Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Hmong in Merced, California

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Hmong in Merced, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be an attempt to incorporate information from Anne Fadiman's book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. Considering that we don't have parallel articles for Fresno or St. Paul Hmong (where there is a much stronger Hmong American presence), it doesn't seem like this topic is notable enough. The article overwhelmingly relies on Fadiman's book, which does not pass the muster of an authoritative source for an encyclopedia. Despite claims to the contrary by the article's creator, User:WhisperToMe, it does not seem that there are enough sources available to demonstrate sufficient notability for a separate article. The relevant content has already been moved to a section at Merced, California. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For a look at an earlier discussion about the issue, see Talk:Hmong American#Merge proposal. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly the argument "Considering that we don't have parallel articles for Fresno or St. Paul Hmong (where there is a much stronger Hmong American presence)," is faulty considering WP:V as a guiding principle. If you can find sources about a subject, then it has an increased likelihood of notability. If one can find sources to write parallel articles like Fresno or St. Paul, then, yes, one can do so. Also, Fadiman's book was the first such source, but it's not the only one. I also found an academic journal article about the Hmong health care in Merced ("The Hmong and Health Care in Merced, California") and also a journal about culture ( "Hmong Language and Cultural Maintenance in Merced, California") - So that makes three specifically about the Hmong in Merced. Then I am trying to get newspaper articles about it too. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point, finding two articles doesn't establish notability, particularly because you're ignoring how other places are represented in those journals. In the case of Hmong Studies, look at how the single mention of Merced stacks up to the other place-centered articles in the journal:

Migration of Hmong to Rochester, Minnesota: Life in the Midwest (2003)
Coming Home? The Integration of Hmong Refugees from Wat Tham Krabok, Thailand into American Society [Specifically, St. Paul and Minneapolis] (2006)
The Transition of Wat Tham Krabok Hmong Children to Saint Paul Public Schools: Perspectives of Teachers, Principals, and Hmong Parents (2007)
The self-rated social well-being of Hmong college students in Northern California [Specifically, Sacramento] (2007)
Hmong Political Involvement in St. Paul, Minnesota and Fresno, California (2009)

In addition, the article you mentioned was published in the same issue as the review for Fadiman's article, which may have more to do with contextualizing her work than with the notability of Merced. The only other mention of Merced that I could find in that journal centered around Fadiman's book.

The point here is that a single article in a this journal does not demonstrate Merced's notability in relation to the Hmong diaspora. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not "a single article" in one journal. It's three articles, in two journals and a portion of a book, plus various newspaper articles. They go together. Yes, you found other articles from the same journal about Hmong in other cities. That means it could be possible to write "Hmong in St. Paul" or "Hmong in Rochester" or "Hmong in Fresno"

If you found a book about "History of the Slovakians in Cleveland," wrote a Wikipedia article using information from that work, and then found other sources to supplement the article, with decreasing and decreasing dependence on the book itself, if that is "contextualizing" the original work, that's okay. We have WP:GNG as another user pointed out below. GNG generally says that if many other people write about a subject, that subject is Wikipedia notable.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your suggested standard highly problematic. There are hundreds of articles about Hmong Americans alone, not to say other ethnic groups. These articles discuss Hmong people in places such as large urban centers as well as small towns. It can't be that every time someone writes a scholarly work about some people in some place that it should have its own Wikipedia article. There is some very good information in the article under discussion. Unfortunately, very few people probably get to see it because the scope is much to small and not notable. These details should be incorporated into existing articles where it belongs. --Nposs (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GNG is seen as the standard bearing notability principle on Wikipedia. If a topic can pass GNG, it is notable. It can also pass less stringent notability requirements specific to certain subjects. There are many articles that discuss Hmong settlements across various cities. Regarding "It can't be that every time someone writes a scholarly work about some people in some place that it should have its own Wikipedia article." -- if say, there are three pieces of scholarly work about some people in some place, it could be a topic noteworthy of Wikipedia. One thing about Fadiman's work is that it summarizes news coverage about the Hmong in Merced, and I've discovered this upon finding some Merced Sun-Star articles about the community. In other words, her work and the scholarly works are not in a vacuum. So the newspapers are also a large component of the topic's notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG is the standard, what would dissuade an editor from creating an article on Michelle Obama's arms or Rush Limbaugh's midsection? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there wouldn't be enough material for either one. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this deletion discussion, there were at least ten sources used for the article Michelle Obama's Arms before it was nominated for deletion. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting, actually :) - I think a major difference is the time period of coverage. The Hmong article has sources stretching from the early 1980s to the 2000s, and the sources include books and popular media sources and academic journal sources. This article seems to only use several tabloidy popular media "celebrity interest" sources from 2009. If coverage was ongoing and/or involved more kinds of media then there would be more of a likelihood of a subject being kept. WP:GNG does say "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." - But I think when people say "meets GNG" they argue that it is not indiscriminate and meets GNG WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the point about Fresno and St Paul is very strong. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. However, outside of a series of History of Jews in X town, there doesn't seem to be a body of History of X group in X town, which makes me wonder about the notability of the topic. On top of that, it is important to remember that the town in question is neither notable in size, nor in its connection to the Hmong diaspora. As I said in my nomination, this seems to be more about including content from the book than covering an encyclopedic topic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I don't know what would make a city "notable in size," but the city itself (with around 80,000 people now) passes notability requirements on WP and has its own article. With regard to the city's notable connection to the Hmong diaspora, the article that is nominated for deletion makes an extended case on just that point. I won't quote the nominated article here--I invite you to read it again. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being very precise. You are right that Merced is notable enough to have its own article. When I say that Merced is not notable in its size, I mean it is not notable for its size. That is, it is not a fair assessment to say that Merced was one of the larger places with a significant population from the Hmong diaspora.

While the article makes the case that Merced is important in its connection to the Hmong diaspora, it does this by desperately clinging to Fadiman's unqualified opinions (which is another problem in the use of Fadiman for the article) and scouring accessible articles from local newspapers.

In reality, other than having an unusually high percentage of Hmong refugees for a few years, there is nothing particularly notable about Merced in relation to the Hmong history; not enough to have an article devoted to covering the Hmong in the city and certainly not enough to cover just the history of the Hmong there. Other than Jews (as seen at [Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city]), it doesn't seem that the History of X group in X town/city format is the normal way of including information on ethnic groups at Wikipedia. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the labeling Fadiman's opinions as "unqualified" is problematic. Fadiman took the time to author a book and do research on the issue. We generally label books published by reliable third party publishers as "reliable sources." From my understanding she is recognized as an authority on the Hmong health issue. She quotes a variety of individuals from Merced County and from the Hmong community. Are they unqualified too?

Fadiman isn't the only person to author a piece of literature on specifically the Hmong community in Merced. You have "The Hmong and Health Care in Merced, California" and also "Hmong Language and Cultural Maintenance in Merced, California" - neither of which were written by her. Thirdly, newspapers are a legitimate source in humanities-related subjects on Wikipedia, and many articles rely heavily on newspapers.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unqualified" in this context refers to statements like "Sometimes I felt that the other cities of the Central Valley—Fresno, Visalia, Porterville, Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento, Marysville, Yuba City—were mere suburbs of Merced." She is not qualifying this opinion with facts. It's just her feeling. Similarly, her statement that "Hmong residents were visible to the people of Merced while abstract economic factors were not visible, so the people of Merced focused upon the Hmong" is, again, a statement that is not qualified with sociological otherwise qualitative research. It's just her opinion. Her linkage of support for proposition 187 to hostility to legal immigration is spurious.

Her book is notable, worthy of mention, and even potentially usable to back up some statements about the Hmong in Merced, but its use here is stretching it beyond its authority.

By the way, what gives you the impression she's a recognized authority on the Hmong health issue? I would hope she was especially knowledgeable on the matter, but her faculty page doesn't seem to show her as an authority. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Page 227, immediately after "Sometimes [...] mere suburbs of Merced," she says "Hmong families constantly drove from city to city to visit relatives, and if they moved elsewhere in the valley, they returned to Merced for subclan gatherings, just as residents of satellite settlements in Laos had returned to their home villages." - So the book absolutely is qualifying this opinion with facts. You argue the other statement is "a statement that is not qualified with sociological otherwise qualitative research" - But the publisher thinks it is qualified, and nothing so far has appeared that contradicts it.

"Her linkage of support for proposition 187 to hostility to legal immigration is spurious." - But it is not the Wikipedia editor's place to judge these arguments. If a publisher of a work responding to that said "A says B, but I say B is spurious" then it would be okay to add that.

As a general rule, Wikipedia articles absolutely are about facts and opinions. As a general rule, the most prominent opinions are given space over the less prominent opinions.

Fadiman is frequently mentioned in popular media articles discussing the Hmong written after 1997 (publication of her book) - like this and this (the article preview doesn't have the quote, but Google News says the quote is "[...] vividly in the book ``The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, by Anne Fadiman")

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG here, two peer reviewed journal articles, a piece in the New York Times, a lot of coverage in Fadimann's book, plus coverage in California newspapers. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; although the article appears to have sprung up independently, if it were to be merged into Merced, California or Hmong American articles, it would already be large enough to be spunout into its own separate article per WP:TOOLONG. Furthermore, there are sufficient reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This never should have been an independent article. It contains some good information, but that information should be incorporated into the relevant existing articles: []Hmong people]], Merced, California, Hmong-American people, Hmong language, "The Spirit Catches You ...", etc. I disagree that it would be too long to incorporate into those articles since the there are many small points that be rearranged elsewhere. The case of the Hmong people in Merced is similar to many other cities around the nation and it is not notable on its own. (A similar article, replete with reputable sources could be written about several.) I don't have the time to do the work, so I'm unwilling to suggest a deletion at the moment. --Nposs (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As shown through the sources, Merced has some unique characteristics. The usage of Merced as a place for subclan gatherings is one. The number of clans in Merced is another. You have the unique founding history of Dang Moua. You have the specific socioethnic and unemployment characteristics of Merced county, which clashed with the Hmong. There's Lia Lee and her history with that hospital, and the same hospital later introduced the use of Hmong shamans as part of the healing process. There are also specific statistics related to the Hmong in Merced.
- Some information in the article could be used in other articles, but that could be said for a lot of topics. I did include some information from the education section in articles about area schools and school districts in Merced. The thing is, Fadiman and the authors of two journal articles treated the topic "Hmong in Merced" as a unique topic, and Wikipedia could cover that same topic in one article. If one could write articles about the establishment of Hmong communities in other cities and/or states, one is welcome to do so.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of particular urban centers for clan gatherings is found in basically every region that has a decent Hmong population. The number of clans is also not unique (many Hmong centers have a diversity of clans). Hmong people have faced backlash in almost every city they live in. None of the points you have mentioned here make the Hmong population of Merced more notable than any other. Perhaps the only notable thing here is that Fadiman used this city for the basis of her research.

You have added some excellent facts to Wikipedia with this article, but the subject of the article itself is not noteworthy. Those facts would be more useful in the relevant articles that already exist and would allow more people to make use of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nposs (talk • contribs)

While certain urban centers are used in every region, one thing to note is that Merced happens to be the one in the Central Valley, hence Fadiman's comments. Mentioning the particular clans of a particular community can be notable since it can indicate which groups of Hmong are there.

While the Hmong have faced backlash in many areas, the reasons may be different in different places. Existing unemployment and the politically conservative nature of Merced County were possible factors mentioned in the literature I encountered.

The facts can be added to other articles as well as this one. In particular I have added some education info related to certain schools or districts to both this article and school and district articles.

I think the other distinguishing factors, besides Fadiman's book, are Lia Lee herself, and that Merced's Hmong community was also the subject of Jonas Vangay's book. So far I do not believe Google Books has archived it, but there is a copy on Amazon.com.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Turns out there is another book on the topic. It is:
- Vangay, Jonas. Hmong Parents' Cultural Attitudes and the Sex-Ratio Imbalance of Hmong Merced High School Graduates. Mong Pheng Community Inc., 1989.
Jonas Vangay is a Hmong community activist, and he was mentioned in Fadiman's book. Much of the material in Vangay's book originates from Vangay's cultural anthropology master's thesis from California State University, Stanislaus. The publisher is a non-profit organization founded to help refugees adjust to life in the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per several already mentioned reasons. Material on this one urban center is significant enough that notability arguments don't hold water, and I agree with RightCowLeftCoast that the article is too substantial to merge into existing Hmong-american related articles. Wyvern t (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly significant and encyclopedic topic. Nicely done piece. Kudos to the content creator. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.