Flags[edit]

Will change flags of nation to appropriate flag at time of birth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Flags discussion

Recently an IP editor removed the flags relating to the ancestry of the Asian American astronauts, this was reverted, only to be removed again. The IP editor gave the removal reasons for the following reasons:

It's inappropriate to use a politcal symbol, ie a national flag, to represent a person's ethnicity specially for American born in the US.

and

Undid revision 418113756. The use of a national flag is a form of political allegiance and you can't arbitrarily assign foreign allegiance to someone born in the US base on their surname.

These flags have been in the article since it was created. Only recently did I change the flags to match the flag of that nation at the time of the individual's birth. This kept with MOS:FLAG#Historical considerations.

It is my contention, holding an opposing view of the IP editor that the listing, and inclusion of a flag, is not meant to indicate the individual holds any allegiance to the nation in question, but as the table indicates it is the country of origin of the individual's ethnicity.

Rather than this developing into an WP:EW, I would like to reach a consensus as to whether the article should include flags or not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very explicit that the flags refer to country of ancestry. Nothing is said about "political allegiance", and the IP editor's opinion that using such flags is "arbitrarily assign[ing] foreign allegiance" is baseless. Flags are used to refer to lots of things, not just politics, but also culture, ethnicity, and geography. Does the editor really think that an Italian restaurant that flies the Flag of Italy has a "foreign allegiance"?RandomCritic (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While naturally I am opposed to flags being in articles like that, I think that it works and is acceptable here. I agree that they should be kept and work well here.--NavyBlue84 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm the IP editor that removed the PRC flags as symbol of Chinese ancestry. I apologize for the controversies but I strongly object to the use of the PRC flag as a representation of people of Chinese ancestry. PRC is a single party authoritarian state so there is very little distinction between the state and the party. I don't have anything against the communist party, however, I do object to authoritarian state regardless of party affiliations. It would be like an American flag with a picture of a donkey or an elephant substituting the 50 white stars, and outlawing the other parties. PRC flag, represents the single party rule of China, rather than China, and much less its people. Quoting wikipedia's entry on the PRC flag, "The red represents revolution; the five stars and their relationship represent the unity of the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China."

Bringing this back to the greater Asian American representation, question arises when we expand beyond just the "Han" Chinese. Should we represent Dalai Lama's ancestry using the PRC flag or the Tibetan flag? Furthermore, what's the criteria for using the PRC flag on someone whose Chinese ancestry predates that of the PRC? Take astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, how is he related to PRC?

I don't mind mentioning someone's ethnicity, but I do object to using political flags to identify an individual without a clear set of criteria. I understand the intention of using the flag is not to represent political affiliation, but national flags are political symbols regardless of our intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.233.98 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although we may have our own opinions, we must also adhere to WP:NPOV; therefore the use of th PRC flag for China after 1950 or 1979 is not due to our own opinions but are keeping with the previously stated guideline of MOS:FLAG#Historical considerations. However, if we cannot come to a consensus which benchmark to use per aforementioned guideline, then the use of flags for nation of ancestry, should be avoided to maintain aforementioned NPOV.
All this being said my preference is for the latter date rather than the former, as it would then be based on American withdrawal of recognition of the Republic of China. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's appropriate to use PRC flag when denoting someone's citizenship or prior citizenship, but the term Asian American, or more specifically Chinese Americans, refers to someone's ethnicity, which I don't think can be denoted by the PRC flag, or any national flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.233.98 (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the flags are not denoting nationality or prior citizenship, but individual's ethnicity, and by no means describes the individual's political allegiance. As stated before, the use of the RoC or PRC flag is consistent with the MOS:FLAG#Historical considerations, and is irregardless of our (as editors) individual opinions regarding the controversy around the present disagreement between the two nations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. We are using national flags out of context when we equate it to a person's ethnicity. Are we stating for a fact that the PRC is representation of Chinese ancestry? because I see it assign to Franklin Chang-Diaz and Ed Lu whom we presume are of Chinese ancestry from their last name, do we know for certain their ancestors are all PRC citizens? we are sure none of the ancestors are from any other Asian ethnicity, ie Japanese, Korean, or Filipino. There are quite of intermarriage between the various Asian American ethnic groups. What's the criteria for using the PRC or any foreign national flag to denote a particular ethnicity?
MOS:FLAG#Historical considerations cautioned against rewriting history, which I think is what we are doing when we equate ethnicity to national flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.233.98 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those editors who are in support of keeping the flag icons are not making any comment as to any allegiance the individual on the list have to the nation where their ethnicity is from; therefore we are not attempting to rewrite history. Please don't make this accusation, as it is not keeping with WP:CIVIL.
I understand your concerns regarding the matter, however I do not see the harm in keeping the flags as is; furthermore, there have been a consensus from other wikipedians prior to these most recent entries in support of keeping the flags. Of course I understand that consensus may change in the future...
If flags are to be removed please suggest other ways to denote the individual's listed on this article ethnicity. This proposal may or may not gain support from other editors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the example cited in MOS:FLAG#Historical considerations, "For example, writer Oscar Wilde, a native of Ireland while that island was entirely part of the United Kingdom, should have neither an Irish flag nor a British flag, as either would confuse readers." Flag denotes citizenship, but not ancestry because often times, for politically diverse areas like China, people's ancestry often predate the political flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.233.98 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FLAGBIO also states "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death", "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" I think while icon like flags offers a concise expression of information, their use in this situation is inappropriate due to the complexity of the Asian American heritage. This is a list of Asian American Astronaut so it should be pretty self explanatory and if people are interested in knowing more about a particular astronaut, they can always follow the link and read the full bio. Even though my objection is mainly with the PRC flag representing Chinese ancestry, however, according to MOS:FLAGBIO, use of the other flags are also inappropriate and should be removed as well. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.233.98 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presently there has been a consensus (as stated at the beginning of this discussion thread) to keep the flags. I understand the objection stated, however, that does not mean that I agree with the objection.

As stated before, if you contend that the use of flags violates WP:FLAGBIO, please propose how else the individual's on this list should have their ethnicity(s) indicated on this list, and attempt to build a consensus for that change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Asian American Astronaut" is self explanatory. The columns listing "Country of Ancestry" needs to be removed. However, according to WP:FLAGBIO flags should not be used at all on the list. People on the list are "Asian American." America is a multi-cultural heterogenous society and we should not reduce someone's ethnicity or heritage down to a single foreign flag. This is true for everyone, not just Asian Americans. The list is a starting point and if people are interested they can follow the link and read the full bio on each individual astronaut. --76.194.233.98 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to edit this article per WP:BOLD, and this time I will not revert it, but that does not mean that it wont be reverted by someone else.
Otherwise, I suggest that we follow WP:IAR and leave the article as is, and leave it be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger concern[edit]

I don't have a problem with the flags, but I'm concerned about this list as a whole. In particular, without a source making a similar list, it appears to fail the notability critera WP:NLIST. Mlm42 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - plus I really dislike these lists anyway, splitting up people with equal achievements purely based on race... Colds7ream (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is was not done directly, one can see this as a split from the article Asian American. The notable contributions section is VERY large and is a big reason why that article falls under WP:TOOLONG. The individuals themselves are notable, as is the subject of the parent article if you agree with the idea that this is a split from that article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the size of the Asian American article means that we should be creating "List of Asian American <profession>" for every profession. I see this article more related to List of space travelers by nationality, which isn't too long. Are there things in the present article which couldn't be incorporated into List of space travelers by nationality? If not, then I don't see a need for a separate article. Mlm42 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And List of Asian Americans isn't too big either. I really fail to see the need of this article, given that it doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST. Mlm42 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are on List of Asian Americans anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand on your thought. I don't see how this article does not meet NLIST. The individuals in this list pass WP:BIO, furthermore the topic of this article defines the scope, which all these individuals fall within. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information in this list is unique, and it is not duplicated and should not be duplicated in List of space travelers by nationality. That article lists astronauts and other space travelers by their current nationality, not by ethnicity. All the astronauts and space travelers listed in this article are citizens of the United States of America. RandomCritic (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; but why not include it in List of Asian Americans? It doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN (sorry, I may have made a typo, and linked to the wrong policy page), because we need a source, which considers this list as a group or set. Mlm42 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under that guideline, this article falls under "Lists of X of Y", being that it is a list of Asian American Astronauts, Astronauts are notable in and of themselves, Asian Americans (as a subject/group) is notable in and of itself, this is about a group of notables being seperated based on ethnicity & nationality. The term "Asian American astronaut" has been mentioned fifty four thousand nine hundred times on google. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting whether the List of Asian Americans is notable.. but the point is, that list isn't big enough to warrant splitting off a dozen astronauts as a separate list.
Also, with so many google hits, maybe you can find a reliable source which discusses "Asian American astronauts" as a group or set? Mlm42 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I too would see that there is no warrant for a separate list of American astronauts by ethnicity. It can be handled as a part of the list of astronauts by nationality, where I would suppose Asian ethnicity could also be noted if that aspect is separately notable and is supported by source citations by each entry. N2e (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I was talking about size, I was referring to the main Asian American article, not the List of Asian American list. The Asian American list, although long up and down, is still of appropriate size.
As for group set, there are a lot of hits with the term Asian American astronaut, but it gets harder to find when you add the s. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the size of the Asian American article isn't particularly relevant. I still think this article should be merged into List of Asian Americans; there's no need for a separate list on account of article size, and there don't appear to be any reliable sources that independently justify the existence of this list. In particular, if I were to nominate this list for deletion, it is possible it wouldn't survive.. to avoid doing this, a merge into List of Asian Americans would be preferable. Of course, there would be nothing stopping us from making a section in List of Asian Americans titled "Astronauts", and copying this table there. Does that sound reasonable? Mlm42 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have completed WP:BEFORE; if you believe that this article does not pass WP:GNG then bring this article up for AfD, and let the community decide if it should be kept, merged & redirected to List of Asian Americans, or deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping I wouldn't have to start an AfD, since merging seems much less hostile.. but RightCowLeftCoast, I take it you are against a merge and redirect to List of Asian Americans? Mlm42 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a merger as I am content with the article as is; however, if this is AfD'd I would rather see it merged and redirected, then deleted outright. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete; REDIRECT established[edit]

Per the 2011-03-30 consensus, per Tag at top of the article, I have completed the merge.

 Done

Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories