Talk:Asian Americans

File:Vang Pao 0.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vang Pao 0.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Asian-American Sports Section - Jeremy Lin

Hello Moderators, regarding the Sports section in the Asian-American article. States Jeremy Lin's signing in 2010 made him the first AA player in 50 years (NBA). But earlier in the section it says Raymond Townsend played 1978-1982(which makes it only 28 years). Wanted to highlight the internal contradiction for correction. Because "as is" it makes for confusing reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.63.176 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, the only problem is WP:BURDEN. Being that the reference states:

Jeremy Lin, who signed July 21 with his hometown Golden State Warriors, also will be the first Asian American in the league since 1947, when Wat Misaka, a Japanese American, became the first non-white player in what was then known as the Basketball Association of America.

— Jorge Castillo

In the article he appears to completely ignore Filipino American Raymond Townsend. Therefore, although the statement is incorrect, it is verifiable. I will see if I can find another reference to be able to support the change in the content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun and removing the text -- I was crafting a response here, but it looks like you want to do more research. — Myasuda (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why, when I was about to make the change, why the text in question was not there, even though it is supported via a reliable source. The best source for the change that I can find is here:

• Howard Beck (28 December 2011). "Newest Knick Out to Prove He's Not Just a Novelty". New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2012.

In the article the author appears to do much better research listing all Asian Americans who have played in the NBA:

Lin, whose parents are from Taiwan, is the N.B.A.’s first American-born player of Chinese or Taiwanese descent. He is the league’s fourth Asian-American, following Raymond Townsend (Filipino-American), who played for the Warriors (1978-80) and Indiana Pacers (1981-82); Wat Misaka (Japanese-American), who was with the Knicks in 1947-48; and Rex Walters (half Japanese), who played from 1993 to 2000 for the Nets, Philadelphia 76ers and Miami Heat.

If there is a paragraph about Asian American's in the NBA this would definitely be a good source to draw from. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Townsend was probably excluded from the first source because he is mixed race. There don't seem to be as clear-cut criteria for "who is an Asian American" as there are for, say, blacks. Shrigley (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is. See the terminology section of this article. Anyone who claims in whole, are in part (Multiracial Asian Americans (a significant portion of the Filipino American population (over 800K))), to have racial ancestry from a South Asian, East Asian, or Southeast Asian nation is Asian American (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone find the IP address of the person who posted the "Squinty-Eyed" slur?

I am only an occasional Wikipedia editor, but I was shocked to see that slur used in the second sentence of the main article, while dishonestly claiming it came from the U.S. Census. I deleted the reference, but I'd say whoever wrote it was a racist vandal and should have their IP address banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.85.14 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism. I will keep a closer look on this page, and have warned the offending editor appropriately. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Image discussion 2012

In two recent changes, a IP editors changed the Infobox images without consensus. Starting back in 2009, there has been an effort by active editors to have individuals in the infobox who have a consensus to represent each ethnicity of significant population be represented in the infobox. From that there have been a number of discussions and polls that have reached a consensus that individuals not be politicians or political appointees as not to violate political neutrality. Recent changes lack consensus, and so far the IP editor has not kept with WP:BRD and discussed his changes. Therefore, I would like to open up this discussion here to discuss any possible changes going forward. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I have notified WikiProjects that have this article under it's scope and past editors who have been active in the previous major change to the infobox.

If there is a change in consensus as to the previously agreed political neutrality, what ethnicities are included, and who should represent each ethnicity, it will be determined here by discussion and reaching new consensus. If there is no change in consensus then I don't see a reason for a change in the infobox images. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to change consensus at this time unless there's convincing reason to do so. Though I wouldn't mind a formatting change to the infobox, something similar to Chinese American or Indian American. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to such a change, given that each individual continues to also be associated with the Ethnicity which they represent in the infobox. That being said I would weight a week or two to see if there is any objections to such a change, and to ensure consensus supports such a change. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox photos in articles about ethnic groups are always contentious because they are necessarily subjective in regards to whom to include or exclude. Furthermore they add little value to articles. I generally believe that having either "generic" pictures or no pictures is better than a panopticon of ethnic celebrities. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Granted discussions regarding changes in the infobox have taken up considerable time, that being said how would one find generic pictures that include neutrally the large number of ethnicities encapsulated by the terminology used for the scope of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think consensus is very badly needed. Saturdayseven (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Category upmerge discussion taking place

For anyone interested, there is a proposal to remove the "Category:American sportspeople of X descent" subcategories of "American sportspeople of Asian descent", where "X" corresponds to various Asian American groups (i.e., Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, etc). This appears to be an attempt to establish precedent, after which the other Asian American subcategories of "Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation" can be expected to be nominated for deletion. If you wish to participate in the discussion, it is taking place at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 27#Sportspeople of Asian descent — Myasuda (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Languages

I have reverted a recent change, see WP:BRD, that listed the languages rather than the original grouping. The change came with no consensus of active editors and was done boldly, and thus revertible. Furthermore the changes cited no references to support what languages to list. That being said, if languages are to be listed, I would suggest that we look at Languages of the United States for references. However, there is no reference that I can find that list what languages are spoken specifically by Asian Americans, and in what quantities. To list all languages that maybe spoken by Asian Americans, but not have a reference to verify the content would subject said list to removal due to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Young Oak Kim

Please stop adding content not supported by the reference. The reference only speaks about the 442nd Infantry Regiment. Content regarding COL Kim, information about him can already be found (that content is referenced there), in the sub article Military history of Asian Americans. You can find that content here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, expansion of content regarding the Military history of Asian Americans should be kept to the subarticle. Content specifically about the subject Young Oak Kim, should remain on the subject's biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

On a separate note, while looking at the reference, I'm not sure http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/100-442in.htm is reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org has been discussed at RSN multiple times, and generally found to be a reliable source. See the discussion here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox ethnicity representatives

Recently there has been a WP:BOLD change to the infobox conducted by YvelinesFrance, these changes were done (for the most part) without explanation given in the edit summary. These changes are not consistent with prior consensus that was formed in past discussions regarding ethnic representatives in the infobox, most significantly this discussion. I understand that consensus can change and therefore am beginning this discussion, and am reverting the unexplained changes per WP:BRD and kindly asking all interested parties to civilly discussing any proposed changes, and not making those changes until |consensus can be reached. To further the discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I will be notifying the appropriate Talk pages of related articles and related WikiProjects woes active editors and WikiProject members maybe interested in this discussion.

To help focus this discussion I think the first question to ask is:
Is there are need to change the individuals in the infobox who represent ethnicities under the definition of Asian American that has been agreed to (see the discussion above)?

If the consensus to the above question is yes, then the following pertinent questions apply:

1. What ethnicities should be represented in the infobox? Should there be a minimum population requirement for those ethnicities to be included in the infobox? What should that minimum population be?
2. How many notable individuals should represent each ethnicity to be represented in the infobox?
3. Should politicians be acceptable to represent an ethnicity in the infobox?
4. How should notable individuals be chosen to be a representative in the infobox? How should consensus be formed?
5. At what time, in the future (if any), should the notable individuals in the infobox be reviewed or reconsidered?

If the consensus to the above question is no, or if no consensus can be reached on the first question, then what should active editors do going forward to improve the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm improving the infobox. Seriously it's full of nobodies. I mean 2 people from the columbia shuttle disaster? What did they achieve other than dying in a big explosion? I'm adding world leaders, nobel prize laureates and internationally renowned artists, engineers, scientists. The old infobox is disgustingly bad. Also I believe it is rather strange that all asian countries must be represented. The best representatives of the asian american community should be on this list, not just one from each country. I mean if we want to go there, where is the mongolian american? The kazahk american? The indonesian american? It is simply unfeasible. YvelinesFrance (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have kindly asked that the content not be changed until a consensus be formed whether a change is necessary. Yours is but one opinion, and thus it was reverted per WP:BRD, but making additional edits, you may become engaged in an edit war and that does not improve the article's content.

I understand that information in the infobox can sometimes be contentious, but that does not mean that it cannot be done in a manor keeping with WP:CIVIL, WP:NEU, & with input of all interested. By unilaterally changing the infobox, even though the change was WP:BOLD but reverted per BRD is not creating a positive editing environment. Additionally, to state that the individuals are "nobodies" does not follow the fact that they are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and that there was a previous Consensus which chose the individuals in the infobox. By reverting the change, this goes against past consensus.

Additionally to state that only the present individuals are suitable to be in the infobox borders on WP:OWN. I am not saying that the individuals that were previously in the infobox are who should be there, however those individuals did have a consensus (of then) active editors of this article. This is why I asked the questions I posted above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, we can't have a 'consensus' each time an edit is made on wikipedia, the whole encyclopaedia would collapse immediately. If anyone has a problem with my choices as representatives of asian americans or specific asian american ethnicities, let them talk to me, not someone who is afraid of some non-existent consensus. The infobox hasn't been changed in years, there is no longer a consensus at all anyway. Furthermore this is an infobox representing an entire population, notability alone is not enough, we need top representatives. Some astronauts who haven't achieved anything other than suit up and rocket into space are not the best representatives of the asian american population when there are many very famous and world changing ones to choose from. I don't see anyone other than you have a problem with my changes and I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree that my infobox is objectively better than the previous one. YvelinesFrance (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SILENT.

The changes made do not have consensus, and thus were subject to reversion. Initially making changes without explaining the change can be viewed as vandalism and can be reverted, or can be reverted as an unexplained good faith change. Reverting a reversion, does not abide by WP:BRD. I had started this discussion in an attempt to reach consensus rather than to subject the infobox to unnecessary changes, as the diffs have described.

Therefore, to say that my objections are "rediculous", is without merit. I am talking to you, and attempted to talk to you before your most recent reversion by beginning this discussion.

One person should not decide who are the "top representatives". To say that "some astronauts" are not worthy candidates as representatives of their ethnicity does not meet with past consensus who agreed that they were.

I am not saying that the best notable individuals were the ones in the infobox, however, that is not to say that the unilaterally chosen individuals presently in the infobox are the best either. If we can civilly have a discussion on how the infobox should be formatted, what ethnicities should be represented, and whom should represent those ethnicities (all questions I asked above), we would have a much better infobox than the previous or current infobox, as the changes made would have the consensus of all active editors. Presently what we have is one editor who has stated twice that their new infobox is better than the previous infobox that was built on past consensus of (then) active editors. IMHO that is rather presumptuous, even if that editor believes that by making these changes they are in the best interest of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm ready to debate with any user who believes there are better representatives of asian americans than the ones I have put. Among my selection is a nobel prize laureate, the president of the world bank (and first asian american president of an ivy league university), the first asian american hollywood star and one of the most famous architects in the world, the very person who designed the Louvres in Paris; all representing different asian american ethnicities. YvelinesFrance (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Presently, there is No consensus to maintain the changes that were made, as well as it not abiding by WP:BRD. That said, I asked the questions which started this discussion as a way to focus it so that we can reach a consensus what (if any) changes should be made to those in the infobox. To not answer the questions, and to only state that the unilateral change improved the article when there is no consensus that that is the case leads us towards a period where any change can be made and no consensus is reached leading to a edit war that only negatively impacts the article and all those involved.

Therefore, for now I am this "any user", and hope others may join this discussion as to provide a clear consensus as to how the infobox notable individuals should be formatted, and who should be included.

1. ) I do not believe that drastic changes to the infobox made by a single user were necessary to "improve the article".
2. ) If changes are to be made to the format I believe all Asian American ethnicities whose population is over 250 thousand persons should be included. Therefore using the figures from the 2010 United States Census, Chinese Americans (not including Taiwanese Americans), Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans, Pakistani Americans, Cambodian Americans & Hmong Americans should be included at this present time. I believe that in the future, this should be reassessed after figures are released following the next decennial US census.
3. ) If changes are to be made, using the answers from my second question answer, there should be a total of 9 individuals in the infobox.
4. ) If changes are to be made, it is my humble opinion that excluding politicians and political appointees from the infobox serves to remove the possibility of a political imbalance that may be created if an uneven number of politicians of any of the major political parties are included in the infobox.
5. ) If changes are to be made, notable individuals from each ethnicity should be nominated, and a consensus reached as to whom that person should be. This consensus should be formed from gather the widest amount of active editors interested in the American diaspora of that ethnicity as possible, with the nominee of that ethnicity with the largest amount of support (being aware of WP:VOTE when creating a straw poll) being placed in the infobox once the consensus for that ethnicity is reached.
6. ) If changes are to be made, the choices should be reviewed every other year. If per a discussion, consensus has changed, then the process should begin all over again.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Chinese Americans, there are a number of possible notable individuals who have a historic significance (thus deviating away from recentism), in addition to just being notable per WP:GNG (just to name a few):

• Anna May Wong, first Chinese American movie star, and first Asian American international movie star; her roles in the silent film era and early sound films played a large part in cementing the stereotypes of Asian American women as defined by the American media (particularly Hollywood)
• Coral Wong Pietsch, first female Asian American General officer
• Min Chueh Chang, co-developer of the combined oral contraceptive pill
• Yung Wing, first documented naturalized Chinese American citizen, first Chinese graduate of a U.S. university/college
• Connie Chung, second female national news broadcast co-anchor
• Tsung-Dao Lee, 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics recipient
• Michael Chang, youngest tennis Grand Slam winner

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a method not standard procedure, and I think better used on an article that attracts far more editors.

I agree that at least one individual from every asian ethnicity should be represented, but I think we've mostly achieved that already, since we have one hmong, one chinese, one korean, one filipino, one japanese, one indian, one pakistani... etc. I vehemently reject Anna May Wong as I believe the stereotypes she created of the asian american community are largely negative, in fact she is the embodiment of the 'dragon lady' and the yellow sexual fetish. Hence I replaced her with another asian american star, who in his time had a much larger impact than she did, Sessue Hayakawa who was in fact, the first asian american movie star, above Anna May Wong. There is no reason to use Anna May Wong for any purpose. None of the others seem to equal I.M. Pei in terms of fame. Tsung Dao Lee won a Nobel prize but I already have an indian american with a nobel prize, so I don't think it would be too good to have more than one Nobel Prize winner on the infobox in order to increase diversity of representatives. YvelinesFrance (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD is best practice to head off 3RR and it applies everywhere. if you make an edit that is not removal of copyright vio or BLP and someone reverts it, you need to discuss and come to consensus rather than edit war.-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright I'll think of using it more often in the future. YvelinesFrance (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

i would like to see sports and politics represented.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think we should in fact increase the size of the infobox from 9 to say 12 or 16 in order to accomodate more representatives. In fact I'll do just that later today. YvelinesFrance (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not support the stereotype that hollywood forced upon Anna May Wong, via her roles in film, she was one of the first mast media depictions of female Asians here in the United States. The choice of Pei, is IMHO a step down, as outside of the field of Architecture he is less well known as say Connie Chung.

And this discussion is right now only focused on Chinese Americans, and such a discussion could occur for each ethnicity.

As for Politicians, if such a field of notability is included, it is my opinion that one politician from each major political party should be included as to provide balance in the infobox as not to create a bias infobox that supports only one political party. Given that voting demographics change from year to year within each ethnicity that falls within the Asian American grouping, to only include one political party in the infobox would not be keeping with WP:NEU. However, to avoid any political bias that may occur, it is my opinion that politicians should not be included in the infobox; this sidesteps any political issues that may occur by included the field of notability among those in the infobox.

Back to the initial conversation, the reversion of the MAJOR changes done unilaterally by YvelinesFrance should have never been re-reverted per WP:BRD, and the infobox should remain the same until a WP:CONSENSUS can be formed as to what (if any) changes should occur.

Additionally, there does not appear to be a consensus to increase the number of individuals in the infobox, so that should not occur until consensus occurs, and consensus is formed to whom those new people should be, if consensus is made for such an expansion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Above it was stated "I agree that at least one individual from every asian ethnicity should be represented" by YvelinesFrance; does this mean that the editor believes smaller Asian American ethnicities such as Mongolian Americans (18,344 persons) and Maldivian Americans (127 persons) should also be represented in the infobox?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your "one politician from each party" requirement for "balance" seems just about as silly as needing to include Maldivian Americans. Depending upon where the other types of accomplishments shake out, the "first" mayor of major city, congressional rep, state rep of a particular is valid enough. Dalip Singh Saund is going to be the "First" united states congressional representative, and there is never going to be a republican who is to "balance". Bobby Jindal is going to be the "First" Indian American governor, and no democrat is ever going to also be the "first" to provide "balance". -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the editor suggesting that each Asian ethnicity be included in the infobox, thus why I asked the questions above at the start of this discussion. I would like to know what other editors answers to those questions are, as that would help focus where this discussion should go.

The balance would lay in equal representation of both major political parties, in so much if there are X number of party Y, there should be X number of party Z. However, as it is my opinion that politicians shouldn't be in the infobox at all, as it sidesteps and balance/pov political issues, it is rather moot.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly politicians, particularly at the governor and congressional levels, are Notable people, who have actual great and direct effect on people and the world. To exclude them from consideration as illustraions of notable people is flat out absurd.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I never stated that politicians are not notable individuals, and agree that they have a "great and direct effect" as was stated above by TheRedPenOfDoom. However, there was a past consensus before the most recent changes to the infobox occurred, that politicians should be excluded from the infobox due to the POV issues that may occur with their inclusion in the infobox. See the conversation that occurred between Myasuda, Elockid, and myself that occurred here (the last three post). Therefore, there was prior consensus; I understand that consensus can change, but as there is currently no consensus now that politicians should be included, and as my opinion has not changed since that past conversation, unless there is a greater demand for politicians (or political appointees for that matter) in the infobox, I do not see why the old consensus should be ignored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that discussion - it looks like a very well-thought-out and orderly process. However, as you probably know consensus can change, and it is hard to claim that a very strong consensus exists considering that only 3 preople appear to be involved in that discussion. There are 3 people involved in this discussion and so any consensus that we can reach would have as much validity. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that this discussion is not without merit, but I am saying that the previous consensus should not be ignored. If we wish, and I believe it is appropriate, we should invite past participants of the political neutrality of the infobox, should be invited to this conversation.

The infobox that had existed, was formed out of a consensus of then active editors of this page. The present infobox is the outcome of a unilateral series of changes made by a single editor, and thus does not have the mandate of consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have specific concerns about the actual content in the article as being inappropriate or are your concerns simply about process? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox or the article itself? Presently the discussion has been primarily about the infobox, and thus I do not believe that the scope of this discussion has moved outside of the infobox.

The process, is not as important as is reaching a consensus as to whom should be in the infobox, however an orderly process does help in reaching such a consensus that may form. This is why I asked the questions at the beginning of the discussion, to help guide the discussion towards a consensus. The first question is a primary one that needs to be asked.

Is there are need to change the individuals in the infobox who represent ethnicities under the definition of Asian American that has been agreed to (see the discussion above)?

— RightCowLeftCoast

The discussion above is this discussion of considerable length.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I've been invited to this discussion, as one of the past participants in the infobox content debate, here's my very brief two cents. If people want to revisit the selections, that's fine by me. We can gain consensus by discussing the choices here, much as was done previously back in the 2009-2010 time frame. Regarding politicians in the infobox, my opinion at this time is that there's no need to prevent their inclusion nor do I feel that there's a need to mandate balance by party affiliation. I would simply hope that the infobox doesn't become overly populated by politicians . . . but we can wait and see what choices arise during this discussion. — Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The person who initiated the switch in images was relatively new and hasnt been on for a few days - so they may have decided that Wikipedia was not for them and the issue may be moot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, and it appears that consensus has indeed changed regarding politicians. That being said I still maintain the two opinions that I believe excluding politicians avoids any political imbalance that may (in a good faith way) be injected into the infobox. Given the wide political differences between the different ethnicities that fall under the scope of this subject, and the changes from past political affiliation trends within each of those different ethnicities, it would be a disservice to the infobox if there was a political imbalance. Therefore, I believe political balance, since the consensus has changed, is important.

That being said, I still believe it better for the infobox that there be no politicians within it to sidestep any political related issues that may come from their inclusion.

Since there appears to be a change of consensus for changing the individuals may I propose that others who are interested answer the questions above so that we can help develop the criteria for whom should be included in the infobox?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Selection process discussion

1. What ethnicities should be represented in the infobox? Should there be a minimum population requirement for those ethnicities to be included in the infobox? What should that minimum population be?
2. How many notable individuals should represent each ethnicity to be represented in the infobox?
3. How should notable individuals be chosen to be a representative in the infobox? How should consensus be formed?
4. At what time, in the future (if any), should the notable individuals in the infobox be reviewed or reconsidered?

• Answers by RightCowLeftCoast:

1. ) It is my opinion all Asian American ethnicities whose population is over 250 thousand persons should be included. Therefore using the figures from the 2010 United States Census, Chinese Americans (not including Taiwanese Americans), Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans, Pakistani Americans, Cambodian Americans & Hmong Americans should be included at this present time. I believe that in the future, this should be reassessed after figures are released following the next decennial US census.
2. ) Using the answers from my second question answer, there should be a total of 12 individuals in the infobox. 9 for the individuals who represent the 9 ethnicities over 250 thousand, and 3 additional for politicians and political appointees (1 Democrat, 1 Republican, 1 for a politician from another party (whether that be Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Communist, etc.)) regardless of their Asian ethnicity.
3. ) Notable individuals from each ethnicity should be nominated, and a consensus reached as to whom that person should be. This consensus should be formed from gathering the widest amount of active editors interested in the American diaspora of that ethnicity as possible, with the nominee of that ethnicity with the largest amount of support (being aware of WP:VOTE when creating a straw poll) being placed in the infobox once the consensus for that ethnicity is reached.
4. ) It is my opinion that the choices should be reviewed every other year, and after the next decennial census population figures (complete, including Asian alone or in any combination) are published. The process should begin all over again, if there is a change in consensus that those in the infobox no longer adequately represent Asian Americans.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

1) The images should attempt to represent the range of backgrounds of "Asian-Americans", throughout history and areas of impact and gender, and take into consideration America's "special relationship" with Viet Nam/Laos/Cambodia as well as the history of Hawaii's population and its connection to Japan, China, the Philpines and Korea.

2) 9 seems to be a good number although given the vast diversity covered by "Asian American", 12 might be needed. I dont think there should be any special dispensation about politicians.

3) RightCowLeftCoast's proposal of what appears to be the process previously used seems reasonable. The nomination and selection periods should both be via formal Requests for Comment and notices to the appropriate project pages should be made.

4) we cannot make fiats to cover future behavior or editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets wait 2 weeks (25 OCT 2012) for others to weigh in their answers, as to see where consensus is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are being far too politically correct here. Sure it's nice to have a representative from every ethnicity but what if there is none to really talk about? Should we take down someone who got the nobel prize of physics and advanced science 50 years and replace him with a nobody just because achievement in his specific asian ethnic background is overrepresented? Another ridiculous aspect is to have representation from each political party. I think the most balanced approach is to have as many ethnic backgrounds within reason. For instance I disagree with the inclusion of the Hmong representative. What has he achieved? YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmong Americans make up a significant population of Asian Americans, with 260,073 individuals who are Hmong or Multiracial Hmong Americans. How is it that the infobox should be "representative from every ethnicity" but exclude Hmong Americans? Should the infobox should be overly populated by a single or a small handful of Asian American ethnicities, and excluding other ethnicities with a sizeable population?

When the character of Khan was introduced to the show, there was a segment that questioned where Khan is from. Asian Americans are not only a handful of ethnicities, but are a race that come from many countries with significantly different immigration histories and cultures.

Should the article's infobox contain a bias if one political party is over-represented over other parties? As with cultures, each ethnicity has significant different political histories with different political affiliation trends. Some are majority Democrat, others are majority Republican, others have changed (historically) what party has majority support. Should the politicians, if included, be those who fit the current political affiliation demographics, or the demographics of a past period verified by a reliable source? If the latter, what historical period?

IMHO, having an infobox that represents those Asian American ethnicity populations with over 250,000 serves best to represent the diversity of Asian Americans, and to be inclusive politically also serves to represent the diversity of Asian American political views.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the term asian american can be defined as a race. It is simply an indicator of the geographical location of origin. If you tell a Japanese American that he is of the same race as an Indian American, he'll laugh in your face.YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not doubt your statement, however, given the Census Bureau definition, which is the definition used as the scope of this article. This discussion of scope goes all the way back to 2007, and has been stable. No need to return to this topic.

Additionally, this discussion should remain on subject in regards to individuals in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The 25th has come and gone, and only two editors have commented fully. There appears to be a consensus for a straw poll, however there is no consensus for much else. Perhaps we should return back to the old nomination and straw poll process that was used back in 2009?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much objection to the new info box which frankly isn't much different to the old one other than the fact that the people are much more notable. YvelinesFrance (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

YvelinesFrance's attempt to subvert the process by introducing his own selections instead of waiting for consensus, and by using a misleading edit summary ([1]) is tantamount to vandalism. This deliberately subversive behavior should disqualify him from the ongoing infobox discussion. — Myasuda (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The original infobox's 'consensus' had what? 3 people? It is also over 3 years old. This discussion has been in place for nearly a month of which you took no part. If you have a problem with the infobox tell us what you would like to change rather then making attacks. And seriously what the heck are you talking about 'subversive behavior'? YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that I "took no part" is incorrect, as you'll notice that I chimed in earlier this month. And your dishonest attempt to sneak in your infobox choices before the poll has been conducted by using a misleading edit summary is reprehensible. Or, can you possibly identify the IP you're referring to in your edit summary here [2]? The sad thing is that your infobox choices are generally reasonable, but you appear to lack patience, diplomacy, and honesty. — Myasuda (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the changes made surreptitiously by IP 98.151.215.4. If you want to debate selections then do so but I for one do not accept Anna May Wong as the Chinese representative and Seo Jae Pil as the Korean representative. They both lack notability and neither have achieved important things though it could be argued that Anna May Wong's influence was actually corrosive. I also think the change from extremely renowned astrophysicist and nobel laureate Chandrasekhar to some talk show media TV man is quite in poor taste. Furthermore you have reverted my changes with the excuse that 'discussions are ongoing' yet those changes are different from what they were originally. If you want to revert them to what they were you'd have to use the infobox where half the people are astronauts that died in the columbia space shuttle disaster. YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we are going to gain anything by continuing to focus on editors, lets keep that to the user talk pages and focus here on how we can achieve a consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Back to topic, I'd be satisfied with following RightCowLeftCoast's suggestion from October 27 (straw poll). Then we can have an entry by entry discussion, out in the open and available for future reference. — Myasuda (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, there was not a consensus to the changes made by the IP editor or YF, this why this discussion was started. To claim that there was a consensus for those changes would be stating a lie as fact, and to state there was not a consensus in the past, given that there was a lengthy discussion and selection process, shows that one at that time was developed.

All that being said let me set up the straw polls. I will open up the nominations for a 3 week period ending (13 November 2012).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about dividing up the representation equally for all ethnicities, out of the total to be representation, so that the ethnicities of smaller populations in the US, e.g. Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, Cambodian, have more and equal representation to those of Chinese heritage (Chinese-Americans obviously will form the largest Asian-American group and will thus have the most representation...). Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Population wise Non-Chinese Asian Americans are a 13 million of the 17 million total Asian Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Selection nominations

I have, per consensus, opened up the nomination period for Infobox ethnicity representatives. As was done before (in 2009), I will divide it up based upon ethnicities by population. Additionally I will open up three slots for political nominees as was proposed. This period will begin 29 October 2012, and will be closed on 13 November 2012, giving those who wish to make a nomination ample time to submit a name. Please only nominate those who have a photo available to be used in the infobox.

Additionally, I will create please see notifications to appropriate wikiprojects regarding this period.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please place the nominations as follows: *[[Jane Doe]]--~~~~

Chinese American infobox representative nominees

• IM Pei, one of the greatest architects of all time. YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Maya Lin, designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Tony Hsieh, Taiwanese American CEO of Zappos.com.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ang Lee, director of multiple films.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Anna May Wong, first Chinese American movie star, and first Asian American international star.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Iris Chang, the author of The Rape of Nanking.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Amy Tan, the author of The Joy Luck Club.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Xiong Yan, naturalized American citizen, mainland China dissident.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Steven Chu, Nobel Prize recipient, 12th Secretary of Energy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ed Lu, Astronaut.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Michelle Kwan, Olympic Gold Medalist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Connie Chung, first Asian American Co-anchor of a major network's national news broadcast.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Filipino American infobox representative nominees

• Tani Cantil-Sakauye, 28th Chief Justice of California.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Eleanor Mariano, first Filipino American Rear Admiral in the United States Navy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Edward Soriano, Lieutenant General in the United States Army; highest ever ranking Filipino American service-member.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Jose Calugas, first Asian American Medal of Honor recipient of World War II.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian American infobox representative nominees

• Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Anyone who has studied astrophysics at high school or university will know him. Very famous Indian American astrophysicist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics. YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Dinesh D'Souza, President of The King's College.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Kalpana Chawla, Astronaut, died aboard Columbia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sanjay Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Aziz Ansari, Actor & comedian.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Kal Penn, Actor, civil servant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese American infobox representative nominees

• Eugene H. Trinh, Vietnamese American astronaut . . . nothing wrong with at least one astronaut in the infobox. ;) — Myasuda (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Duy-Loan Le, TI wireless communications program manager for Laplace at Texas Instruments, and TI Senior Fellow. Received numerous awards and honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Joseph Cao, First Vietnamese American in Congress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Korean American infobox representative nominees

• Jim Yong Kim First Asian American to become president of an Ivy League university. First Asian to become president of the World Bank. Harvard educated physician with a Phd in anthropology. YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sarah Chang, Philadelphia born Korean American violinist and one of the first three female recipients of the Avery Fisher Prize — Myasuda (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• John Cho, Actor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Margaret Cho, Actress & comedian.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Lee Soon-kyu, member of Girls' Generation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Grace Park, Actress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Hwang Mi-young, member of Girl's Generation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Jessica Jung, member of Girl's Generation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Dan Choi, former United States Army officer, LGBT activist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Jay Kim, first Korean American elected to Congress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sammy Lee, First Asian American gold medalist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Seo Jae-pil, first Korean American citizen, Korean independence advocate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese American infobox representative nominees

• Sessue Hayakawa First true Hollywood star ever. Also the first Hollywood heartthrob, with girls all over America fawning over him. This led to resentment in American men leading them to start making extremely racist depictions of Asian americans in future Hollywood releases. YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Daniel Inouye, current president pro tempore of the United States Senate and consequently the highest-ranking Asian American politician in U.S. history. — Myasuda (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• James Iha, guitarist of The Smashing Pumpkins.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Grant Imahara, Electrician on MythBusters.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Mako Iwamatsu, Actor & Voice Actor, naturalized citizen.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Miyoshi Umeki, Academy Award winning actress.
• George Takei, Actor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ronald Takaki, Historian.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Iva Toguri D'Aquino, best known as Tokyo Rose.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Eric Shinseki, first Asian American Chief of Staff of the Army, 7th Secretary of Veterans Affairs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sadao Munemori, first Japanese American Medal of Honor recipient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Norman Mineta, first Asian American Cabinet member.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Ellison Onizuka, first Asian American astronaut, died aboard Challenger.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Apolo Ohno, Olympic speed skating Gold Medalist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Kristi Yamaguchi, Olympic figure skating Gold Medalist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani American infobox representative nominees

• Shahid Khan, billionaire businessman and the first Asian American owner of an NFL team. An apparently public domain (per the tag) photo can be found at Wikia: [3] — Myasuda (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cambodian American infobox representative nominees

• Haing S. Ngor, author and winner of the 1985 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. He became a US citizen in 1986. — Myasuda (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Asian American infobox representative nominees

• Dalip Singh Saund, first elected Asian American in Congress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Asian American infobox representative nominees

• Joseph Cao, first Vietnamese-American member in US House of Representatives, known for his work in the federal gov't and in relief efforts during Hurricane Katrina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen1310 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

By American standards, he does not see really "conservative". RGloucester (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bobby Jindal, 55th Governor of Louisiana.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Middle Eastern American template

Would it be a good idea to include the Middle Eastern American template to the bottom of this page, since the Middle East is in Western Asia? 69.248.98.23 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article appears to take as its basis the American census ethnic categorizations, which do not include Middle Eastern backgrounds. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about the definition of Asian Americans currently being had at the Template:Asian American talk page, the two discussions are interrelated, and should be kept in one place. That being said, as the consensus has been that the definition to be used for Asian American is that used by the US Census Bureau, which in turn uses the definitions as defined by the OMB; please see the links to those reliable sources on the discussion linked at "talk page", and in the archives of this talk page. Therefore, I would be opposed to the addition of the Middle Eastern American template to this article as it does not fall within this article's scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)