Wikipedia

Talk:Asian Americans/Archive 7

< Talk:Asian Americans
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Shrigley in topic Infobox ethnicity representatives
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Asian-American Sports Section - Jeremy Lin

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Infobox Image discussion 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Languages

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Infobox ethnicity representatives

Latest comment: 11 years ago319 comments13 people in discussion

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):

--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)

Multiracial Asian Americans

YnelinesFrancis, please stop removing Multiracial Asian Americans, as you did here, here, here, here, here, and here. The removal violates WP:TPO; these comments are not Off-topic, as a large perecentage of mulitplace Asian American ethnicity populations are multiracial, including Filipino and Japanese (860,917 and 462,462 respectively). Moreover, there are 2,646,604 Multiracial Asian Americans. There are at least two editors here who do not agree with the POV that the only Asian Americans are only those who are only full Asian, and thus excluding Multiracial Asian Americans. So please do not remove others nominations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Two editors disagreeing with me makes me wrong? There is a reason why the population of multiracials is separated to those of asians in the titlebox. No multiracial asian would be accepted as full asian whether in China, Korea or Japan or their expatriate communities.. These countries put very strong emphasis on blood. The case for Ne Yo is ludicrous. He's only quarter Chinese. He is not chinese not even a tiny bit. How many multiracials are in the white american info-box? If you want multiracial Filipinos representing filipino americans that is your call as it is true the Philippines puts no emphasis on blood (but discriminates hugely on skin color). But for korea, japan and china, multiracials don't belong at all. In fact multiracials only belong in the multiracial article not in the asian american article. YvelinesFrance (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying you are wrong, however you do not have, nor do I, have the right to remove someones nominations. It maybe the case that in China, Korea, and/or Japan that Amerasians, or Multiracial individuals, or Hapas are not considered Chinese, Korean, or Japanese however that is not the case here in present day America; although some may subscribe to the One Drop Rule, that is not universally subscribed to.
For instance Joseph Cao has been listed as a conservative nominee. It is not my place to remove the nominee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Selection nominations

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nominations have been closed, a voting period will be opened on, or before, 19 November 2012, and will close after 18 December 2012; this will provide 4 weeks to allow those interested the time to state their support for a nominee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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]], reason.--~~~~

Chinese American infobox representative nominees

Filipino American infobox representative nominees

Indian American infobox representative nominees

Vietnamese American infobox representative nominees

Korean American infobox representative nominees

There are multiple reasons for which I disagree. Main reason being she is multiracial and thus, not of Korean blood. If you think this multi-racial or african american belongs on this list then tell me if you call Barack Obama a white man. Because I have never seen anybody ever call Obama a white person despite the fact that he's half white and was raised only by his white half of the family. People usually refer to Obama as african american or multi-racial.YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:35, 31 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)
Reading his biography, he was a temporary Japanese American, having only lived a total of 18 of his 84 years in the United States. There is no doubt he is a great actor, but unlike many listed here, he was never citizen of the United States. However, it can be argued that residency in the United States alone is enough to be included in the subject's scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The racist american regime at the time seldom gave asians american citizenship. Indeed they even stripped the chinese of their citizenships while sending the japanese to concentration camps. He is also counted as a japanese american on the japanese american wikipedia page. YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani American infobox representative nominees

Cambodian American infobox representative nominees

Hmong American infobox representative nominees

Liberal Asian American infobox representative nominees

Conservative Asian American infobox representative nominees

By American standards, he does not see really "conservative". RGloucester (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
indeed, I see that the National Journal described him as the most liberal Republican in the HR. In current US politics, Republican may usually = conservative, but not always. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Third party Asian American infobox representative nominees

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Representative approval

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese representative Steven Chu, Filipino representative Eleanor Mariano, Indian representative Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Vietnamese representative Eugene H. Trinh, Korean representative Jim Yong Kim, Japanese representative George Takei, Pakistani representative Nadia Ali, Cambodian representative requires a Run-off poll between Haing S. Ngor & Dith Pran, Hmong representative Vang Pao, Liberal Asian representative Daniel Inouye, Conservative Asian representative Bobby Jindal, Third party representative Richard Aoki. Changes will be made upon completion of run-off poll on a date after 10 January 2013.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Keeping with the past process of choosing past infobox representatives we shall bring about consensus about who of the proposed shall be in the infobox

  • Nomination period: It has passed, and was open from 29 October 2012 until 16 November 2012.
  • Consensus period: Start immediately and shall last until 18 December 2012.
  • The consensus shall be discovered conducted using simple approval voting. Any editor may show their support for a nominee by placing the following in the appropriate section:
     # '''support''' — ~~~~
    Any editor may support as many of the nominees as they wish. The candidate in each section with the highest number of supporters will be chosen.
  • Keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification the WikiProjects that were previously notified, will again be notified, as will those individual editors who have been involved in the discussion and nomination process.

Chinese American infobox representative

====Votes in support of Jeremy Lin==== Jeremy Lin didn't get nominated? :o —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Votes in support of Iris Chang
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Steven Chu
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Connie Chung
  1. Support, As the second female co-anchor, and first Asian American co-anchor of a major network's national news broadcast, she is a historically significant individual when it comes to broadcasting. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Tony Hsieh
  1. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Michelle Kwan
Votes in support of Ang Lee
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Maya Lin
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support, architect responsible for the design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Civil Rights Memorial, and sat on the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You're joking right? If we are going to nominate a Chinese architect, it's going to be IM Pei, not some talentless hack. She designed the vietnam veterans memorial? Wow! IM Pei designed the Louvre in Paris and he does not glorify american mass murderers who killed millions of vietnamese civilians. Get this disgusting human off this nomination list. YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Ed Lu
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Ne-Yo
  1. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of IM Pei
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Amy Tan
Votes in support of Leehom Wang
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Anna May Wong
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, Los Angeles born Chinese American actress; first American-born Asian American film star woes roles had a major impact on the American image of Asian American women, as well as having the first television show to star an Asian American. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Xiong Yan
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Filipino American infobox representative

Votes in support of Jose Calugas
  1. support, first Asian American medal of honor recipient of World War II; first Asian American medal of honor recipient with an available public domain photo. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Tani Cantil-Sakauye
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Eleanor Mariano
  1. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, first Filipino American flag officer. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Edward Soriano
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, as of this edit the highest ranking Filipino American officer in the United States military. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian American infobox representative

Votes in support of Aziz Ansari
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Kalpana Chawla
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, first Indian woman in space; first Indian American astronaut, died aboard Columbia. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Dying on a spaceship! What a great achievement! YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dinesh D'Souza
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Sanjay Gupta
  1. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Norah Jones
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Kal Penn
Votes in support of Sunita Williams

Vietnamese American infobox representative

Votes in support of Joseph Cao
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support, first Vietnamese American congressman. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Duy-Loan Le
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Not only the first woman, and first Asian American, to reach a high-level position in Texas Ins., she's also a philanthropist helping to provide education to poor, rural schoolchildren in her native homeland as well as in 10 other nations. She also had an early life of hardship and poverty.
Votes in support of Eugene H. Trinh
  1. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support, first Vietnamese American astronaut in space. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Maggie Q
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Korean American infobox representative

Votes in support of Sarah Chang
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of John Cho
Votes in support of Margaret Cho
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dan Choi
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Herbert Choy
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support, first Asian American federal judge, first Korean American admitted to the bar. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow big deal. His achievements are now very commonplace among asian americans. Let's nominate a korean american who's actually done something useful. YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Hwang Mi-young
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Chanel Iman
  1. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Jessica Jung
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Jay Kim
  1. Support, first Korean American congressman. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Jim Yong Kim
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — First asian-american head of the World Bank, first asian-american president of an Ivy League university. YvelinesFrance (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Sammy Lee
  1. support, first Asian American Olympic gold medalist. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Lee Soon-kyu
Votes in support of Grace Park
Votes in support of Seo Jae-pil
  1. support, first naturalized Korean American citizen of the United States, champion of the Korean independence movement. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese American infobox representative

Votes in support of Sessue Hayakawa
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of James Iha
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Grant Imahara
Votes in support of Daniel Inouye
  1. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, medal of honor recipient, first Japanese American congressmen, first Japanese American senator. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Mako Iwamatsu
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Norman Mineta
  1. support, first Asian American Presidential Cabinet member. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Sadao Munemori
  1. support, first Japanese American medal of honor recipient, — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Apolo Ohno
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Ellison Onizuka
  1. support, first Asian American astronaut in space; died aboard Challenger — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Eric Shinseki
  1. support, as of this post highest ranked Asian American in the United States military. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Ronald Takaki
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of George Takei
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  6. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Iva Toguri D'Aquino
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Miyoshi Umeki
  1. support, first Asian American Academy Award winner. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Kristi Yamaguchi

Pakistani American infobox representative

Votes in support of Nadia Ali
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Mohammad Salman Hamdani
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Asma Gull Hasan
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Shahid Khan
  1. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This guy doesn't even have a picture, how are we supposed to put him in the picture infobox? YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a supposedly public domain photo of him at wikia. I'll see if I can drop it in his article some time in the next few days. — Myasuda (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support if a suitable public domain picture can be found. Mar4d (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cambodian American infobox representative

Votes in support of Haing S. Ngor
  1. support — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dith Pran
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Loung Ung
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support —Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmong American infobox representative

Votes in support of Vang Pao
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Asian American infobox representative

Votes in support of George Ariyoshi
Votes in support of Christopher Cabaldon
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Daniel Inouye
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dalip Singh Saund
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support, First Asian American congressman. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Asian American infobox representative

Votes in support of Steve Austria
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Joseph Cao
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Elaine Chao
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support, first Chinese American Presidential Cabinet member. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dinesh D'Souza
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Hiram Fong
  1. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Nikki Haley
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Bobby Jindal
  1. support — YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. support, first Indian American state governor. — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. support —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Michelle Malkin
I want to voice my objection to this entry. Malkin is a divisive character within the Asian-American community, with many Japanese Americans finding her stand on the WWII internment offensive. — Myasuda (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Malkin is a traitor and self hating racist, she will not get nominated. YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I could AGF since at least she's well known. On the other hand, the nomination of an unknown Chinese defector whose claim to fame was fighting for America's side in the controversial Iraq war (Xiong Yan), is purely provocative. Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. support — Bill william comptonTalk 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Third party Asian American infobox representative

Votes in support of Richard Aoki
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. support — Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This man is ridiculous and his inclusion as a potential candidate for any list involving asian americans is laughable. YvelinesFrance (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. support, based on search result scores — yellowtailshark (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Xiong Yan
  1. support — Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Provocative or not, I will support people who advocate for democracy, freedom and human rights in their homeland and elsewhere. I, and I believe all of us, should stand behind those who advocate for these inalienable rights that all people deserve, and support those who oppose all forms of authoritarian rule.
  1. support — RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cambodian American infobox representative run-off

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Haing S. Ngor has succeeded to gain consensus as the Cambodian American representative. Representatives will now be added to the infobox.

  • Consensus period: Start immediately and shall last until 10 January 2013.
  • The consensus shall be discovered conducted using simple approval voting. Any editor may show their support for a nominee by placing the following in the appropriate section:
     # '''support''' — ~~~~
    Any editor may support as many of the nominees as they wish. The candidate in each section with the highest number of supporters will be chosen.
  • Keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification the relevant WikiProjects and individual editors will be notified of this run-off period.
Votes in support of Haing S. Ngor
  • It's rather interesting that Dr. Ngor played the character of Dith Pran in The Killing Fields, but in terms of fame (because of his involvement in film), accomplishments (he is a physician as well), and his death being tied to the issue of Asian American gangs, Dr. Ngor seems to be a better fit of the two. (Yes I know I voted for Dith Pran in the previous voting round, but that was solely based on the fame/notability factor, rather than taking into account all 8 factors that were discussed.) yellowtailshark (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Votes in support of Dith Pran
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

general comments about the process

I did not notice this in the nomination process, but now that the !voting has begun, it appears that we are tilting heavily towards a current fame and recent impact, and missing a strong historical representation. any thoughts? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss this in preparation for a foreseeable 2013 selection round, but I do agree that historical significance should be among the factors. For example, when you think about the internet revolution that had begun to take root in the mid-1990s, Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo!, was one of the significant players of those years. When cinema was taking root, Anna May Wong became the first Asian American movie star. I'd like to think there was at least one Asian American present at pivotal moments in U.S. history, and I think it makes for a more fluid storytelling. However, maybe that is something that can be best integrated and expounded upon via the History of Asian Americans article first, which, at the moment, doesn't seem to connect well with the History of the United States. yellowtailshark (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Although I agree with the concerns given the tilt towards current fame and recent notability; at the same time, if consensus per a straw vote, sees them as the best representatives of the ethnicities, then should discussion be continued, or is the majority vote a showing of consensus?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Asians have been discriminated for a century and only recently and thanks to large waves of immigration, have they been able to overcome racist american barriers. Most great asian achievement was recent (post 60s). Before that asian american history was little different to african american slavery conditions. You don't have many notable african slaves from the slavery era do you? Blame racist white trash for that. Anna may wong did little more than perpetuate the racist stereotype of the asian female dragon lady. So obviously most notable Asian-Americans will have come from recent times. YvelinesFrance (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to briefly summarize the points by which nominees are judged that were brought up in both recent and past discussions. It seems these are criteria we're evaluating on, or want to evaluate on (not in any particular order):

  1. Impact on society — Including achievements, influence on the population, lasting repercussions of their work on contemporary society
  2. Impression — i.e. This person puts a positive or negative light on Asian Americans
  3. Notability/Fame — Familiarity among the public, mentions within mass communication
  4. Representation by ethnicity
  5. Representation of historic moments — In other words, could this person be an archetype or symbol of what was happening to or among a group or community of people (whether all Asian Americans or any of the ethnic subsets). This is a little different than Impact on Society in that, for example, Vincent Chin could be argued to be representative of anti-Asian sentiment that was occurring when the economy was bad for the American automobile industry, which we can differentiate from his individual accomplishments and impact on society.
  6. Has a portrait — Self-explanatory
  7. Professional classification — Politicians, entertainers (writers, singers, cinema), scientists/engineers, athletes, business people, etc.
  8. Political leaning — In general, a liberal, conservative, or third-party

Are there any other criteria by which we're judging each nominee? This raises a question: Should portraits selected for the infobox feature only individuals with an overwhelming positive impression? In other words, individuals in which there are a lot of controversy such as Michelle Malkin, would fail this criteria. Of course, the criteria might fail many political individuals, bringing up concerns of political imbalance. yellowtailshark (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good thing I think to try to have a representation from many different aspects of life and culture (ie not 6 images of politicians or 5 hollywood entertainers or 7 scientists).
The other aspect that may warrant discussion is about groups that have been important without any singular representative icon: Chinese railroad workers, Japanese internment camps, Japanese/Chinese/Filipino plantation workers in Hawaii etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If present counts keep, there will be Steven Chu (Scientist, Political Appointee/Politician), Eleanor Mariano (Military Officer), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Scientist), Eugene H. Trinh (Scientist, Astronaut), Jim Yong Kim (Doctor, Scientist, Political Appointee/Politician), George Takei (Actor), Nadia Ali (Musician), tie among Cambodians (Haing S. Ngor (actor) or Dith Pran (photographer)), Vang Pao (Foreign Military Officer), Daniel Inouye (Soldier, Politician), Bobby Jindal (Politican), and Richard Aoki (Activist). From this group we have a plurality of plurality of politicians or political appointees (4) and scientist (4).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Will the results of this selection on infobox representatives affect the portrait selection for the Americans article? yellowtailshark (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It can, but it need not necessarily effect that article. I had done the majority of updates to the content there in the Asian American section, and it was largely based on the images in the Asian American infobox at that time. If there is consensus we can also change the images there to match the images here, however I think that the images there should be as historic as possible, as not to advance a more recent notability bias.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It would seem that the selection of images for images in Americans#Asian Americans would draw from a pool of images not just exclusively from the infobox, but from the body of the article and, maybe, any of its split sub-articles. When the nomination process for the infobox was underway, was there already agreement that nominations of individual portraits that were already in the body of the article were removed for otherwise causing an unnecessary duplication? yellowtailshark (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. No consensus was formed for the choosing of the images there, nor nor was there any objections made to those selections either. Therefore, it could be said those in the section in the Americans article was done by myself with good intentions, but also bold and independently. If there is a consensus perhaps the infobox there could change to match the consensus that is formed here. Or, my preference would be, the infobox there reflect a historical (say pre-1965) choice of individuals that does not duplicate the individuals in the infobox that is in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather interested in helping facilitate the selection process with a separate project, in that case, to tag portraits "Asian American" (or similar) such that they show up in a gallery format, such as in Category:Featured pictures. I'll take any matter concerning this in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans group. yellowtailshark (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that WPAA has ever nominated an image to WP:FP in the past. I would not be opposed to such a move, but wonder what Asian American images would be worthy of nominating.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, Wikimedia Commons has pictures in the Asian Americans category already, so that saves me some time. yellowtailshark (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Where are the nominations for the general "Asian American" infobox? Or is it decided that they will be drawn from the individual ethnicities? —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 05:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The nomination process, that can be seen above, was open from 29 October to 13 November 2012. After which the voting process began. The nominees were from each ethnicity, under the Asian American racial grouping (as defined by the United States Census Bureau), whose population is over 250 thousand persons. An additional three nominees, regardless of ethnicity, were chosen for political balance, that being 1 liberal, 1 conservative, 1 third party. I hope this answers your questions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Americans/Archive_7&oldid=1136293566"