Talk:Asian people/Archive 1

message: i was thinking that this article deserves a paragraph on how avians are statistically better at video games than white people because they have shorter limbs which are naturally made up for by faster reflexes and movements. what do you guys think? Subtle one 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  video games 

message: Why all pictures are female asians? Shouldn't be better if there was a male celebrity picture?
Someone from a different country that the ones represented, like a Chinese men or something.
:The bias towards female photos is unencyclopaedic. There should be at least one male picture. It doesn't matter if they are a celebrity or not, nor which country they are from, as long as they can be considered Asian. Certainly having 50% of the pictures being of female Indian actresses cannot be right. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The balance of the articles is much improved now. There are three women and three men, and one transsexual (whichever). Four Indians, two Koreans, and a Vietnamese (American). I think we could afford to lose the guy near the bottom. However, another concern is that all these pictures are under a fair-use licence, which means they could (and should) be removed from this article at any time. It would be good to find some GFDL pics, to replace the ones which are there now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is quite straightforward to determine the copyright. Just look at the copyright notice under the picture you are thinking of using. Most of the pictures being put in this article are kept on Wikipedia under a fair use licence, which normally only allows, in the case of the fair use magazine cover photo you recently tried to introduce, to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In the case of screenshots, for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents. In the case of most publicity photos, to illustrate the person, product, event, or subject in question, in the absence of a free alternative. Use in other other articles is not usually fair use. We could do with FREE PICTURES OF ASIAN PEOPLE. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Stop changing the picture of Japanese James Iha. Are you trying to ignore the billions of Asian male in the world or something, they are going to wake up  , drink your water. If you are afraid of that, face the fact and deal with it and don't ignore Asian male pictures. This is ridiculous. They are not ignoring European male pictures do they? Stop changing this. I think the person that includes Asian female pictures are probably 1)  2)Phobia of Asian male 3)  4)  5) Doesn't want his or her daughter to end up being married to an Asian male because they are too many 5)  Stop changing these pictures, damn it!.71.196.236.162 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westerners are afraid of male Asians

message: As for this article there is deviation, it is eurocentric. The  is the inhabitant of the Asian human Asian . Something happened to the photograph of the Persian actor of the page?  We need the image of the Russian and the Turkish person of the Persian person of the Arabian.  The south Asian people above this of the “Asian person” and the aforementioned race group or are not fewer. indo aryan resembles race the Persian person and the Afghan person from the Far East and with the mongoloid Asian person.  As for this article it is necessary to be taken balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.1.74 (talk • contribs).
Yeah, BUT CULTURALLY AND PHILOSOPHICALLY, South Asians are closer to East Asians than Arabs, Persians, and Afghans could ever be. There's NO POINT for race classification for this article. Besides, many Mongoloids may get mistaken for Caucasoids anyway, and vice versa. Go to Russia, you can't always tell the difference between a white Slav from someone from the Caucasus. or an Asian from Central Asia or Siberia. Northern Asians often "look" Caucasoid too. You think a Siberian or a Japanese has anything to do with a Lao, in terms of ethnic origins? But at least, they might share many cultural, social, and aesthetic patterns that are unique to Asia-Pacific (Dharmic religions, ancestor worship, etc.) Le Anh-Huy 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnocentrism?

message: The assertion that Mongoloids could be mistaken for Caucasoids is complete rubbish.  They are never classified as Caucasoid in any dictionary or encyclopedia nor do they belong to any Indo-European races or speak any Indo-Iranian languges. Some Japanese have higher bridged noses etc. but are still unmistakably Mongoloid. This can also be proven on the EURASIAN page where mixed offsprings of whites and East Asians are more noticably `Eurasian' than the Anglo-Indians. Are the racist terms used by Westerners for East Asians the same as the ones used for South Asians? - NO!
After the 9/11 attacks many Pakistanis and Sikhs became the victims of prejudice.  I didn't hear of many Chinese, Japanese or Koreans being victims. Most Pakistanis I've met (Many of whom are indistinguishable from West Asians and even Southern Europeans) feel more closer to West Asians than to people from the Far-East. India also has the largest Muslm Minority - A West Asian Religion!! I do not dispute the fact that not all South Asians are Caucasoid.  The Dravidians have Australoid traits as well, and there are `Mongoiloid elements in the Eastern borders. Anthropologically however, in modern classification of races the word `Asian' in racial terms has also been a polite word to substitute the word `Mongoloid', which constitutes about 5% of India's population.  More photos have been added to the page but none of the ones of West Asians.  EITHER ADD THEM OR DELETE THE IMAGES OF SOUTH ASIANS ALL TOGETHER!
P.S. If a South Asian [South Indian] was exceptionally dark skinned many Westerners (especially in the U.K. or Australia) would be more inclined to dub them as being `Black' rather than `Asian'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.8.105 (talk • contribs) .
You're tone is unnecessarily too defensive for reasons I do not understand. Why such anger? This discussion page should be for ideas not fully discussed, not rants. 
From my (subjective) experience, I noticed that the only South Asians who "feel closer" to West Asians are Islamists who feel an aversion to their own culture. ie. Self-hating, Indian Muslims who secretly wished they were Arab, and are ashamed of their own South Asian, Dharmic-Brahmanic heritage. I've met moderate Pakistani and Indian Muslims who still feel closer to East Asians, not only in terms of aesthetic and culinary tastes (tea, rice, curry- of Indian origin- is eaten all over East Asia as legitimate localized dishes!, and NOT known in the Middle East), but in terms of a few other things. I've met many East Asians who are mistreated in airports. Any East Asian who does not look immediately stereotypical will be mistaken for Hispanic or even Middle-Eastern; as a person of East Asian descent, I get routinely mistaken for both of those two groups while I travel.  
Perhaps your bias and conclusive opinions of East Asians is due to lack of adaequate exposure. ie. perhaps you are exposed only to stereotypical Asian people. And also, when South Asians are mistaken for black, it is because of ignorant observers who lack exposure, and have only fixed impressions of how certain people should look. Many of my South Asian friends are expecially annoyed when they are mistaken for being black.
And also, I find when East Asians mix with either South or Mid-Easterners, the appearance of their offspring will not "contrast" and will appear "normal". For instance, when South Asians and East Asians mix, their offspring will appear naturally either of the two ,and not some "hybrid". Just like when Middle Easterners mix with East Asians, their offspring will appear either north Asian or Central Asian, and not a "hybrid" of the two. 
Le Anh-Huy 09:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGOLOIDS makes a mistake which for CAUCASOIDS?  Entire altogether other match!

message: I can't keep doing it or will run afoul of the 3RR. --Lukobe 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody PLEASE keep that picture of User:Dark Tichondrias out of this article. 

message: This section contains one doozy of a run-on sentence:
By the late 20th century, the term had gathered associations in North America with older attitudes now seen as outmoded, and was replaced with the term "Asian" as part of the updating of much language concerning race, which critics on the right derided as political correctness.
And I think the last clause, regarding political correctness, isn't really necessary; it just adds excessive length to the sentence, but does not warrant having its own sentence. I think removing that last bit might help the sentence be less awkward, without sacrificing any important information. Unless anyone thinks that the fact that the right called it political correctness is critical information, I'll go ahead and remove it.
Canuck90 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say leave it in and modify. Without anything following, it makes it sound like "Asian" is somehow fundamentally better than "Oriental." I think it's worth pointing out that this was cited as an example of political correctness. I would remove the bit about the right, however, because PC is not strictly a right-left matter. --Lukobe 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Canuck90 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "political correctness" does provide a link to that article, which has more detailed discussion of these language issues in case the reader is interested. (although I now see the link and discussion of the Asian vs. Oriental question are actually duplicated elsewhere in the article) No objection to removal of "on the right". --JWB 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Correctness sidenote in "Orientals and the Orient" 

message: to make it consistent with White (people)
:Sounds good --Lukobe 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting this whole article to [[Asian (people)]]

message: Can someone else (Not I, the lowly Anon) move this talk page over to the Asian (people) article?--66.16.19.198 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what happened to the talk page here? Le Anh-Huy 00:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone forgot to move it. It's here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Move/Smerge

message: I think Western Asians should be included here. They live in the Asian (sub)continent. South Asians generally look closer to West Asians so I don't see why Persians, Arabs, and Turks aren't included here. Zachorious 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: West Asians probably deserve a note, but in everyday usage they are rarely considered to be Asian and do not fit the stereotypical Asian appearance.  Additionally, the culture, which essentially defines an ethnic group, is extremely different, such as the prominence of Islam in West Asia compared to its relatively small population (practically no-one other than some of India).  Perhaps adding a note such as "While technically part of the continent of Asia, Western Asian peoples and cultures are considered to be separate from the definition discussed here" and then link its page for interested readers. *shrug* Keakealani 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *nods* completely understandable...like any ethnic group, there will always be people who don't fit, but Japanese people as a whole fit the definition better than, say, Saudi Arabian people as a whole.  If you want to write up a small section about Western Asians, that's fine, but I think it may be best to keep it in a separate main article. Keakealani 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Asia 

message: Some people are left out because they are Asian. People usually say they are chinese even though they are maybe not.
I'd feel bad removing these two sentences completely, but as it were it is not professional or encyclopedic and is mostly nonsense.  Could someone possibly translate this into something more meaningful?  Otherwise, consensus for deletion? Keakealani 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaa? re: Asian in Canada 

message: ----
are muslims or arabs considered to be asian in the uk?
:That really would depend.  Islam spans many ethnic groups, from Arabs to South Asians to East Asians and anyone in between.  In the case of the UK, Arabs probably would not be considered Asian; I haven't seen "Arab" listed anywhere on the UK census forms.  I am assuming, that like in the US, they are mostly assumed to be Caucasian. However, Pakistanis, who are overwhelmingly Muslim are most definitely considered Asian and are in fact listed specifically under Asian, along with Indian and Bangladeshi.  --GdaMan 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  muslims/arabs 

message: If the extent Dharmic relgion were used to define Asia as a place, then current common usage of the term "Asian" follows from origins in the original peoples of Asia.
Leaving aside how poorly this caption is written, does the map even belong as the first graphic in this article? --Lukobe 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, and I don't think is should be.  Do you know of a better map of Asia that could be used? If anyone has just a plain map I'm sure I could photoshop in a highlight of the region considered "Asian". --Keakealani //Me/Pokeh// 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharmic religion map 

message: I've removed the section "When is a person not Asian?" due to the fact that it is essentially redundant and isn't particularly well phrased anyway.  If anyone has any objections or would like to fix it, here it is: 
==When is a person not Asian?==
Despite the fact that these people are technically 'Asians' by geographical location, they have generally not been labeled as such in parts of or in some cases all of Western society. However, in many occasions, the term "Asian" is also used as a description of certain cultures.  
I have also moved the 'South Asians' section to "Asians in the UK and Anglophone Africa, since it is redundant to have the same discussion in two separate places.
—Keakealani //Pokeh// 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removal

message: It would be nice if a southeast asian(of the malayo-polynesia austronesian stock) is represented in the pictures on the top of the page. --Chicbicyclist 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SouthEast Asian pic representation 

message: In the section "Asian" in Asia, at least one of the captions is misleading.  David Wu, who is of Chinese descent, would be considered Asian in the USA Census and the Australian Census but not in the UK Census.
The classifications in the Australian census are:
:*6 NORTH-EAST ASIAN
:**61 Chinese Asian
:***6101 Chinese
The Broad Groupings distinguish between south-east Asian, north-east Asian and southern and central Asian and do not appear to aggregate more highly to "Asian".
For the UK (see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes) there is a broad grouping of "Asian" and a broad grouping of "Chinese or other" - coding would almost always be to the second level ie 81 not 8.  I don't see the significant difference to the Australian approach.
In the US, Asian — A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, The Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian.”  The coding does indeed seem to roll up to "Asian".
There is some point being made here that I can't quite see.  I think the assertion being inferred is that in the UK, if you are Chinese you are not Asian.  That is a long bow.  It may be that Chinese are aggregated separately from other Asians for census purposes because of the numbers in the past and hence the categorisation has been how to break the population down into reasonably sized classifications.  It does not necessarily follow that Chinese does not equal Asian in the UK.  However, it may be that the world view from the UK is different.  For example, the scope of the School of Oriental and African Studies includes China and Africa together.  I think more sophisticated refernces need to be used to make the point however that in the UK, Chinese are not considered Asians and/or Oriental and African is often grouped together.  
"Would be considered Asian, ...would not be considered Asian seems original research.  Statistical categorisation and aggregation does not equal "would be considered".  If what is meant is  "categorised", the article needs to say so and then also say in the case of "not categorised", what the categorisation was.--Arktos talk 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2001 UK Census link makes it clear that choice E "Chinese or other ethnic group" is in a different category than choice C "Asian or Asian British".  These are both on the same level of categorization i.e. capitalized Latin letters, so it is unlikely that choice E was conceived to be included in choice C.  If "Chinese or other ethnic group" was conceived to be part of "Asian or Asian British", "Chinese or other ethnic group" would have a smaller level of categorization.  This is not to say that these concepts are disjoint.  If someone identified as both "Chinese or other ethnic group" and "Asian or British Asian", then they would mark choice B "Mixed".--Dark Tichondrias 11:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading census classification inference 

message: It's like some editors are so desperate to have a Caucasian group included in the Asian category, but you don't want Middle Easterners (even though they live in Asia too) because they've becom so controversial.  Notice how the word Oriental became politically incorrect for no good reason.  It's only because Oriental reminds people that Asians are not Caucasian, and by creating a new category called Asian, some take comfort in associating themselves with Indians because they're Caucasian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.32.51 (talk • contribs) .
:Asian is a very common term for a number of groups - including people with Indian ethnicity. I could provide more references, from at least the UK, Europe, and Australia if you would like. I am fairly certain the term is used in a similar way in the United States - though some parts of the world differ in how exactly the term is used (south asian, west asian, etc), the broader label almost invariably includes people from India. I don't see what your problem is. Whatever you are calling Caucasian does not come into it at all. You ask is it "based on race or geography. Which is it?" - it is based on all sorts of things, principally every common use of the term. If you read the article you will see there are a lot of different usages. One of the most definitive sources is the censuses in each country, because they set the standard for classification of ethnic groups in their countries - we discuss them a fair bit. Some usages are based on country of origin, and others are based on self-identification and ethnicity. We need to cover them all in this article. Do you have a source which says that people from the middle-east are Asian? - I would be very interested to see it. Just to note I do not think the article is perfect at the moment, and it could do with a few improvements, but there is no need to redirect the whole thing to mongoloid. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard any Indian describe herslef as Asian and it sounds like wishful thinking to me. They may describe themselves as South Asians but then Arabs describes themselves as West Asians.  The UK census describes Indians as South Asian, but if you're going to have a generic category called Asian,  and you're only going to include some Asians in the category, then include only Orientals, because it was Orientals who created the term in the first place to replace the term Oriental.  But if you're going to make the term more inclusive and include Caucasian Asians, then include all the Caucasian Asians, not just the politically correct ones. In fact Arabs are more Asian than Indians are because India is a subcontinet.  What the hell is the point of an article called Asians that is only about East Asians, South East Asians and South Asians but not West Asians?  Why not just have separate articles for each subgroup. There's obviously a political motivation into lumping only certain completely unrelated regions of Asia into a meaningless category. Asianpeople 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm Indian, born and raised in the US, and I call myself Indian or Asian-American, South Asian only if I want to differentiate between myself and say, for instance, a Filipino.  Do me a favor and google "British Asian," and see what you get.  Look at the link (reference #1 I believe) and it will show you that in the UK, Asians are Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, but NOT Chinese.  I've traveled to the UK to visit family on many occasions, and I know from personal experience that the term "Asian" there is used to describe Indians, usually more often than the specific ethnic term of Indian.  I have family in South Africa and parts of Eastern Africa as well, and even over there, the term "Asian" is usually default for those who resemble Indians, not usually an East Asian.  This clearly differentiates us from Arabs.  "Orientals" in the US created the term Asian to replace the word Oriental, but I completely disagree with you if you meant that the word Asian was conceived by Asians.  In fact, I think it is generally understood that it was a word devised by Westerners and that most Asians did not have a word for Asian in their respective languages.  India is a subcontinent ONLY because it is divided from the rest of Asia by the Himalayan mountain range, but a subcontinent still has to be a part of A Continent.  If it weren't a part of Asia, then it would be its own continent, right? Which it isn't because believe it or not, India shares about 1800 km or so of direct land to land border with China.  If you ask any Indian in America if they'd consider themselves Caucasian, I can guarantee you that none of them would say yes.  I believe the point of this article is to explain the term Asian as it is used in the various non-Asian countries and to point out the obvious differences in perspective that arise with the use of the term based on historical connotations.  Most Asians in the US happened to be Chinese and Japanese in the early 1900s, whereas in the UK they were Indian.  So the current usage of the term "Asian" reflects that history.  Though Arabs are Asian by technicality, I know of no Arab who would consider themselves Asian.  Please don't forget that not all Arabs resemble South Asians; many of them actually are Caucasian or have African roots.  The ones that resemble South Asians happened to have had major appearances in the news recently (e.g. Afghanistanis).  Also, the character of "Asian" is defined by MORE than just physical appearance; CULTURE is a major aspect.  And in that regard, the root culture of South Asia, Hinduism (which gave rise to Buddhism) is most definitely Asian and is probably a major reason why Indians consider themselves Asian rather than Caucasian.  Islam exists in South Asia and it is pretty prevalent, but that is true for other parts of Asia, too, with Indonesia being the world's largest Muslim country; yet they are Asian.  So I am not quite sure why you would call Arabs more Asian than us or why you would want to call us Caucasian Asians.  GdaMan 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he's right. Indians are actually technically Caucasian. I do agree with you that "Asian" is more of a cultural term rather than an actual racial epithet. Asians in that sense includes the people of East and South-East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, central asians and to a limited extent, the people of the middle-east. Most of them share some aspect of thier culture snd is quite different from thier African and European counterparts. Most live on the Asian continent and like you mentioned, influenced or outright adapt each other's religion. --Chicbicyclist 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot see how Central Asians can be grouped with East Asians, South-East Asians and Indians, but only have a "limited extent" relationship to people of the Middle East. It simply defies logic. I would love to here how this imaginary line between the Middle East and Central Asia came into being. Technajunky 22:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm one of those Southeast Asian people who would rather see the the South Asians and the West Asians separate from the North Asians and the Austronesians. With that said, it's not my fault the Europeans and Americans prefer to group the three together in one umbrella term. --Chicbicyclist 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd just toss my two cents in here, that I personally consider Indians to be Asian regardless of what actual heredity they may have (Aryan, or whatever), simply because it is geographically and culturally much more similar to East Asia than it is to most Caucasian-majority nations.  I'm Asian (of multiple decent), yes, but I hardly think that the term is something coined by Asians to get out of being called Oriental - if anything, it was from the rise of over-political-correctness that occurred in the '60s.  At any rate, I don't really care for the obvious bias against Asians claiming that it's wishful thinking and racism-motivated, because at least in my case, it's absolutely not.  If it's wishful thinking, it's verifiable wishful thinking...and then you could call gravity the same thing. —Keakealani 05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to my response to gdman's comment above--Chicbicyclist 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do some Asians keep trying to associate themselves with Indians?

message: I'm not quite sure why citations would be needed to state that Asians in the UK are primarily South Asian, but as for the Anglophone Africa part, does anyone out there think these two articles would work? One is from a University and mentions that Asians are primarily Indian there and even uses the term to describe Indians.  The other is from the NY Times which also points out that Asians are mostly Indian in South Africa.  So does anybody think either of these would fit the citations?
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=56001
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/travel/NYT_ALMANAC_WORLD_SOUTH_AFRICA.html?ex=1158379200&en=5c39fd0ef0f3e4d8&ei=5070
GdaMan 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for "Asians in the UK and Anglophone Africa" 

message: Is there any particular reason why this article is called Asian (people) and not Asian people or Asians? --Ezeu 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all redirect to each other so your point is somewhat moot.--Chicbicyclist 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that they redirect to each other. My question, which compelled your unmannerly reply, should perhaps have been formulated more clearly. My inquiry is simply that: isnt "Asian people" or "Asians" a more simple and appropriate a title for this article than Asian (people)? --Ezeu 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really matter? It's just nitpicking on your part.--Chicbicyclist 10:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is bloody nitpicking. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer. I'll save your the quarrel, keep the damn title. --Ezeu 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian (people) vs Asian people 

message: Should we also mention what the term Asian means in Asia? Obviously things are somewhat different here since in Asia, "Asians" would generally not be used and instead more descriptive words chosen. However, most Asians who speak English would probably still have a concept for the term. Coming from Malaysia (although I live in New Zealand now), I would say most Malaysians (and Singaporeans) would consider South Asians, South-East Asians and East Asians as Asians. I'm not so sure about West Asians/Middle Easterns however Nil Einne 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would argue that Afghanistan is in the Middle East. For future reference, could you please sign your postings? Technajunky 08:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asians in Asia 

message: Should there be a section that describes what asians look like such as facial structure, skin color, etc? Sadmind 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhhhhh no. First of all, it would be impossible to pin this down without resorting to stereotypes. Second.... it would be impossible to pin this down without resorting to stereotypes. Third... (see above). But sincere thanks for the obviously well-intended suggestion.--Ling.Nut 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian Look 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
I rated the Asian (people) article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):
*Wow, a lot of progress since I reviewed it a mere 6 weeks ago.
*Wow again, tons of references. Kudos!
* I still think it focuses just a little too much on the issue of identity. Some discussion, relatively brief, of issues such as language, culture etc. would probably be beneficial.
*Needs infobox; use  or one with a white background similar to the one at Jew and Taiwanese aborigines.
You can give this article (and any other article within the WikiProject) a rating, as described below.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the  template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!--
--Ling.Nut 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 

message: Please include a map of the Indian subcontinent by itself to indicate what is identified as `Asian' in the U.K. and how pathetic the British are by restricting `Asian' to only 3 countries (India,Pakistan, Bagladesh) out of a continent of 3.8 billion people!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.54.182 (talk • contribs) .
:There would have to be a few maps. If you ask anyone in the UK whether someone from Thailand or Japan is Asian, they will say yes! -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said is not rubbish. Of course the ONS has its own ideas, and these are widely used, but so are other uses. The term 'Orientals' is not as widespread as this article sometimes suggests. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAPS 

message: What is the purpose of the Language section of the Info Box?  It is sadly inadequate.  Asians speak hundreds (literally) of languages.  The Info Box includes Vietnamese but not Thai??? Kristang but not Hmong???? What about Khmer (Cambodian) with over 8 million speakers or Lao or Burmese?  What about the myriad of languages spoken by the Mongloid people groups in the area of greater Manchuria, some of which are Uralic languages? There's also Jurchen, Hmar, Chru, Samre, Phnong, Brao, Semang, Temiar, Akha, Karen, Kachin, Mien, Khmu, Cham....do I need to go on?  I don't have any suggestions for a solution, in fact this whole page seems so arbitrary, I'm surpised it hasn't been AfD'ed more often.--WilliamThweatt 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Language" section of the Info Box 

message: I've made the following changes:
*Added a cursive line on top reading: This article deals primarily or exclusively with the defiition of Asian in several Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly refering to immigrants or descendants of immigrants in them. For Asians living in Asia, see: Asia.
*Changed Common definition of Asian by scope of the common Anglo-Saxon definition of "Asian".
*Provisionally removed the "globalize" template. 
Note: the above are just a provisional attempt to "fix" the ambiguities of the article. It does not mean that I agree with the existence of this article as such. --Sugaar 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: when you say asian in ireland does it refer to people from pakistan, india, or does it refer to chinese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.207.127 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ireland 

message: Filipinos are Asian, Malays are Asian, Indonesians are Asian, heck, are the Rapanui Asian too? Or do the first three Austronesian groups have more in common with Arabs, Jews, and Persians, all of whom live in Asia? 210.213.172.229 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, I wouldn't mind if the article's title was changed to Asian race, but I feel the term "Asian people" attracts fewer vandals.--DarkTea 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People of Asia or "Asian race"?

message: I deleted vandalism on a section called asian eyes.  Its plain dumb, especially because its says asian have plastic surgery because they want western eyes with eyelids or something of that sort.  First of all, not all Asian want to look western.  Southeast asian already have double eyelids.  What about western people having surgery to have better looking cheekbones like asian or fuller lips like african people.  Its just retard to add that section about asian eyes. CanCanDuo 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism when we have a well-referenced article on Asian blepharoplasty. Your deletion does not seem to be objective. -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Eye

message: The phrase "describing people by face" is used twice in the article. I can't work out what that means. Is there another phrase which means the same thing which is clearer and could be used instead? Hobson 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, is anyone going to object if I remove references to "describing people by face"? My best *guess* is that it means describing (categorising?) people by appearance, but I'm loathe to change it to that as it is only a guess. If anyone feels a sentence such as "Of course, in Asia, the word "Asian" has a more localized definition when describing people by face, and is more inclusive when describing Asians by culture" is important, could they explain what it means? (by the way, why "of course"?) Hobson 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After waiting a couple of days for replies, have taken the sentence out as I am not sure it means anything. If someone adds it back in, could they try to find langauge which makes the meaning clearer please. Hobson 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Describing people by face

message: Wouldn't it be more accurate that North and South Korea be labled as (respectively) Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea? There's already a People's Republic of China and Republic of China instead of China and Taiwan. Tiffany 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official names