Talk:List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese-American populations

Taiwanese

This article lumps Taiwanese together with Chinese. That is a contraversial decision. It would be more informative (and less incendiary) to break the data down and let people use whichever definition is appropriate for them.

If you are to separate Taiwanese, then you should separate everything by smaller groups, like Cantonese and Hoi-San, since those groups significantly differ from others.

Why don't just delete all the sub group information, it is not accurate, controversial and not complete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.0.247 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Random small cities

Why are there all the random small cities with 1% on this page? I say that every city on here should have either above 10% or above 5000 population of Chinese Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.216.1.135 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes that will not work though, because a city with 500,000+ people and 20,000 Chinese residents will still be at 1%, or at the very least, under 5%. I thought you had mistaken it for being that everything on here was a small city. Now, if only Los Angeles had a mere 60,000... Woo... no traffic whatsoever! ★Dasani★ 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be equally informative to rank according to absolute population, rather than percent population. e.g. how come Atlanta and St Louis are not on the list at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.216.164 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1% confers "significance"?

the Canadian equivalent page List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations has been up for debate at WPTALK:CANADA and has worn a "notability" tag since 2008. What's "large"? What's "signficant". This page makes a call that 1% is sufficient for an urban population, and 10% for suburban populations. Who made this call? Surely not the US census. How is one percent "significant", and even 10% "significant"? The equivalent African American and Hispanic American pages don't have their own bars set so low (rather a lot higher, as I recall).Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even 1% of a big city could represent a large number. I'm not sure why the article was renamed "significant" from "large", which is how similar articles are named. List of U.S. cities with large Vietnamese American populations includes cities with more than 10,000 qualifying people, even if that only represents 0.5% of the population. It also includes lists with far smaller populations. There's no reason that this article shouldn't follow the standard of the other similar articles, whatever those might be.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Random small cities "Illinois" section

Urbana has a 6% Chinese population, not including Taiwanese, 7% including Taiwanese. Champaign and Savoy are both 2%. Not sure if Savoy would be big enough to qualify. This according to epodunk.comYeliab1 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Did you test this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8100:A8B0:F578:56B:CC11:245B (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

California - Greater Los Angeles

Bradbury appears to be listed twice with different rankings. Fettlemap (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese-American populations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305164937/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)