate to the US much but they do go to Europe very often. In Europe African Immigrants do just as well as African Immigrants in the US despite larger numbers. Asians such as Chinese make up less of Europe than These immigrants but do not do as well. I believe Nectar is incorrect.YVNP 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

India is located on a continent called "Asia"! Many people do not realize the fact that Indians are indeed Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.67.109 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

East Asian societies: imaginary group

"Cultural factors are thought to be part of the reason why Asian Americans are successful in the United States. East Asian societies themselves, in general, will often place more resources and emphasis on education."

There is no such thing as an ""East Asian society", or culture. For example, Japan and Mongolia have very little in common. In fact, Chinese and Vietnamese have a lot more in common, despite the fact that Vietnam is not an East Asian country. And Mongols don't place heavy emphasis on education. Holding education in high esteem is from Confucian roots, and countries that have been heavy influenced by this include: Vietnam, Korea, Japan, China (and maybe Singapore).

Mongols were the first to set up universties and astronomical observatories in the Sino-sphere under the Yuan dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.29.12.193 (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chinese and Vietnamese have a lot more in common" O rly?

Mongolians place a high value on education, and the literacy rate, and basic education rate are remarkably high for a developing country. An interesting recent trend is the predominance of women in higher education. Please be careful with stereotypes in this article please, isn't that the whole point, generally generalizing is dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the "East Asian culture" thing as non-existent and an attempt to deny the Confucian influence. This might be due to the fact that Vietnamese, although influenced by Confucianism, has not succeeded as well in the US as other immigrants from Confucian countries. I won't claim to know the reason for this, but in other countries, (see "Vietnamese Norwegian) the Vietnamese do pretty well, despite being refugees and coming to the country with close to no resources.

I suggest we change the above section to say Confucian society, not East Asian society. Tridungvo 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "East Asian society", it says "East Asian societies", as in multiple and distinct societies. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it is more important that immigrants are from Confucian countries, than that the countries they come from lie in East Asia. Statements like the one in the article will stereotype East Asians vs. say Southeast Asians, when in fact some countries in Southeast Asia (Singapore or Vietnam) place more emphasis on education than for example Mongolia. Then the article tries to make up by saying "Similar cultural tendencies and values are found in South and Southeast Asian families, whose children similarly face extra pressure by parents to succeed in school and to achieve high-ranked jobs". This is not true of the South and Southeast Asian in general. In fact Indian Americans come from the upper classes of their country.

" In fact Indian Americans come from the upper classes of their country."

Completely false. Most Indian-Americans are educated, but hardly from elite backgrounds. Lower to upper middle class at best. 47.17.119.222 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)AyanP

The articly is trying to seperate Singaporeans and Vietnamese away from Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, although poorly disguised. What all these countries have in common is their Confucian influence, which may explain their high achievemnts in international Olympics in math, physics and chemistry. The illusionary seperation of East Asia vs the rest is also evident in the article's claim about IQ scores. China's IQ is in fact 100, and Mongolia's IQ is estimated at 98. Singapore's IQ is at 100. Vietnam's IQ has not been taken, though I doubt it is lower than Mongolia's. Please see the Confucian vs. non-Confucian difference, and not the East Asian vs. non-East Asian difference. Tridungvo 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is going on here. It's like asian supremacy hidden behind the title of model minority. I can understand that a minority would deviate from the majority as they are the minority. Asian people have different values thus what thay focus on would tend to be better. One thing I don't get is that these minorities came about by immigration to places that have it better. For example I could say that the model majority are the white people. They gave the midas touch to Hong Kong Shanghai and Singapore. Everywhere else in Asia they didn't influence tends not to be that great and places like Australia, NZ and the US which they started seem to flourish. This is not my opinion of white superiority but the logic involved is identical saying that asian people are superior in a white environment.218.166.45.67 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me further add this fight to achieve superiority as a minority iis biased. Maybe black people may not compete with asians in the iq game, but they aren't as studious. Compare the highest salaries in america of blacks and asians and you'll find the pro athletes and entertainers have the most lucricative salaries and which minority wins in these areas? . Going down a bit the asians win the middle class as they have better middle class jobs. The middle class has higher numbers than the upper thus the average is higher. Speaking of racial values the writers of this article are predominantly asian and for the large part talking about IQ and education. The topic of low crime fits in with the book ut the comparison of IQ's and genetic factors is taboo for a model citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.45.67 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Education British Nigerians

I skimmed this whole article very briefly and I found this information:

"In terms, of education British Nigerians are one of the UK's well known highly educated groups and in 2005 56% of British Nigerian pupils achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C compared to 55% of White British children.[92]"

But when I Googled the document cited: "Ethnicity and Education: The Evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils aged 5–16" and looked at Figures 25 and 26 on pages 55 and 56 I didn't find this same information. The 55% number seems to apply to "All pupils (national figure)" not "White British children". According to Figure 26, 63% of "White European" children achieved 5+A*-C at GCSE in 2005 [4] Alpine1234 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The presentation is indeed dodgy and the figures are around ten years old. However, Nigerian students do appear at present to have higher educational attainment compared to the local population [5], as well as vis-a-vis many other immigrants (page 29 [6]). This is believed to be mainly because many of these Nigerian students come from wealthy families in their country of origin, where they also already matriculated in English; a good command of English is actually a prerequisite for admission into the foreign schools [7]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading an article stating how poor Black British were at education. Are you sure they have anything close to a model minority image? Rap and basketball don't count.

Whatthewikihell (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Effects of affirmative action on Asian Americans

" A 2005 Princeton study showed Asians (not whites) bear nearly 80% of the cost of affirmative action in college admissions. Nearly four out of every five spots given to blacks and Hispanics in an affirmative-action regime would go to Asians in a purely merit-based system. [8]

The average cost or benefit of college affirmative action in terms of SAT points (on 1600-point scale) is as follows: [9]

• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: −50
• Recruited Athletes: +200
• "Legacies" (children of alumni): +160"

Besides the obvious agenda pushing I'm concerned if this discussion should even be included under this subject. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This point appears to be on one of the repurcussions of Asian American's high level of achievement, which seems to be germane to this article. Noting affirmative action's effects on different races doesn't itself seem to be POV pushing.--Nectar ^T 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The two issues do definitely have a relation. One argument for affirmative action (although far from the only one) is: "the proportion of students at the top institutions should be roughly equal to their proportion in the population". This argument would imply that groups that are overrepresented, as is the case with "model minorities", should be discriminated against in admissions, in favor of those who are underrepresented. --Delirium 06:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It does have a relation, as it is directly related to the stereotype 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a bias (I am Asian and I am against affirmative action) but I think this should be included. We are the only race to have points deducted for university entrance and it gives us the image that we are well educated despite going through racism. Whatthewikihell (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Americans and Poverty

Should anything be added about the poverty that many Chinese have to grow up in? Especially in urban cities like New York where the poverty rate among Chinese is very high. Whatthewikihell (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Americans

READ FOR DISCUSSION ON POV TAG: MAY 2015

I have removed references limiting the model minority image to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. They do not include Sri Lankan Americans despite them being richer and better educated.

Some sections of this article do not match to the statistics given below:

http://www.asian-nation.org/headlines/2013/06/hmong-indian-whats-the-difference/ https://books.google.co.th/books?id=3AxIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1037&lpg=PA1037&dq=Sri+Lankan+Americans+bachelor+degree+or+higher&source=bl&ots=_1j_OXZ-Ut&sig=cf_FUPWX6ndaC3ZDEpoKgY7ZO4M&hl=th&sa=X&ei=D0RDVc6KHejDmAWbuYCgCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sri%20Lankan%20Americans%20bachelor%20degree%20or%20higher&f=false

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBaker2 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 

I also want to add that this article avoids talking about Sri Lankan Tamils, but emphasises South Asian Muslims. In the UK, South Asian Muslims tend to be less educated, more poor, and more likely to end up in prison; their image is more similar to that of Latinos or Blacks in the USA. Conversely, Sri Lankan Tamils follow the same path as Continental Indian Hindus.

TimothyBaker2 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• When, and if, you get consensus from the regular editors of this article (which I am not, by the way), then changes may be warranted. Hmains (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The crucial thing here is to find some reliable sources about the issue, to cite as new material is added (or deleted) from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to reinstate the changes until someone has the discussion. There's no reason to avoid talking about Sri Lankans unless you're a Pakistani trying to be racist. As said previously, these links do prove that Sri Lankans have higher achievment levels that most East Asians, and South Asian Muslims:

1) http://www.asian-nation.org/headlines/2013/06/hmong-indian-whats-the-difference

2) https://books.google.co.th/books?id=3AxIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1037&lpg=PA1037&dq=Sri+Lankan+Americans+bachelor+degree+or+higher&source=bl&ots=_1j_OXZ-Ut&sig=cf_FUPWX6ndaC3ZDEpoKgY7ZO4M&hl=th&sa=X&ei=D0RDVc6KHejDmAWbuYCgCg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sri%20Lankan%20Americans%20bachelor%20degree%20or%20higher&f=false

These links are more uptodate and recent.

The article also fails to discuss the achievments of British Hindu Indians or just European Hindu Indians in general (Switzerland, France, Scandinavia). I'm not so fussy on the lack of information on Europe, but I find the pro-pakistani texts annoying. TimothyBaker2 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. Why is this article avoiding Sri Lankan Americans? The changes are warranted until a better consensus is reached, especially considering that one of the minorities is still too controversial to call a model minority (Pakistani).

Also, I support him over his view that this article fails to cover other 'model minorities' outside USA, especially those in Europe or East Asia - Chinese people are model minorities in nearly every country in East Asia! Why no mention of them?

I did a quick background google and this may help: ″ In Norway, Tamils have emerged in the publiceye as a kind of model minority, with Somalis situated at the other endof the scale. ″ http://www.academia.edu/3070715/Culture_networks_and_social_capital_Tamil_and_Somali_immigrants_in_Norway

Whatthewikihell (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

+1. In nearly every country I can think of, Tamils are placed above Pakistanis in the pecking order. Here's a link from Canada providing a source strengthening their well-known middle class stereotype in Europe: http://kumukam.com/tamilfeminist21/. He's also correct in saying that Pakistanis tend to be viewed as thugs/warriors rather than part of an educated middle class, especially in Europe where Muslims are more likely to end up in prison and have below average education skills - a quick look at British Pakistanis' wiki page will reaffirm this (hence why the term 'Paki' was invented in Britain, as British Pakistanis are usually lower class and violent). Simpleprocedure (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Hewdropsbow edit

User talk:Hewdropsbow keep removing sourced information just becouse he don't like it. Since when indian cover pakistani?. By the wayo i'm not the one who added these information i'm only undo and make it back since you remove it without dissuction.--Jobas (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hewdropsbow removed a 1050 bytes chunk of text on 26 September (here) with the edit summary "Lopsided view presented", and a further little change here with the edit summary "Not needs since the term "Indian" covers all groups mentioned", edits that I reverted here with the edit summary "Rv removal of sourced. Also "Indians" does indeed cover "Pakastani". Please take these matters to the article talk page if necessary."

Hewdropsbow did not heed the advice and come here to the talk page, but have removed the same pieces of text four times the last three days (Diff of Model minority, Diff of Model minority, Diff of Model minority, and Diff of Model minority) with the latest edit summary being "My actions have been explained both by me and other users on the talk page." But they have not posted here.

As Hewdropsbow's edit involves five different changes to the article text and the addition of {{POV}} I suggest some good arguments be presented for the individual deletions and changes. For the record I will reinstall the sourced contents pending a consensus for deletion. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting my own blunder: my edit summary cited above should naturally read "Also "Indians" does indeed not cover "Pakastani". My apologies. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several discussion on this above. There is no reason to add "Pakistanis" to the article and avoid other ethnicities, especially when Pakistanis only have this image in the United States. Note that the original version that I edited also included Bangladeshi, which Sam did not add, so I presume he/she is trying to add a pro-Pakistani bias to the article. The best middle ground is to leave it at "South Asian" or "Indian". I might be Indian myself but it's common in the US to refer to all South Asians as "Indians".Hewdropsbow (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. Pakistanis are described in the article. "Other ethnicities" are treated independently, on their own merits. And by the way, it is also common in the United States to call all South Asians as towelheads; wikipedia should combat misconceptions, not propagate them. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put a tag on this article because Pakistanis have a far worse image outside the United States. In Europe there is a Hindu/Muslim divide in the South Asian community, which may expand to the entire Arab-Indian community due to recent migration from the Middle East. The article needs updating with a more neutral viewpoint. Coffeeloverlarge (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that removals of the Pakistani American community from the article is driven by nothing other than user bias and personal WP:POV. I've been observing this pattern at this article for quite a while, and the same group of users have been adding unsourced aand weak generalisations about the same community on articles such as Stereotypes of South Asians. The argument that Pakistani Americans are removed because Indian American covers all groups is nonsense. I've restored the content and also added sources about educational attainments of Pakistanis, in addition to profession. These figures place Pakistanis 4th in the ladder in terms of many attributes, and the figures are more or less better than the Indian American community. So there is no reasonable argument as to how the former is supposedly superior over the latter. If we remove Pakistanis, then we may as well remove the entire section and references on South Asians because the statistics don't show much difference between the two. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel

I removed this entry: it does not match the definition, which is "higher degree of socioeconomic success" and not called "model minority" in the source cited. If you want to restore it, please provide sources which prove that I am wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jobas: Your edit summary "Rv. POV editor" is inacceptable in wikipedia as a justification for the revert. Please keep in mind that this page is under discretionary sanctions, therefore you have to engage in a discussion with valid arguments in order to justify your addition. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A model minority is a minority group (whether based on ethnicity, race or religion) whose members are most often perceived to achieve a higher degree of socioeconomic success than the population average. This success is typically measured in income, education, low crime rates and high family stability.

In term of education Arab christians is israel by far are the most educated religious, many soruces do call them as The most successful in Education. Here some sources from the media.

• Israel's Christian Awakening -Wall street journal: "In some ways, Christians in Israel more closely resemble their Jewish neighbors than their Muslim ones, says Amnon Ramon, a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a specialist on Christians in Israel at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. In a recent book, he reports that Israeli Christians' median age is 30, compared with 31 for Israeli Jews and only 19 for Israeli Muslims. Israeli Christian women marry later than Israeli Muslims, have significantly fewer children and participate more in the workforce. Unemployment is lower among Israeli Christians than among Muslims, and life expectancy is higher. Perhaps most strikingly, Israeli Christians actually surpass Israeli Jews in educational achievement."
• Time of Israel: Christian Arabs top country’s matriculation chartsStudents from the religious minority, which makes up only 2% of Israel’s population, most likely to graduate high school.
• The Christian Arabs also had higher rates of accessibility to higher education than the other groups

David, H. (2014). Are Christian Arabs the New Israeli Jews?

• Christians in Israel Well-Off, Statistics Show When it comes to education, Christian Arabs are among the most successful groups in Israel.
• Christian Arabs Most Likely to Graduate High-School in Israel
• Christian Arabs top Israel's matriculation list Christian Arab students in Israel have the highest success rate in passing matriculation exams compared with any other sector of Israeli society, a new study has revealed.
• Christians in Israel: Strong in education: The CBS noted that when taking into account the data recorded over the years, Christian Arabs fared the best in terms of education in comparison to any other group receiving an education in Israel.
• Israel and Christianity: Israeli Christians are integrated into the mainstream of Israeli life, serving on the Supreme Court, in Israel’s Knesset (Parliament), public service and military. In addition to studying in Israel’s world-class universities, Israeli Christians have a reputation for high educational achievement in general. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics noted in 2012:
• International Handbook of Intelligence Christian students also outperformed students of Muslim or Druze.
• Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide Israeli Arab Christians were on average better educated and more affluent than Israeli Jews.
• Christmas 2013 - Christians in Israel: The percentage of students studying medicine was also higher among Arab Christian students compared with the general students. [Over the course of years Christian Arabs have had the highest rate of success in matriculation exams]
• Wall street journal: Michael Oren: Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians:"Christians are prominent in all aspects of Israeli life, serving in the Knesset, the Foreign Ministry and on the Supreme Court. Israeli Arab Christians are on average more affluent than Israeli Jews and better-educated, even scoring higher on their SATs."
• [Are Christian Arabs the New Israeli Jews? Reflections on the Educational Level of Arab Christians in Israel, Hanna David School of Education, University of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Israel]: 11. CONCLUSION

Christian Arabs are "a minority within a minority" in Israel. However, they are the most educated sub-population; they ×have a high presentation in science and in the professions, and they contribute a lot to the advancement of all Arabs in Israel by opening their private, high level educational institutions to all good students, regardless of religion or ethnic origin. Unlike the norms most common in Israeli institutions of education the main values according to which education is applied in these excellent schools are of hard work – both of the students and the teachers, rigid discipline, old-fashioned ways of teaching in crowded classes, and rewarding achievements that are the result of intensive, consistent investment.

Now in hebrow and arabic you can find a several of souces call arab christians in Israel as the and higly educated or the vanguard in eduction or as a scuccessful minority or Strong in education or most successfully studious sector in the Jewish state or prosperous here an example:

• המגזר הערבי נוצרי הכי מצליח במערכת החינוך

In terms of socioeconomic Arab christians doing well and than the population average. when it comes to employment, Christians fare slightly better. The percentage of unemployment among Christians age 15 and over was 4.9% compared to 6.5% among Jewish men and women, And there been data shows that Christians fit the second groupes with higest median household income after non-haredi Jewish and higher than the average. there been data by The Central Bureau of Statistics (Israel) shows that Christian Arabs have a higher employment rate than Muslims or Druze. and similar to the Jewish, and that the lowest incidence of poverty among Arabs is that of Christians or that Christian women have the highest participation rate among arabs.

In the end where was my edit summry "Rv. POV editor"?.--Jobas (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad eyes, it was user:Mar4d right before you. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work. A couple more strokes, and you can write an article Arab Christians in Israel. (and there already is category:Arab Christian communities in Israel). I am self-reverting, trusting that you expand the section with other aspects which together indicate socioeconomic success. Please notice that education is not always equal with success ("if you are so smart why you are so poor?" :-), but of course it is well-known it is an important factor. Therefore I am asking you (based on the text above) to show in the article how this factor works for Christian Arabs. And by the way, are there any explanations to this phenomenon? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked me scources and i provied sources, education is one of the important factors with success, The christian arab in israel consider a highly educated and they fit at the top and the first place in the most educated ethnic-religious groupe in israel and they have attained a bachelor's degree and academic degree more than the median Israeli population as the souces show - and still there are many other souces in Hebrow or Arabic.

About the socioeconomic, Arab Christians in Israel are not so poor!. While it's kinda hard to find data's in English there are several datas provid in Hebrow by the The Central Bureau of Statistics shows that christians have the lowest poverty line and the lowest percentage of unemployment (i provied a sorcue before), and when we talk about median household income, Arab christians are by far the wealthiest groupe among arabs of israel, and the second wealthiest group in Israel. Data show also that Arab Christians have median household income higher than population average: Muslims and Druze and mizrahi and sephardic and ethiopian jews and Haredi Jews. and they tend to work in white collar professions. So being the second wealthiest group in Israel also make them Model minority.

As the study Are Christian Arabs the New Israeli Jews? Reflections on the Educational Level of Arab Christians in Israel, Hanna David School of Education, University of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Israel explaind the reasons why Arab Christians tend to be higly first eduacted histrocally Arab Christians been more eduacted than other arabs group and have less issue with girls edacation, second the Christian arab school -which consider among the best school's in Israel- play a prominent role with the eduaction among arab christians. and third being "a minority within a minority" make them to work hard which led them to have a high presentation in science and in the professions. And the high eduaction and having and to hold bachelor's degree and academic degree led christians to work in high presentation in science and in the professions and then to be well-off socioeconomic.--Jobas (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your detailed answer here, it seems you don't have a clear understanding how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a chat board. When I am asking about sources, it is not because of idle personal curiosity. The sources and the corresponding additions must go into the article, to fix the issues raised in the talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• re education is one of the important factors with success. - I was not arguing against this. Please re-read my comments carefully and in the future please work harder in understanding what other people argue. In this respect you are making a logical blunder. The fact that "A is important for B" does not automatically mean "if A then B". Hence my request: while it OK to explain educational success, this is insufficient unless you describe that in this case edu success translates into socioeconomic success. If you still don't understand, let me give you an example for comparison. The former Soviet Union had the highest education ratio in the world, by many parameters, but we know just as well that socioeconomic level of the population was shit. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hindu - Muslim divide in South Asian ethnic group

Something should be added about the Hindu - Muslim divide within the Asian ethnic group. Hindus tend to achieve far better than their Muslim (usually Pakistani or Bangladeshi) counterparts. Sources can be found in national statistics data from various European countries (e.g. UK) and countries like Canada. The USA is an exception but Muslims (usually from Pakistan or Bangladesh) still do poorer than Hindus too (Pakistanis and Bangladeshi rank far below Indians). Sonjohnsonjohn (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Model minority. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061212130042/http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu:80/97Journal/Chu.html to http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/97Journal/Chu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051103051626/http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu:80/97journal/Chu.html to http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/97journal/Chu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050417115544/http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec4.pdf to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050305071416/http://www.gmu.edu:80/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/bakesale.html to http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/bakesale.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090817070552/http://www.imes.uva.nl:80/research/IMESsecondthirdgenerationsDutchEurasians.html to http://www.imes.uva.nl/research/IMESsecondthirdgenerationsDutchEurasians.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Model minority. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213154833/http://www.diverseeducation.com/AsianAmericanBaccalaureate2007.asp to http://www.diverseeducation.com/AsianAmericanBaccalaureate2007.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120321002325/http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/black-diversity07.htm to http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/BlackWhite/BlackDiversityReport/black-diversity07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110123130924/http://irrawaddy.org/print_article.php?art_id=3795 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/print_article.php?art_id=3795
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131031234451/http://www.pelita.nl/cms/publish/content/showpage.asp?themeid=1 to http://www.pelita.nl/cms/publish/content/showpage.asp?themeid=1

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)