Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Demographics of Filipino Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Surpassed claim

Please see Talk:Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region#Surpassed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

USVI

I am having difficulty finding Filipino alone or in any combination demographic data for the United States Virgin Islands. I had found data from the 1920 census, however data that I have found for 2000 and 2010 appear to lump all Asian Americans and some other races as "All Other Races". I have asked in the appropriate task force, and any assistance is appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevada

@Castncoot:, why was the content verified by the book The Peoples of Las Vegas: One City, Many Faces removed? I see that the link to the filamstar website was removed, however, the best possible thing would have been to mark it as a dead link, and find a new source that verifies the content. Worse, tag it, and then myself or someone else will attempt to find new sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, that's a simple one to answer: 1) old content; 2) expired citation; and 3) the replacement text is an improvement - the pertinent information is stated accurately and sourced. No one is stopping you from adding current info. Castncoot (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize - in my edit, I inadvertently ended up deleting other, constructive, info - restored. :)

Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, Can you please restate and re-cite the stats for Las Vegas in 2013? 140,000 is dubious to say the least, especially when Census estimates for 2013 [1] for all of Clark County, of which Las Vegas is a subset, indicate 97,689 single-race Filipino Americans for the entire county. Now unless there was an acutely astronomical increase to 42,000 or so multiracial Filipino Americans all of a sudden in 2013 (and that would be in the entire county, not just Las Vegas), this source is way off and obviously unreliable.

Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the difference between the sources, however please take a look at both sources, both reliable sources verify the content stated in the article. I know of many Filipino Americans both moving from within the United States to Nevada, including some of my own family members, and immigrating there from outside the United States, including some others of my family. Given that the population doubled between 2000 and 2010, it is possible.

The link provided above takes me to a table for the entire United States, and is not specific to the Filipino in any combination category.

I only included what I could verify with reliable sources, and neither contradict the other. There is no WP:OR here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, That link unfortunately takes you to the entire United States, and you have to manually replace it with Clark County, and I was counting on you doing that. Likewise, I could have done the same for Las Vegas alone with that same link link provided above, which I just did now, and I have actually copy pasted the information from the Las Vegas table of the 2013 American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau below, as I apparently cannot count on you replacing the United States with "Las Vegas city, Nevada" in that field instead, and I have put quotes around it to show that I am quoting the Bureau, and that this is not my own original research. It clearly shows that Las Vegas had an estimated 20, 890 Filipino Americans in 2013, so 140,000 is absolutely impossible.

From the U.S. Census Bureau: "ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES more information

2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Table View

Back to Advanced Search

Actions: Modify Table Bookmark Print Download Create a Map

View Geography Notes View Table Notes

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

go to first row go to previous row 1 - 81 of 81 go to next row go to last row

Subject

Las Vegas city, Nevada

Estimate

Margin of Error

Percent

Percent Margin of Error

SEX AND AGE

Total population 603,525 +/-130 603,525 (X)

Male 303,074 +/-4,843 50.2% +/-0.8

Female 300,451 +/-4,855 49.8% +/-0.8

Under 5 years 38,305 +/-3,026 6.3% +/-0.5

5 to 9 years 41,899 +/-3,470 6.9% +/-0.6

10 to 14 years 42,032 +/-3,636 7.0% +/-0.6

15 to 19 years 42,245 +/-3,021 7.0% +/-0.5

20 to 24 years 38,360 +/-2,939 6.4% +/-0.5

25 to 34 years 86,219 +/-4,187 14.3% +/-0.7

35 to 44 years 84,702 +/-4,464 14.0% +/-0.7

45 to 54 years 82,713 +/-3,346 13.7% +/-0.6

55 to 59 years 38,628 +/-3,218 6.4% +/-0.5

60 to 64 years 29,007 +/-2,541 4.8% +/-0.4

65 to 74 years 46,628 +/-2,837 7.7% +/-0.5

75 to 84 years 23,996 +/-2,211 4.0% +/-0.4

85 years and over 8,791 +/-1,423 1.5% +/-0.2

Median age (years) 36.6 +/-0.8 (X) (X)

18 years and over 455,017 +/-5,801 75.4% +/-1.0

21 years and over 430,934 +/-5,786 71.4% +/-1.0

62 years and over 96,540 +/-3,918 16.0% +/-0.6

65 years and over 79,415 +/-3,684 13.2% +/-0.6

18 years and over 455,017 +/-5,801 455,017 (X)

Male 227,306 +/-4,613 50.0% +/-0.8

Female 227,711 +/-4,665 50.0% +/-0.8

65 years and over 79,415 +/-3,684 79,415 (X)

Male 36,398 +/-1,964 45.8% +/-1.5

Female 43,017 +/-2,463 54.2% +/-1.5

RACE

Total population 603,525 +/-130 603,525 (X)

One race 575,704 +/-4,078 95.4% +/-0.7

Two or more races 27,821 +/-4,057 4.6% +/-0.7

One race 575,704 +/-4,078 95.4% +/-0.7

White 376,135 +/-9,940 62.3% +/-1.6

Black or African American 73,355 +/-6,977 12.2% +/-1.2

American Indian and Alaska Native 3,003 +/-1,224 0.5% +/-0.2

Cherokee tribal grouping N N N N

Chippewa tribal grouping N N N N

Navajo tribal grouping N N N N

Sioux tribal grouping N N N N

Asian 41,993 +/-5,333 7.0% +/-0.9

Asian Indian 2,018 +/-871 0.3% +/-0.1

Chinese 4,835 +/-1,524 0.8% +/-0.3

Filipino 20,890 +/-3,766 3.5% +/-0.6

Japanese 1,825 +/-881 0.3% +/-0.1

Korean 3,753 +/-1,990 0.6% +/-0.3

Vietnamese 1,479 +/-663 0.2% +/-0.1

Other Asian 7,193 +/-4,067 1.2% +/-0.7

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,056 +/-1,099 0.5% +/-0.2

Native Hawaiian 1,672 +/-901 0.3% +/-0.1

Guamanian or Chamorro 737 +/-575 0.1% +/-0.1

Samoan 326 +/-325 0.1% +/-0.1

Other Pacific Islander 321 +/-282 0.1% +/-0.1

Some other race 78,162 +/-8,463 13.0% +/-1.4

Two or more races 27,821 +/-4,057 4.6% +/-0.7

White and Black or African American 6,600 +/-2,229 1.1% +/-0.4

White and American Indian and Alaska Native 2,754 +/-1,062 0.5% +/-0.2

White and Asian 6,265 +/-2,126 1.0% +/-0.4

Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 503 +/-321 0.1% +/-0.1

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races

Total population 603,525 +/-130 603,525 (X)

White 398,283 +/-9,854 66.0% +/-1.6

Black or African American 84,426 +/-7,185 14.0% +/-1.2

American Indian and Alaska Native 7,168 +/-1,934 1.2% +/-0.3

Asian 53,631 +/-6,315 8.9% +/-1.0

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 7,500 +/-2,296 1.2% +/-0.4

Some other race 83,142 +/-8,854 13.8% +/-1.5

HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE

Total population 603,525 +/-130 603,525 (X)

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 188,055 +/-9,981 31.2% +/-1.7

Mexican 147,243 +/-10,367 24.4% +/-1.7

Puerto Rican 4,518 +/-1,474 0.7% +/-0.2

Cuban 5,422 +/-1,947 0.9% +/-0.3

Other Hispanic or Latino 30,872 +/-5,741 5.1% +/-1.0

Not Hispanic or Latino 415,470 +/-9,964 68.8% +/-1.7

White alone 275,474 +/-9,528 45.6% +/-1.6

Black or African American alone 70,739 +/-6,935 11.7% +/-1.1

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,067 +/-815 0.3% +/-0.1

Asian alone 41,711 +/-5,353 6.9% +/-0.9

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 2,710 +/-1,019 0.4% +/-0.2

Some other race alone 2,260 +/-1,782 0.4% +/-0.3

Two or more races 20,509 +/-3,159 3.4% +/-0.5

Two races including Some other race 428 +/-277 0.1% +/-0.1

Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races 20,081 +/-3,166 3.3% +/-0.5

Total housing units 244,706 +/-4,783 (X) (X)

Subject

Las Vegas city, Nevada

Estimate

Margin of Error

Percent

Percent Margin of Error

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey"

Again, please be objective and use common sense here. Also again, please do not transpose your own personal and family experiences onto Wikipedia. In fact, this table shows that there area a total of 41,993 Asians (53,631 Asians race alone or in combination with one or more other races) in Las Vegas. Therefore, the 140,000 Filipino figure is flat out wrong and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia to even be stated there. Please replace it with a statement like, "The Clark County Filipino American population grew from 86,735 in 2010 to an estimated 97,689 in 2013, per the U.S. Census Bureau." (Or I can place it myself, if you'd like.) Now that shows integrity. Also, honestly, does the Las Vegas Valley really deserve its own subsection? I think not. Castncoot (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU.

Please utilize the bookmark tool that will provide other users a direct link to the table, such as one that appears to be copy and pasted above. The 140,000 figure is from the reliable source, KNPR. I am not "transpose your own personal and family experiences onto Wikipedia", I am just providing examples of personal observations that coincide with reliable sources that verify content. I do not accuse the above user of certain actions, and I ask the other user to stop doing so of myself. Repeatedly not abiding by AGF and being uncivil makes for difficult collaboration, and I ask that this stop.

While different reliable sources may differ, that doesn't mean that we should be preferred one source over another. Again, I am not inserting original research here, and the sources provided verify the content of the article.

I will qualify the statement so it is not in Wikipedia voice, per WP:A. I hope that assuages any concerns of the above user.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have found multiple reliable sources verifying the 140,000 figure, therefore I am de-attributing the statement. If there is still a concern, please let me know, we can always attribute the figure to the three sources that verify the figure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The 140,000 figure is simply not mathematically plausible for Las Vegas, a city of 600K. I have stated the U.S. Census Bureau figures and inserted the source link - I've also directed the reader which table to reference in the note toward the link, and first the reader will need to activate the place as being "Las Vegas city, Nevada." That's simply the way the U.S. Census Bureau has set up its website. But the U.S. Census Bureau figures reign supreme regardless, and this must be respected. Finally, we obviously have vastly differing interpretations of the word "you" - I simply mean it in a matter-of-fact way - I am very direct in my interaction, and I simply call it as I see it. Nothing personal intended outside of its direct relationship to the content.

Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A link to the Census' factfinder, doesn't verify what is being stated above. The sources I have cited can be seen as soon as an individual clicks on the source. Granted sources need not be immediately available online to meet WP:RS, but it would help.

For instance see this link I have bookmarked [2], it shows that according to the 3 year estimate of the American Community Survey it estimates that there are 114,989 Filipinos in any combination +/-5,293, therefore 140,000 is entirely possible.

Therefore the 20,890 figure added in the article fails verification, does not match other reliable sources, or even other sources from the United States Census Bureau itself. I will correct this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with your latest change in this regard. (Although I don't agree that the 20,890 figure "fails verification," by any stretch of the imagination.) Can you please now explain to me now what you mean by "bookmark"? Also, where do you obtain the data on individual ethnic groups, as in this case? What url, for example, leads to obtaining this data?

Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference added by the above user, when clicked, did not lead to a page that verified the 20,890 figure. Therefore, if a reader who doesn't have experience with American FactFinder, were to click it, they would not get the 20,890 figure that had been added to the article.

The copy pasted info above, falls under WP:USERGENERATED, as I cannot independently verify the copy pasted information from American FactFinder. As is copy pasted there is a bookmark button on American FactFinder that saves the search in URL form.

I think the issue is that the City of Las Vegas actually makes up a very small area of the area that is known to most people as Las Vegas, which is covered under the article Las Vegas Valley. The Las Vegas–Paradise, NV MSA is basically the entirety of Clark County, Nevada. This might be why the numbers differ greatly. As the sub-topic of Nevada is about Las Vegas Valley, the numbers for Clark County are the numbers that should be used not only for the City of Las Vegas.

See this link that I bookmarked for the City of Las Vegas alone: [3]. Even then the number does not match the 20,890 figure (as it is outside of the margin of error), and gives the following: 26,678 +/-2,869.

I don't believe there is much more that needs to be said regarding this..--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that this is the reason (LV vs Clark Co) for the dramatic differences. Thanks for your detailed response - I think you misunderstood my question, however, or perhaps I didn't phrase it properly. What I was asking was how in the first place you access any given table which combines a particular ethnic group and a particular geographical entity, such as a metro area, on American Fact Finder? The website is really set up rather confusingly for this particular application, IMHO. In the meantime, 20,890 (ACS 1-year 2013 estimate) is actually more currently applicable for the City of Las Vegas than the 26,678 figure, which is an averaging (ACS 3-year 2011-2013 estimate) of three years' data. Anyway, 20,890 is certainly no further outside the margin of 26,678 than the 140,000 figure for Clark County as a whole by non-Census sources is outside the range of the 114,989 (+/-5,293) figure from the Census Bureau. Anyway, at this juncture it's as moot a point as Filipinos leaving California for Nevada and other states secondary to ongoing drought conditions, as I think we have the material sourced appropriately for the Nevada section. I would appreciate, though, if you could please very briefly outline how you access the specific race x geographic tables on the AFF website.

Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Orange County

I am leaving a source here for use of expanding the content on Filipinos in Orange County, California.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please just keep in mind that Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana is all part of the same MSA, let alone the same CSA. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not looking to create a new section, just expand content, especially given that six hundred thousand of the 3.4 million FilAms live in that CSA, it should be given weight, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Haven't found any more significant sources. :( Will have to revisit this in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think any reader noticing the size of the California section now will get the idea, abundantly loudly and clearly. Of course, weight has its place; but that's been exercised duly (and perhaps overboard) here. As far as ratios go, that logic doesn't apply correspondingly here, precisely because this is a demographic article, and the entire point is accepted for granted that a numerical order will be established. Should the San Diego section then shrink to one-third the size of L.A.'s (rhetorical)? Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is significant weight of reliable sources about the history and demographics of Filipino Americans in San Diego County, many of which I have already used. These come from multiple books and are not just passing mention, but sometimes entire chapters/sections. I will be looking to expand other states that need attention in the next couple weeks.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

MPI 2013 study

Why is this study given so much weight? Is the study so significant that it should have its own section? If we are to work this article up to good article status, perhaps it would be best to disperse the information of this study where individual pieces of information are relevant. And I find it interesting that that two paragraphs end in facts about New York. There is information about Hawaii and Alaska that were entirely left out of that section, just to name two states.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the report, and taken the information, and created content (except for my addition of Vallejo, California content) from the report. This should remove the need to have a single source section in this article. Therefore, I will boldly remove it as the information in the section in question is now redundant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was done, and frankly, to have removed an entire, properly referenced section simply because you don't like it, was irresponsible. If you want to add content, then do so. If you want to add references, then do so. If you want to work on modifying the section, then I'm happy to work on that with you as well. But I honestly don't appreciate your simple blanking of so much illustrative and constructive information from a reliable (and excellent) source. I also don't know how to phrase this thought without using the word "you", so please don't try to use that tactic again. Castncoot (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Castncoot:, I took the information in the content and moved the individual pieces of info into other appropriate sections of this article. I am working on the article, checking references (to ensure they are live and not inaccessible if web based), and copy editing, in order to get this article to Good Article status. Having an entire section, whose information has already been included in this article, rely entirely on one source, and tagged, will stop this article from being nominated, and doesn't advance the editing process. I ask kindly that the above editor revert their reversion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is it important to have this section in this article, when its individual facts have already been included in the article? Why not answer the questions posed in my starting statement of this section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But the fact is that it's not.

"As Filipino Americans continue to ascend the socioeconomic ladder, and as intermarriage with other races continues to be as significant demographic factor, the Filipino populace has dispersed across the United States, gravitating toward economic and professional opportunities, independent of geographic location, as Filipino immigrants display a higher university graduation rate than many other immigrants.^[1]

By metropolitan area, as of 2011, one-third of all Filipino-born immigrants lived in three metropolitan areas – Los Angeles (288,400, or 16 percent of Filipino-born immigrants to the US), San Francisco (156,400, or 9 percent), and New York City (150,500, or 8 percent).^[1]"

This is how the section currently reads. Can you tell me where else in the article quotes the actual absolute numbers of Filipino-born immigrants residing in various metros, as directly stated in the cited source? Or that collectively, these three metros account for one-third of total Filipino-born in the U.S. (an observation directly made in the article, without my extrapolation)? Or that the Filipino populace has dispersed across the U.S., a pertinent fact which underscores the upward mobility of the said populace? Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This article will never make it to GA status as long as the grammar stays as is and as long as the California section remains as long as it is, sticking out like a sore thumb (I think that trimming the San Diego section considerably should take care of this problem; it's downright WP:UNDUE). These are the far bigger problems with this article now, not the edit above in question, which I believe is actually constructive toward getting this article there. Castncoot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already gone through this article, minus the re-added section using Microsoft Word to check grammar. Therefore that issue is moot. I have listed, except for the NYC metro area content (as it is multi-state)(as the population concentrations section is divided by state) in the appropriate sections, please see the diff I provided in the second comment in this section. Economic Demographic information, education demographic information, intermarriage information, are already stated in the article, using multiple other sources than the single source that is used in the single source section being discussed here. There is no need for that sentence. There is also no need to state that 1/3 of Filipino-born immigrants live in the metro areas of LA, San Francisco, and New York City.

As for the statement about San Diego, the weight of reliable sources that talk about the demographics of Filipino Americans in San Diego have lead to the amount of content. Therefore it is given due weight.

This still doesn't address the problem of this section being unnecessary and only based on one source as of this comment. Furthermore, the source only focuses on Filipino immigrants. This article is about all Filipino Americans, and thus to emphasize a source only about Filipino immigrants, giving this single report its own section does make it UNDUE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources now, and only the second (and smaller) paragraph in the section describes Filipino immigrants per se. The fact that one-third of all Filipino-born Americans live in three metros is in fact extraordinarily significant, because this is conceivably a harbinger of future population growth trends. And in a demographics article (as opposed to the Filipino American article), this is an absolutely salient observation which should be mentioned and would be remiss not to mention. Castncoot (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your latest edit, I'm okay with it, I think it's a reasonable compromise, thanks. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As to the San Diego question, it is 9,068 bits of content; compared to its population size, it is appropriately sized compared to the 8,661 bis of content on the population in Illinois, which is smaller in total population (182k v 139k).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be argued that the content regarding Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, and NYC could be expanded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's reasonable. IMHO, a large additional paragraph to Los Angeles and a medium-sized one for SF and NYC might be a reasonable way to go. I'll borrow from the new NYC article, perhaps you can add the LA/SF portions. Best, Castncoot (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Castncoot:, some of the content added here appears to violate WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE specifically the sentences

Other Filipino-owned businesses including professional services (medical, dental, optical), driving schools, beauty salons, immigration services, and video rental places providing the latest movies from the Philippines dot the community.[215] Along the IRT Flushing Line (7 train), known colloquially as the Orient Express, the 69th Street station serves as the gateway to Queens' largest Little Manila. This area attracts many local Filipinos and non-Filipinos alike and from neighboring places of Long Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The coverage of Little Manila is along Roosevelt Avenue, between 58th and 74th Streets.

Please remove it per WP:NOTGUIDE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me think about this. How so?

"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."

The text doesn't mention the name of a single business. It simply describes referenced text. I would think it's pertinent to note where Filipinos work and what kind of businesses they own. Castncoot (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Section reference list

References

^ ^a ^b Sierra Stoney, Jeanne Batalova (June 5, 2013). "Filipino Immigrants in the United States". Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved December 7, 2014.

New York City Metro

I am concerned that this article is giving more weight to the demographics of Filipino Americans in New York than the population justifies. While there are over 200k in the greater NY area, as we are using the 2010 census count to order the states, I think having a NYC, New York specific, is appropriate. But perhaps the Tri-state area info would be best in the article about the metro area IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that - although I don't know why the statement about the CSA was removed - I have restored it, updated and sourced. Meanwhile, perhaps Las Vegas Valley would be best folded into the Nevada section itself, since virtually all of Nevada's Fil-Am population is in Clark County. Otherwise, for example, there should be a separate subsection for Northern NJ alone (under NJ), and likewise, every major metro will require its own subdivision (a scenario which I eventually foresee, but may not be necessary right now). Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Or the demarcation of that of the Las Vegas Valley can be removed. There is a notable, but not nearly significant FilAm population in the county mentioned in the article, mainly due to the Filipinos in the Reno, Nevada and Fallon, Nevada area.

Removed? Where, please provide a diff link.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I've rephrased and restored the content, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The section New York City, jumps from 1920 to 1960 then 1990. Section can be expanded if those gaps are filled in, and the nature of the growth is included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Will see if I can fill in gaps, but I'm afraid of making this section too long as well. Sometimes less is more. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Presently Hawaii and New York City metro area are the two areas which have been created about Filipino Americans in a specific part of the country. Don't worry about size for the moment, granted there was some content that didn't meet guidelines, although reliably sourced, but that doesn't mean that there isn't other potentially sourced content out there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

San Diego subsection

What about this, for example: "A portion of California State Route 54 in San Diego is officially named the "Filipino-American Highway", in honor of the Filipino American Community."?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Castncoot (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 December 2014‎

Are any of those stores well known landmarks? Or independently notable? The content that an area has become known as Little Manila is appropriate, as it shows an area has become known for its population concentration of Filipino Americans. Otherwise if we remove the content about Filipino-American highway designation, so should the content about an area being called Manilatown (as in the case of SF Bay Area), Historic Filipinotown (as is the case in Los Angeles) or Little Manila (as is the case for Queens).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the phrase "in honor of" - I realize that's what the source implies, but for a demographics article, "in recognition of" might be a more prudent, less over-the-top, choice of words. In any case, the San Diego subsection in particular looks gratuitously bloated, as if it's going to burst like a soap bubble. A pure population ratio argument simply doesn't work in a demographics article. It's like the U.S. Congress: partial weight vis-à-vis representation is indeed given to a state's population (the U.S. House of Representatives), but otherwise, the U.S. Senate, which is actually known as the Upper House of Congress, gives every state two senators, regardless of population. And at the end of the day, I suspect that a tough editorial reviewer is going see things that way. I hope I've been able to convey my point as I'm trying. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess my entire discussion above was all for naught, as an image was put in the same bloated SD section anyway, only adding further to the size. The Historic Filipinotown image for LA is great, and as was discussed, the LA/SF sections could be expanded. I appreciate that another editor has a military background and lives in San Diego, but this is not a good reason to augment an already bloated section. Other states need pictures instead of another image going into the California section. Castncoot (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The above objectives, IMHO are uncalled for, the weight of reliable sources have lead to the size of the section, it is also appropriate to the size, given that it has the fifth largest Filipino American population in a metropolitan area (after LA, SF, Honolulu, and NYC), out of those five it has the second highest percentage of total population (only Honolulu being higher). Moreover, the San Diego metro area, was the only metro area in 2000 where Filipino Americans were the largest population of Asian Americans in the metro area. Therefore, it should come as no surprise why the content is as it is. As I stated before, expand the other sections, please don't complain that the size of the section is so well sourced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit. The point is that the article has been sectionalized by state, not by metro area. Therefore, the defining section metric is state, not metro. And yes, exactly, it follows that weight of reliable sources will guide placement of images, and of course, as WP:MOS/IMAGES states, "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Presumably this goes toward sections as well, as it looks awkward for most states to have zero images and California to have three, when the other states do have plenty of reliable sources cited. If you really want the SD image, then maybe remove the SF image, which is quite non-descript, if not for the caption. Castncoot (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are other appropriate images, add them. Also, don't removed verified content see WP:KDL and WP:OFFLINE. If the original link is not available, show good faith and attempt to find a reliable source that verifies the content. Also, the page for the content "trimmed" was view-able when accessed, but is still in print version, so is still a reliable source, even if one cannot access it online at this moment in time. Per DEADLINK the appropriate thing to do is to tag it, fix it, or replace it; only when content is highly questionable is it to be removed. There are dozens of reliable sources a person can find about the historical draw San Diego has been for Filipinos (largely due to the fact that prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, migration via the U.S. Navy was one of the primary routes, and with San Diego being a major port, it lead to growth in the community).

I was trying to look for other usable images for other states, but had to pause in editing, see WP:BUSYLIFE & WP:WORKINPROGRESS. If other editors find appropriate images, please add them.

Don't attack the section because it is well sourced, expand other sections. I suggested how this can be done above, and I have done a great deal in expanding other sections other than the San Diego section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

To further a counterpoint to the "bloated" statement, the current text of the San Diego section is 2,367 characters (including spaces and footnotes). Compared to the New York City & New York Metro areas combined, which have 3,437 characters (including spaces and footnotes), it is proportional and appropriate. Counts using Microsoft Word 2007

As I stated before, the Greater Los Angeles and San Francisco areas can be, and should be expanded, but just because there is content about San Diego, doesn't mean that it should be reduced, but rather that other areas should be expanded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As a note, I have checked the size of the article, although, with references the article is already 199k in size, in "readable prose" there is 50.9k. This means that this article is very well referenced, and that it does not meet WP:SIZESPLIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York Metro and New York City area has now been expanded to 4,532 characters (including spaces, textboxes, and footnotes); San Diego has only grown to 2,512 (including spaces, textboxes, and footnotes). Any complaints about size issues should stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference holding area

Reference I plan to use later

Franklin Ng (23 June 2014). Asian American Family Life and Community. Routledge. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-136-80123-5.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Article size

While the total article size is an amazing 226.8K as of this post, the readable pose is 57.3k, and doesn't meet WP:SIZESPLIT. It is getting close though.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing, might be a day or two to get back with a full review (or maybe not, I have no self control). Wugapodes (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
See comments in results section
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

~~After a read, the lead feels like it might be a little short for an article of this size. I may be wrong though.~~
69 Percent of Filipino Americans are foreign born, and 77 percent are United States Citizens. This sentence is very ambiguous. Does "foreign born" mean they were born outside the Philippines or outside the United States? Also, because the two clauses are connected, I'm unsure if the two statistics are related. As worded, it could be interpreted that 77% of the 69% of foreign born Filipino Americans are United States citizens. Its complicated because people born outside the US can be US citizens so the "foreign born" part doesn't help to clear things up.
Filipino Americans are also the largest subgroup of Overseas Filipinos; This should be placed before the sentence about life expectancy of Filipino Americans. The paragraph should start with talking about the demographics within the group and then move into talking about generalities of the group as a whole.
While compliance with MOS:PERCENT is not required per the GA criteria, the article should be consistent as both "%" and "percent" are used in the text. I've tried to change as many as I see, but I may have missed a few so give it a once over as well.
Will need more time to give a once over before striking Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There were a couple of problems with subject-verb agreement that I found. I tried to fix them as I found them, but again, I may miss some so be sure to give it a once over to double check.
Will need more time to give a once over before striking Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Filipino Americans are the largest group of Overseas Filipinos, and the majority were born overseas Same problem with "born overseas" as I had above with "foreign born"
Not yet fixed.
Among Asian Americans, Filipino Americans are the most integrated in the American society, "acculturated and economically incorporated". The quote could be better incorporated. Maybe something like "with [position] Don Nakanishi saying..."
Reading through it, I feel the "Population" section may be better titled as "Demographics"
I'll need a rationale for why "Population" was kept. You don't have to change it, I'm just wondering why it is used as it seems inaccurate. Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Filipino American women are more likely to marry outside of their ethnicity (38.9%) than Filipino American men (17.6%) Are the percentages in parentheses absolute or relative percentages?
This needs to be fixed still Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
and four others in Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes. Were they known as Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes at the time of settlement? If not they should be clarified with "present day Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes." I don't know much about Louisiana history so they very well might have been called such at the time.
were "discovered" by a Harper's Weekly journalist in 1883 Why is "discovered" in quotes? Is it a quotation of a source or meant to imply an alternate meaning? If the latter, that meaning should be clarified.
An additional 2,000 were documented in New Orleans with their roots dating back to about a hundred years This statement needs to be clarified as "about a hundred years" has no clear reference date. 100 years from today, 1965, 1763, or another date? It's unclear as to which is correct. Also, "were documented" when?
During this wave of migration Filipino men outnumbered women by about 15 to 1 In the Philippines, United States or in terms of Filipinos moving to the US?
making the Philippines become the largest source of healthcare professionals to the United States. This sentence is awkwardly worded, and I don't think I understand it enough to easily revise it.
Filipinos made up 60 percent (9,158) of nurses immigrating to the United States, with Canadians being a distant second (3,034) If you're going to put a percentage and total number figure for one member of comparison, you should put it for both.
the first documentation of a Filipino residing in California did not occur until 1781, a fifty-one-year-old Antonio Miranda Rodriguez. This sentence needs to be rephrased as I don't believe 1781 is a fifty-one-year-old. ;)
Initial part of the expedition that would established Pueblo de Los Ángeles, Antonio Miranda Rodriguez was not present when Pueblo de Los Ángeles was founded as he stayed behind in Baja California due to illness in his family, and arrived in Alta California later. I don't understand this sentence, is information missing that maybe was removed in a previous revision?
Why is "Crosstown Freeway" in quotation marks?
The subscript "Table 1b" should be rendered parenthetically rather than using subscript.
Both Hawaii and Hawaiʻi are used in the article. Usage should be consistent.
The first Filipino known by name in Texas was Francisco Flores, who came to Texas by way of Cuba in the nineteenth century began to reside in Port Isabel and would later call Rockport home. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Could it be reworded?
Following the annexation of the Philippines, Filipinos began to migrate to Texas due primarily as employees of American officers who served in the Philippines This sentence as well. I don't understand why they were drawn to Texas (that's not a joke, I don't understand it from the sentence).
In 1990, there were 43,229 Filipinos in New York City, with the number increasing to around 54,993 in 2000, making it the city with the fourth largest population of Filipino Americans within its city limits in 2000. City within a city?
There are times where there is percent followed by an absolute number in parentheses, and times when absolute numbers are given, followed by an appositive percentage. The style should be consistent. Not that absolutes can't be used in the prose, just that if both are given, a style should predominate. For example, In 2000, Nevada was home to 31,000, 2 percent, of all Filipino immigrants this should be 2 percent (31,000) as that's the style used predominantly in the article so far.
this population increased to 11 in 1920, and 46 in 1930.[1] In 1990, Filipinos were the largest population of Asian Pacific Americans in the state, with the second largest population being Indian Americans. I assume there was a substantial increase that led to them being the largest population, and that number or percentage should be stated here.
foreign-born Filipinos had a lower poverty rate than native-born Filipinos where is foreign and where is native?
The superscript figure references should be regular parenthetical references.

(Optional) There are a number of dead links that should be dealt with at some point, you can use the link in the box at the right to find them.

Results

On Hold for 7 days. A very thorough article. My general concern is that at times the article seems to get too mired down in minutiae and loses focus. Another aspect to keep an eye on is making sure to use consistent style throughout the article. Featured articles I believe require more stringent adherence to the WP:MOS, so it may be useful to look through that before committing to a style, but consistency is good. Finally, something to watch out for is ambiguity. When talking about two countries across time, it is very easy for readers to lose reference points and antecedents. While you may know the meaning, it isn't always conveyed well, see above. In general it is better to be a little more explicit with things, especially like "foreign born" or "overseas" than too vague as I'd rather leave the article saying "it gave me too much information" than "I didn't understand the information it gave me." Be sure to give the article a thorough look through for mistakes as it is very long and I am bound to have missed some things that need fixing or even messed it up, plus it helps you as editors rarely read their articles in full. Regardless, it truly is a very nice article that with a little bit of work to clear up the issues above, can become a GA. Happy editing. Wugapodes (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold Extended until at least 27 July as RightCowLeftCoast seems to be on vacation until the close date and obviously won't be able to implement the rest of the changes by then. Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Final extension until 4 August as RightCowLeftCoast still hasn't edited wikipedia since the 16 July. However if they, or another editor, don't respond to the review by then I'm going to close it. Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not Listed after a month on hold and the reviewer being absent, I'm going to close the review. Hopefully the article continues to be improved. Wugapodes (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally getting to this

@Wugapodes: sorry for the long delay regarding getting to this review. The above review is very well done, and I am treating it as a peer review, as it has already been closed. I had several long Wikibreaks between the time this review was initialized and now (April 2018). Per work in progress I will address the issues brought up.
I have attempted to comply with MOS:PERCENT, as seen here.
regarding the title of population section, I have changed it; the entire article is a sub-article of the Filipino Americans article, and thus it is all demographics. That specific section is about national numbers, as compared to historical demographics, population concentrations, or specific topics. I hope this helps.
In regards to Miscegenation, or marriage outside of race, I believe the percentages according to the reference are relative to the total number of marriages experienced within the two different populations (Filipina Americans and Filipino Americans (Filipina/Pinay/Female Filipino Americans)(Filipino/Pinoy/Male Filipino Americans)).
Regarding the Louisiana parishes question, according to the Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana article, it is for that parish, but not for the Jefferson Parish, but that statement is unreferenced. Therefore, it appears that it is present day, present day for when that reference was written, being 1995 at the earliest. I am unsure if the parish boundaries have changed in the past 20 years, so I have made the change as requested above.
I have modified the "discovered" quote, to better clarify. The settlement existed prior to the Harper documentation, and thus the quotation, I have changed it to reflect that better.
I will continue on working on the points brought up, but must break for now due to the Starbucks I am editing from, beginning to close for the evening.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I got to the rest of the points, with these edits. If there is anything else, please let me know. This will help when I nominate this article again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110321200733/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-45717.html to http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-45717.html#0-0-0-23507

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Demographics of Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/appC.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321200733/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-45717.html to http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-45717.html#0-0-0-23507
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204034225/http://opmanong.ssc.hawaii.edu:80/Filipino/cali.html to http://opmanong.ssc.hawaii.edu/filipino/cali.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic868440.files/Logan%2520Immigrant%2520enclavbes%2520and%2520thnic%2520communities.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005035941/http://cct.georgetown.edu/research/thesisdatabase/Kay%20Martinez.pdf to http://cct.georgetown.edu/research/thesisdatabase/Kay%20Martinez.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Demographics of Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Demographics of Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Guam and CNMI

@Jarret949: I have removed content that was unverified from the main article page per WP:BRD. While there are significant populations of Filipino Americans in both Guam and the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands, the information provided did not have citations. Furthermore, both are Insular areas, and are not within the Incorporated territories of the United States. Therefore, IMHO it is best that their populations are included in this article.
Furthermore, I propose that the list of population concentrations on the main article infobox is too long, and should only list populations in excess of 100,000 Filipino Americans, with the rest listed here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jarret949: I have also tried to find hard numbers for Filipino populations in both Guam and Northern Marianas, however have not been able to find the hard numbers you added in this edit. It is not for lack of trying, as I have attempted to look for hard numbers during the course of these edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I put down Guam and CNMI, as both of those locations are indisputably American soil, with real-life Fil-Ams living there, many for multiple generations. I have lived on Guam, and vehemently disagree when either it, or the CNMI is 'left out' of discussions pertaining to the USA, and it's citizens and various peoples. Also, those numbers are not unverified. To see how I came up with the amount Fil-Ams in each location, simply go to the Guam and CNMI Wikipedia pages, and extrapolate the population of each ethnicity from the census data. I have combed the Wikipedia article, and I see no reason that Filipino Americans, who are American citizens that have been born & live on Guam and the CNMI islands, should in any way be discounted from the recognition that they deserve. The article is about Filipino Americans; it is not titled 'Filipino Residents of the 50 Incorporated Territories'. I am being silly here, but I trust you get my point. This article makes mention of the 'Manilamen' of the (now) state of Louisiana... Taking your logic to the extreme, that part of the article should be removed, as, at the time, it was not actually American soil. Anyway, I will be putting the Guam and CNMI populations back up, as my multi generational Filipino American family on Guam and the CNMI are no less Filipino American than Fil-Ams from the rest of the country. Jarret949 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jarret949:Please do not revert the revert, that is the beginning of an edit war.

No where did I say that Filipinos in Guam and CNMI, who are citizens of the United States, are not Filipino Americans. However, please see WP:UNDUE. I am not saying that only Guam and CNMI populations should not be listed in the infobox of the parent article to this sub-article. Instead I am saying any population smaller than 100,000 (or 2.9% of the total FilAm population as of the 2010 Census), should be listed there. Otherwise, the list would also need to include many of the locations listed in the sub-section of this article named "Elsewhere". This would create a cluttered infobox IMHO. One can even argue for a cut off of 10% or greater of the total FilAm population, which would leave only the populations of California and Hawaii in the infobox; but I am not going to argue for that strict of a limitation (at this time)

Also the weight of the Filipinos in French Louisiana, or in Pre-Spanish Alta California, is a different subject. Both have significant weight within the related, but separate topic that is History of Filipino Americans. Therefore, I will ignore that part of the above arguement.

I will ask for a third opinion on this question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: If the intent of your edit was not to single out Guam and the CNMI populations of Fil-Ams, and instead make the info box 'look nicer', then why did you deliberately leave Alaska, Arizona, and Maryland in the box? Doesn't really add up.

Also, I have now proven the amount of Fil-Ams in both locations, so if you are going to do any edits, why not help me make sure that those population numbers are pointed at the Guam and CNMI pages, or other pertinent data. I vehemently disagree with cutting any state out of the info box, ESPECIALLY Guam and the CNMI, where the Fil-Am population is at around 26.3% of the total population on Guam, and 35.3% of the total population on Saipan, Rota, and Tinian. Those are huge proportions of Fil-Ams, and to cut those numbers out would deliberately mis-portray how Fil-Ams are such a crucial part of those locations. Fil-Ams in California, while greater in numbers than Guam and the CNMI, represent only 2-3% of the entire population. So to leave this population data out, for 'cosmetic' reasons, does not make good sense.

Furthermore, to come at me with warnings of an edit war, is aggressive and unnecessary. I was simply adding pertinent, hard data to the article, only to have you edit it, out of personal opinion, then continue to not fully implement that personal opinion, and instead edit out only Guam and the CNMI. So you would be the one starting an edit war, for reasons of personal taste, and hiding pertinent facts about some of the largest (by percentage) populations of Fil-Ams in the USA. Perhaps you may want to check out WP:DONTREVERT Jarret949 (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps then, it would be best to remove all the information in the infobox about population concentrations, and best to direct readers to the sub-article where the demographics of the subject is the primary topic.

While proportionally larger, by numbers it is far smaller. If it were proportions that matter than the two counties in Hawaii where Filipino Americans make up the majority population, Kauai County & Maui County, should have prominence, but they don't.

The above response by Jarrett949 (talk · contribs) seems to indicate that the individual wants to have the population figures for Alaska, Arizona, and Maryland removed. If this is what the user wants, it would appear to be building a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Go ahead and re-read what I said. I specifically asked WHY you removed Guam and the CNMI per your new idea, but did not follow through with removing Alaska, Arizona, and Maryland. I am still waiting for an answer. I did not say I wanted those states removed. Rather, (if you re-read closely) I ASKED why the lack of consistency, on your part. I am amazed that you are willing to start an edit war to HIDE pertinent information, for reasons of PERSONAL taste. As far as some counties on Hawaii, no, the infobox is about populations at the state/territorial level. So you still have not come up with a good argument as to why you are repeatedly and deliberately singling out the Fil-Am populations on Guam and the CNMI. Please answer! Thank you. Jarret949 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so there is not a consensus. Good thing that a third opinion was requested.

I removed the Guam and CNMI data as when added it did not point towards a reliable source, therefore WP:PROVEIT remains. Moreover, I removed it per WP:BRD. Per WP:AGF I attempted to find the populations figures added, but did not find them, but instead added the references I found into this article per WP:CITEBUNDLE.

As we are attempting to build a consensus, and past consensus appears to be lacking, I think it is best that that the above editor see WP:AVOIDYOU and remain civil, as we work together towards forming a consensus. I have two proposals:

A1) Change the format of the populations to be listed (if any are to be listed), we switch to Template:Infobox ethnic group#Usage with detailed per-region population formatting. (Past experience has informed me that this can list up to 43 locations.)

A2) That those listed population be at least 10% of the total Filipino American population.

B) That if no consensus can be formed on what locations should be listed, that no specific locations be listed in the infobox, but instead include a wikilink to Demographics of Filipino Americans#Population concentrations.

I will not make edits to this part of the infobox until we reach a consensus. I advise that Jarret949 do so as well until we reach a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, firstly as a third party to this dispute, I just want to point out how confused I was by the choice to discuss the issue here when we are actually talking about Filipino Americans. Regardless, Jarret949, you need to explain exactly where you're getting these population figures from (42,801 and 18,873). If I'm understanding you correctly, you used the Guam and CNMI Wikipedia articles to get those particular numbers, which is a big no-no. Per WP:CIRC, you may not use Wikipedia as a source. RightCowLeftCoast, I agree with your idea of removing regions with populations below 100,000 so that we cut off at Florida. In my opinion, that's a nice logical compromise. Sro23 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: Discussion was held here, as this is a sub-article of the article Filipino Americans, which is about the demographics of the parent article. Thanks for the opinion. @Jarret949: There appears to be a small consensus; if additional opinions are sought there are ways to get additional opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Filipinos in MA

https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=iaas_pubs

--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

[FilipinoMigration-1] Sierra Stoney, Jeanne Batalova (June 5, 2013). "Filipino Immigrants in the United States". Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved December 7, 2014.

[1]