Jump to content

Talk:Filipino Americans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Article reads like POV, contains opinions, and lacks citations and sources

After reading much of the article, I conclude that while the article contains valuable and factual information, it also heavily reads like opinion and contains point of view. Many of the statements lack citation and reliable sources. This is most relevant under the section "Invisible Minority". I further refrain from editing statements lacking citations, sources, and containing outright misinformation, as it appears that a particular user (above), seems to partially object to editing. Perhaps a special interest in the content and POV in the article? Regardless, I urge editors to closely review the article for inconsistencies, POV, and weightless statements lacking sources. Wikipedia is to contain valuable and factual information, and not sacrifice it's integrity with misinformation and POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not objected to you editing. You were just a bit quick in removing information without reading between the lines so to speak. You only deleted one unsourced statement and that was about Filipinos in California being more likely to graduate than Asian counterparts. The rest of statements you deleted were sourced (see explanation from thread above) and supported by the source. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 13:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If you find statements objectionable, the best thing I think you should do rather than blanking/removing information with citation is to flag the citation with the appropriate [:Category:Inline cleanup templates|in line] clean up templates, or if you disagree with a statement flag it as dubious and do what you did here, and start a discussion, or replace the statement with new text with citation/reference to a reliable source. As long as you can back up your edits with sources, and are not appearing to push a POV, and maintain NPOV, you should be in the clear. Thank you for showing interest in this article, and hopefully you can add useful and helpful content in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead Sentance & Definition of Filipino American

In the Min/Max Fig discussion it evolved into a discussion of a related subject, moving off topic towards what the Definition of what the noun, Filipino American is. As we have seen active users each have a different definition of the noun, but each are POV statements of their own opinion. As stated by multiple users, and understood by all, regardless of our individual opinions, whatever the consensus on what the definition of Filipino American is, it has to be verifiable and backed by a reliable source. I would suggest, since there will be multiple reliable sources gathered in the upcoming discussion that may give different definitions that we come to a consensus, as to what definition is used.

In the previous discussion I provided the following reliable sources, which are partially accessible online for all of us to read.

  • Root, Maria (1997). Filipino Americans: transformation and identity. SAGE. p. 96. ISBN 9780761905790. Retrieved 25 September 2009. For the purpose of this chapter, Filipino American identity is assumed to be the product of our historical and cultural backgrounds and the process of negotiating and constructing a life in the United States. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  • Bonus, Rick (2000). Locating Filipino Americans: ethnicity and the cultural politics of space Asian American history and culture. Temple University Press. p. 217. ISBN 9781566397797. Retrieved 25 September 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Furthermore, I would ask that others contribute any other reliable sources that can be used for this discussion towards the improvement of this article.

To remain on the record my POV on this subject is as stated:

...it is my opinion that the word is a joining of ethnic identity (Filipino) and nationality (American), my opinion is not backed by a reliable source that I can find (so far), and thus given that verifiability is the test by which information is judged to be sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia, I must ceede to that test.

Let us all remember to be civil in this upcoming discussion of what can be a contentious subject, and understand that all want to improve the article for the better, so let us all come to the table in good faith.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity

They must put Race and ethnicity on this page because you know Filipino is actually independent of race for a fact. And there is proof of it too. But the majority of them are the native people while all the non native groups are minorities.

Steve Austria and John Ensign who have this but are both white. This is all true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.92.71 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Both individuals have stated they are Filipino based on ancestry. They maybe Multiracial Americans, with part of their ethnicity being Filipino, but that does not make them less Filipino. To state that it does would be considered original research. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics

I do not agree with this statement:

"Most Filipino American males have consistently voted Democrat, while their female counterparts have consistently voted Republican"

I am an American of Filipino descent, and I have consistently supported Republican candidates. Can you find out which source you get this information? I do not know if there is any exact percentage of which gender votes Republican or Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.237.138 (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the reference and found that what is stated in the paragraph is not directly stated in it. It can be extrapolated that based on its content that what was written maybe accurate, but extrapolation maybe original research and thus should not be included, or reworded and supported by references from reliable sources.
I have also gone ahead and tagged the statements which you have questions, and requested references to support them. If none can be found to support them, they can be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Active editors of this article are invited to join the discussion regarding the change in Asian American article's infobox. Specifically we are looking to get nominations for individuals who would fall under this article, nominations shall remain open until 9 November 2009. Comments are also welcomed. Thank you in advance --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the nomination process is now over, and the voting period has began. Due to lack of nominations the slot for Laotian female representative is vacant, and will need further discussion sometime after voting has been concluded. The voting period will last until 4 December 2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing of Pictures

Some people may disagree with the pictures used for the article so we should explain why you should change the picture.Such as I don't think we should use Vanessa Hudgens picture because she is not a really prominent figure and is only 25% Filipino we could possibly replace her picture with Veronica De La Cruz,Jasmine Trias,and Ramiele Malubay who are both Filipino-American Idols for a lot of people. --AkoDanielle (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously Ms. De La Cruz photo was removed due to it not being useable due to possible copyright issues. Jasmine Trias was previouisly used, but it was determined at that time that Ms. Hudgens was more notable that Ms. Trias. (regardless of % which they are filipino ethinicity (see Self identification and this discussion (especially regarding Owen Kline) regarding whom is and is not a Filipino American)) As for Ms. Malubay, I would contend that someone who has stared in multiple nationwide released motion pictures is more notable than someone who was in a television program for a period less than one year. That being said, I would agree to replacing Ms. Hudgens with Ms. De La Cruz, thus assiting you in building a consensus to make the change. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A recent IP editor made several major changes to the individuals in the info box without doing so with the consensus of active editors, therefore it would fall under WP:BOLD, and can be reverted. Back before my wikibreak I had made a proposal as to who should be in the infobox that met with no response. Therefore, let me re-propose it:

  • Three Historic Individuals (Pre-1969)
  • One Conservative Elected Official
  • One Liberal Elected Official
  • One Non-TV/Movie Notable Individual
  • One TV/Movie Notable Individual
  • One Athlete
  • One Servicemember

I would also be up for dropping the elected officials completely if there is no agreement reached and it is to maintain WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment has yet been received regarding the above proposal. I would like to renew the proposal, and will seek further comment from individuals from WikiProjects related to this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the sources, some may be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.213.121 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Readdition of Invisible Minority

Some time after January 2009 the section regarding Filipinos as an "Invisible Minority" was removed. I didn't see anything in the talk section regarding removal, and therefore, said removal may have been done under WP:BOLD, and appears to have been done in August 2010 due to WP:VER and WP:OR. There is research out there regarding Filipino Americans as an Invisible Minority (general (1,000+ hits), academic (176 hits)). This should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and thus inclusion in this article, if not its own article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

Shouldn't there be a note on the amount of filipinos who enter the US illegally and those overstaying on visas? If this is included the total number of filipinos in the US is different. Plus a little deetail on the process of how filipinos help their relatives and others overstay by letting them rent their properties and finding them work. All of this is the Filipino story in America.125.25.15.194 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not THE Filipino story in america, but is absolutely part of it. There are those that come here, and reside here, violating Federal laws on immigration, and thus are illegal aliens,but there are the vast majority who have come here legally, who have naturalized, or have been here for generations (some maybe able trace their heritage to the Manilamen).
If such a section is to be created in needs to be in a neutral language that is well referenced from reliable sources. It should not advocate either side of this controversial issue, and be factual.
All this being said I will create an empty subsection under the community issues/immigration subsection regarding illegal immigration within the Filipino American community.
Furthermore, the scope of this article and those included in it are, as far as I remember previous consensus those defined by the U.S. Census, being any individual who can trace their ethnicity, in whole or part, to the Philippines, and are residing in the United States. This definition does not delineate between whether someone is a legal resident, national, citizen, or illegally residing in the United States. See the reference regarding the population figure.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Not all Filipinos in the USA are illegal immigrants, nor are all foreign-born persons. The Philippines was a former US territory and at the time, Filipinos have easy access to emigrate to the mainland US from 1898 to 1946. When the country achieved independence in 1946, the US government and the Philippines had a treaty to clear most hurdles for Filipino nationals to emigrate into the USA. But the process is not easy for all to enter and reside in the US legally. Some Filipino immigrants including those who are undocumented or reside illegally would enter the U.S. from either Mexico and/or Canada. Mike D 26 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was image of Pearlasia Gamboa removed?

Resolved

Why was image of Pearlasia Gamboa removed? 71.121.31.183 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the edit, the new content was greatly a copy past of the introduction to the article regarding the individual, furthermore there was no consensus as to the addition of the subject to the infobox, therefore the edit could be seen as under WP:BOLD and thus reverted. Furthermore, if you look at the history there was a discussion in the past of who should be in the infobox. New additions should be done with consensus of active editors. Furthermore, I am concerned about multiple copy past additions of similar content which I have brought up here, which has since been deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There is not a question anymore (in my mind) about the correctness of your deletion of the copy and paste, which is WP:UNDUE, and has other problems you and other have pointed out. The only question here is regarding the image. YOu have adequately addressed it. My initial thinking was trying to be NPOV by including the image of a paraiah with images of heroes. On thinking about that, in the contexts of arguments on various talk pages, I now agree with removal of the image. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"an American"

There's a discussion touching on the definition of this term here. Some editors of this article might be interested in commenting there. As a related matter, it might be a good idea to clarify the definition of this term in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"composition of forces

April 1942, First and Second Filipino Regiments formed in the U.S. composed of Filipino agricultural workers.[112]

not a true statement!!! but i dont expect wikipedia to get anything grammar right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.118 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The regiments drew upon the Filipino American population in the continental United States and Hawaii. The majority of whom were agricultural workers and male, as well referenced in this article. Furthermore, one can read any of the following sources:
  • Alex S. Fabros. "California's Filipino Infantry". California State Military Museum. California State Military Department. Retrieved 27 April 2011. The day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Filipinos in the United States, those we now respectfully call the "manongs," began a drive to form an all-Filipino military unit. Quickly trained, Filipino immigrants turned-soldiers would be sent to help push the Japanese out of the Philippines. They would fight bravely for the liberation of their homeland and for their right to be American citizens.
    These members of the manong generation were so despised by white America that senators from the western states pushed for Philippine independence, hoping these men would return to the Islands. They were relegated to the bottom of American society, yet they saw opportunities here for a better life and they fought for the right to be Filipinos in America. by 1941, the manongs had been fighting in the United States for over 20 years for wages and living conditions equal to whites and had built militant labor unions in Hawaii, California and Alaska. In the courts they were pioneering civil rights issues, including the right to own property, equal job opportunities and the repeal of racially biased laws. And they were winning.
  • Starr, Kevin (2009). Golden dreams: California in an age of abundance, 1950-1963. New York, NY: Oxford University Press US. p. 450. ISBN 9780195153774. Retrieved 27 April 2011. Filipino solidarity, together with Filipino social and organizational skills, in short, had put the Filipino agricultural unions in the vanguard of the farm labor movement.
    The Second World War offered even further opportunities. By late 1943 the United States Army had established three Filipino Units: the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment, the 1st Batallion of the 2nd Filipino Infantry Regiment, and the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion (Special).     {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  • "Introduction: Filipino Settlements in the United States" (PDF). Temple University Press. Temple University. Retrieved 27 April 2011. Meanwhile, large numbers of Filipinos in the United States were inducted into the armed forces. Their status as U.S. nationals forgotten, many became citizens through mass naturalization ceremonies held before induction.
  • Perez, Frank Ramos; Perez, Leatrice Bantillo (1994). "The Long Struggle for Acceptance: Filipinos in San Joaquin County" (PDF). The San Joaquin Historian. 8 (4). The San Joaquin County Historical Society: 3–18. Retrieved 27 April 2011. OOn December 7, 1941, Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and the bombing of the Philippines on December 8, 1941, brought us into the war. This dastardly act of Japan angered the total population. In the days and weeks after the Pearl Harbor and the Philippines attacks, the recruiting centers were jammed with Filipinos volunteering for military service. In San Joaquin County many Filipinos who volunteered for military service were rejected because of their age and/or the need for them to continue to work in the fields harvesting the crops to feed the armed forces. Filipino women and their teenage daughters and sons worked during school vacations in the Delta Islands, such as McDonald, Rindge Tract, Roberts Island, Terminous, Holt, etc., to plant, harvest and process the crops during the war years.
    In 1942, the First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments were activated. The war helped change the attitudes of the whites. The "brown monkeys" and "goo-goos," et aI, were now referred to as "brown brothers" and accompanied with friendlier smiles.
  • Lott, Juanita Tamayo (2006). Common destiny: Filipino American generations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 15. ISBN 9780742546516. Retrieved 27 April 2011. On the other hand, the Manong generation did not die out. They wooed and married the Manangs. They became husbands and fathers. They became U.S. soldiers and citizens. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Spinout History

According to WP:TOOLONG this article has already reached a limit where it should be considered that content be spun out into sub-article(s). Therefore, as was done with Chinese American history some time ago, and History of Asian Americans, I propose that the history section of this article be spun out as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

With a week with no objection to the idea, I am carrying out the spinout, per WP:BOLD and WP:SPINOUT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


second or third

May 2011

The discussion below was completed. Please place new comments in section provided. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In recent edits there has been a move to state that Indian Americans are the second largest ethnic group amongst Asian Americans; that contridicts information that can be seen on the this article, which includes Multiracial Filipino Americans (a significant percentage of Filipino Americans are multiracial) that state that the total population of Filipino Americans is anywhere between 3 to 4 million individuals, greater than the 2.8 million stated in the other article as being Indian American.

Does the number provided only count Indian American alone? Does it take into account possible Multiracial Indian Americans? If not what number of total Indian Americans when one includes individuals who claim more than one race?

Is this information yet available from the 2010 Census? If it is not, should we use figures from the most recent American Community Survey instead? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 2010 data used in the Indian American article does not take into account multiracial Indians. I haven't seen the census bureau release the multiracial data yet. Or rather, I haven't found them yet. Since multiracial data is used in many other articles and multiracial individuals are considered to be part of a specific ethnic group (African Americans with white ancestry are still considered African Americans), exclusion of these individuals does not give the bigger scope of things. I think we should use the American Community Survey instead until the census data for multiracial people are released or found. Elockid (Talk) 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree we should use the community survey but if possible we should also use the Census data. IMO we need to make it clear to the readers that this data comes from 2 different sources with 2 different methods of gathering the info. --Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This article does so very clearly, and also states that it takes into account multiracial Filipino Americans, the Indian American article does not appear to do so, from the sources that it has linked; this is not stated in that article, and perhaps should be.
To discount Multiracial Filipino Americans, would have Filipino Americans have smaller numbers, but that would be a disservice to them, and to this article, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think a general discussion of use of multiracial data should be discussed in Talk:Asian American. In the Chinese American article, the data in the infobox was recently changed to the 2010 census data. I was being bold and decided to change the Chinese American population to the 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates data. A better explanation of why I think the 2009 data should be used can be found at Talk:Chinese American#Total Population. Elockid (Talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification

As per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I have notified WikiProjects, and left a message on the other article's talk page which correspond to this article, and the Indian American article, of this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

It appears that in recent edits user Castncoot has, for now, eliminated the contradicting statement from the Indian American article. Interested editors should continue to watch for full data to come out, until then there probably will not be a resolution, and things will remain based on the most recent American Community Survey estimates. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2011

In a series of recent edits an IP editor has again re-added content that makes a contradictory statement regarding population of Indian Americans. Further edits were made at the Asian American article, that I have since reverted, that continues to forward the statement that Indian Americans are the second largest group of Asian Americans, even though not all the data (especially Multiracial Asian Americans (which in the 2000 census make up almost 1 in 5 of the Filipino American population)). Therefore, I have tagged the statement accordingly, and will again invite interested editors to this topic to reach consensus as what to do. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the tagging if that statement is to be kept. Otherwise I support the removal until a definite answer can be reached upon. Multiracial data must be included in the population total per my argument above/in Talk:Chinese American#Total Population. Elockid (Talk) 00:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit by me was allegedly "disruptive" even though I had included sources/citations to validate my assertion that Filipino Americans are the third largest group among Asian Americans. Until the data for multi-racial americans has been compiled and released, I request you to keep the edit as the American Community Survey cannot be considered current or accurate after the 2010 US Census has been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.92.239 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Although newly added content is well cited, changes to individual Asian American population totals, and rankings of groups by population amongst Asian Americans was previously discussed. Consensus was created that those populations should not be edited until the full data is released. I appreciate the spirit of the idea that the IP editor has in trying to edit content due to the Update tag found on the Asian American article; however, continued edits without inclusion of the full data is misleading, and isn't inclusive to the Multiracial Asian Americans that are also fall within the scope of this article, and other related articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Multiple sources does not mean further validation. All of those sources use the same data from the U.S. Census which does not include multiracial people. This means they are all essentially the same source, restating the same thing. Using the 2010 data cannot also be considered accurate because of the reasons I stated why multiracial individuals must be included. Secondly, not all the 2010 U.S. Census data has not been released, so it can't be considered "accurate" as the bigger scope of things has not been fully revealed. Elockid (Talk) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this conniption about not including multi-racial Filipino Americans. Until the data about Multi racial Americans has been released, it is more sensible to use more current data while just including a caveat that the numbers may be higher as they don't include data about Multi Racial Americans as was done with the table on List of Asian Americans by state.--76.218.92.239 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The data presently being used for edits of racial population ranking is not sufficient, per previous consensus of active editors.
The data set used in Demographics of Asian Americans#List of US States by Population of Asian Americans, can also be called into question, even though the statement of non-inclusiveness, and incomplete data has been added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged the section mentioned above accordingly, as well as provided a link to this discussion on that article's talk page, as to centralize discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is not only multi-racial Filipino Americans who are being excluded, but multi-racial Asian Americans no matter whether they are part Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Vietnamese, India, Pakistani, etc. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how you could dispute the accuracy of the data when it specifies clearly that data for multi racial americans is not available. The data is in itself accurate. You can only say that the data is incomplete. Kindly change the title of the dispute to "Data considered incomplete" instead of "factual accuracy under dispute". The factual accuracy of the data is indisputable as it has been taken from the US Census Bureau's website. The data can only be considered incomplete. Incomplete data is not ipso facto factually inaccurate. A caveat has also been posted. To claim that the "factual accuracy of the data is in dispute" is baseless. --76.218.92.239 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the tagging of the section, and this discussion is due to the statement above by Elockid, in it the editor stated the opinion that incomplete data, present as whole data (even with the caveat statement presented), is inaccurate.
Please in the future, if replying to previous comments, indent the reply, to show it as part of a string of a conversation. If one chooses to not indent please use the outdent template to continue to show the string of the conversation.
I shall notify Elockid of this response. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks RightCowLeftCoast for the notication. @76.218.92.239. I am not disputing the accuracy of the data. The sources I've seen from the U.S. census bureau do not explicitly state which ethnic group is the largest, second, third largest, etc. There is no definite statement I've seen from the census bureau. So far, the data has been interpreted by others. If one is going to make or assert an accurate, definite statement such as in this case, all contributing aspects and factors regarding that subject must be accounted for. A statement can't be considered accurate if the data isn't complete. This holds true especially in the scientific field.
The data released by the census bureau is definitely not indisputable nor may it be 100% correct. For example, cities across the U.S. are challenging the validity of census statistics. Cities such as New York, Houston, and Detroit are challenging the validity of the census statistics. Actually, Detroit previously won a challenge against the 2000 census. The data itself may not really be "accurate". Elockid (Talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Editorial opinion about whether incomplete data should be treated as accurate data as far as it goes or as inaccurate data overall will vary from one editor to another and from one context to another. A supported statement regarding the level of completeness of the data in a source used to support an article assertion is independent of editorial opinion and might well be useful. Regarding conflicting information contained in different sources, see WP:DUE. Regarding verifiability vs. truth, see the initial paragraph of WP:V. Regarding drawing conclusions about what a source supports based on routine mathematical calculations using information from the source, see WP:CALC. In the article as it currently stands, I see "Filipino Americans are the second largest ethnicity amongst Asian Americans." in the lead and "The Filipino American community is the second largest Asian American group in the United States." in the Population section. Neither assertion is supported. Neither assertion is tagged as needing support. Regarding this, see WP:BURDEN.

As I understand relevant WP editorial policy and guidelines, if an assertion along the lines of "According to X, Martians are the second most numerous." is challenged, such an assertion must be supported. If not supported, it may be removed. If removed and restored, the editor restoring has the burden of evidence to supply a supporting source. Clarifications re the data being incomplete or re the accuracy of the data having been successfully challenged can, perhaps should, be included. The question of whether such clarifications are necessary or useful is a matter for editorial judgement. Mode of presentation of such clarifications (e.g., inline, in the footnote citing the supporting source, in a separate footnote, ...) are matters for editorial judgement. If separate sources differ significantly on a point, all significant viewpoints should be presented, each should be given due weight, each may be challenged editorially, and each must be supported if challenged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added references to the statement in the Demographics section as you suggested; that being said it is still contradicted by the Indian American article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to stimulate discussion here towards resolving the contradiction. See Talk:Indian American#Conflict & contradiction re population ranking. As I noted there, I am presently traveling and probably won't be able to devote much time to this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have checked some of the references on the other article page, and one was from a blog, and another might be a blog as it uses WordPress, and I have tagged it accordingly. That being said, the most recent data from the Census Bureau is incomplete, and any new content based on new data from the 2010 census should wait until all the data is out.
However, if the new content remains, and it can as it is supported by an article in the USA Today and two Indian American local papers that per good faith I am taking as being reliable sources, why is there an emphasis that one ethnicity has overgrown another ethnicity? Is that statement itself supported by a reliable source? How much weight should that statement be given in the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The only time I know sound editors, or in general, most people, disregard some of the data and make conclusions with incomplete data is if the other data is negligible. This is not the case here. Taken from the American Community Survey 2009. The Filipino alone or any combination figure was 3,177,947. The Filipino alone figure is 2,475,794. That's more than a whopping 700,000 people difference. Even going by the 2000 Census (see Table 4), the Filipino alone or in any combination figure is 2,364,815 while the Filipino alone figure is 1,850,314. That's almost a whopping 500,000 people. If we treat that the estimate of multicultural Filipinos is at least 500,000, that figure along with the Filipino alone figure from the 2010 Census is enough to disprove that the claim such as USA Today has made is not completely true. There is quite a huge possibility based on previous data and growth trends that Indian Americans are not the 2nd largest Asian American group. Therefore, before making accurate statements, all data must be at hand. The IP's sources reporting about the 2010 Census demographic data (ethnic groups) which are making statements about the data are using the same incomplete data as what was being done here. Newspapers/news organizations and magazines are the sources that I least rely for information regarding demographic data because almost all the times where they write so and so is the largest or smallest or whatever where they use a source have been wrong. At least, that's from what I have experienced. These sources get their data from the same place that we do. Elockid (Talk) 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Not to get into a dispute here (something I truly want to avoid -- not only for the reason that I don't presently have time for it), I'll still say that I am bothered by that talk of disregarding some of the data and making conclusions with incomplete data (the "making conclusions" part of that is "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" -- which is WP:original research, and is disallowed by that just-linked English Wikipedia policy), and talk of proving claims true or untrue (Note the initial para of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
I haven't researched this thoroughly, but the following assertions are verifiable from 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Selected Population Profile:
Also, it is verifiable that the Census shows growth among Asian Indians story in USA Today asserted, "Indians have surpassed Filipinos as the nation's second-largest Asian population after Chinese", using figures attributed to the ACS to back that assertion up. The ACS figures used were for 2008 and 2009. The 2009 figures used match the "alone" figures above. I have not verified the 2008 figures given in the article against the 2008 ACS (and WP editorial guidelines neither require nor forbid such verification).
How this information should be presented in order to resolve the contradiction between the two articles being discussed here is a matter for editorial judgement.
Gotta run -- I'm late. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for editors to challenge even reliable sources no matter how verifiable the source is. Many decisions of editorial judgment is based on common sense. Even if a verifiable and considered reliable source says something, if it's not believable, then it's going to be challenged based on other sources. There is a challenge on the reliability of the source. In common aspects of American culture, see Talk:Chinese American#Total population, that assertion cannot be held as "fact". Elockid (Talk) 11:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you are asserting that it is not uncommon for WP editors to violate WP editorial policies and guidelines, and for WP articles to contain content resulting from such violations, I don't doubt that. My own understanding is that editorial judgement, even in the form of consensus of editors of a particular article, cannot legitimately override WP editorial policy -- except in the very special case of a consensus among editors of a particular article to invoke WP:IAR. Re challenge to RSs based upon disbelief/disagreement -- see WP:DUE.
The particular situation under discussion here seems pretty clear to me, and it doesn't seem to me that it should be too difficult to find a combination of assertions supported by verifiable RSs which articulate that situation in a manner which does not bring the two articles at issue here into contradiction. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The data from the two Indian American newspapers and the USA today back the assertion, and therefore falls under WP:VER.
The multiple sources, from multiple scholarly published sources, back the statement in the Filipino American article, and therefore falls under WP:VER.
Thus the two statements in the two articles contradict.
Recently active editors in this discussion appear to have reached a consensus the data which the USA today article and the two Indian American newspaper articles draw from incomplete data presently released U.S. Census Bureau from the 2010 decennial census mandated by the United States Constitution.
There is data stating the number of multi-racial, in census terminology "Asian alone, or in any combination", that states that there are 17,320,856 Asian Americans. The same data states in the Asian American article, that there are 14,674,252 Americans woes ancestry/ethnicity is Asian alone, a difference (if we are all agree to consensus per WP:CALC that simple subtraction can be done) of 2,646,604 individuals.
No data yet has been released from the census which ancestries/ethnicities those individuals fall under (multiple, as each of those individuals would fall under at least two, even Filipino-Indian American).
All this being said, I propose until the new data is released that we enact WP:IAR, state until full data from the U.S. Census Bureau is released that the data from 2009 ACS is used for established statements of population within the individual ethnicities, not to include the grouping known as Asian American, in the infoboxes. Statements of ethnicities within the article bodies, can be made, without stating whether any ethnicity is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. in terms of population within the Asian American grouping.
The above should be a decent compromise until the full data comes out. No? Objections? Opinions?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to a temporary solution which removes the contradiction by removing the contradictory claims for a short while in anticipation of release of Census2010 data and reworking both articles from that data. Outdated information which that data supersedes can be removed unless there is specific reason to retain bits of outdated info. The dated status of any outdated information retained should be made clear -- as should the reason for retaining it in the articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
How about we, keep the old data when the complete Census2010 data is released, but change how it is presented from present tense to past tense, and so readers can see the growth of individual ethnicities. This is done in other articles, such as what I have done in the Chula Vista, with other research. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Let us also weight 10 days before enacting IAR in order for other active editors to have a chance to comment. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Given no stated objections, changes were made per the above consensus, to remove contradictions and statements about claims of size of population among Asian Americans between Filipino Americans and Indian Americans.
Beyond that, let me state, that the statement that was previously in the Indian American article that says that group A has surpassed group B is not necessary, and IMHO was puffery, even if cited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Filipino-Americans have more than one ethnicity, in fact some if a minute porportion of the population were indeed of Arab, Malay, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Spanish or Mexican descent, including Americo-Philippine persons of U.S. ancestry. The Philippines has some European (i.e. British, French, German and even European Jewish) settlers in the 19th century when the country was still under Spanish colonial rule. There are other religious faiths in the country and with smaller numbers of Filipino American adherents, including various Protestant denominations (esp. the Anglican Communion and Episcopalians), indigenous forms of Islam, Buddhism and Taoism from China, Shintoism introduced to the Philippines from the Japanese, and Hinduism from the Indian-Filipino community of South Asia. Mike D 26 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
And according to the definition in the initial sentence of the article (Filipino Americans are Americans of Filipino ancestry), any child with a FA parent is his/herself a FA, as are eventual children of that FA child, and so on in perpetuity. If the non-FA parent of a child with a FA parent has an ethnicity not in the FA parent's ancestry, that ethnicity would be added into the mix of ethnicities of that FA child -- at least that is the way I read this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Flip" (yet again)

I've reverted this good faith having the edit summary, "Removed 'Flip' as part of the introduction. It creates a biased and subjective view of the Filipino American group and even the hyperlinked topic on 'Flip' is being challenged.". See WP:CENSOR. Also see Nigger, Chink, Wop, etc. Also see discussion at Talk:Flip (slang). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinout proposal

The article is over 100K in size I propose, even though this is a B rated article, that sections of it be spun off due to it exceeding WP:SIZERULE. Perhaps Demographics, or Community Challenges should be spun out? Thoughts, opinions, for, against?

I will wait until 22JAN12 to do anything. Afterwards, I will be bold and spin out each of those sections. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This process will take some time, so I will start with the Demographics section first. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any progress. Are you still going to split the article?Op47 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I had already moved the demographics section into a subarticle, but given that the article is 100K SIZERULE does prescribe that it is highly advised to create another subarticle. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at the tag on Community Challenges further down. Op47 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Readable text (barring references) the prose is 32kb. Hardly 100k. Half the page is references and external links. Quite a few can be shortened and some of the other links to existing pages can be fixed up as well. I see no reason to split until other matters are addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
On second looks, I agree. I have replaced the split tag with an improve tag. Op47 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of images

Since 19 May 2012, the infobox has been without images. I understand that this is a contentious issue, however I feel that enough time has passed that images should be re-included into the infobox. I am proposing that if images are re-added that the be done so in a way that doesn't give undue weight to any political affiliation and cover the spectrum of notable groups, while still being under 9 total images. I propose the following groupings (I got most of these List of Filipino Americans):

  • Three historical (Pre-1965) individuals
  • One from "Arts and letters"
  • One from "Business"
  • One from "Fashion and pageantry"
  • One from "Military"
  • One from "Sports"
  • One from "Television and film"

The should make the representation well rounded. I will seek comment from related wikiprojects regarding this, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing images is not what we typically do to reduce article size. I have reverted the removal. Sections such as the Background section in my opinion would be better off in other pages such as Filipino people. Elockid (Talk) 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps for the background, there should be a See also hatnote for that section directing others to read the article Filipino people, and the content that can be verified to be specifically about Filipino Americans can be left in the article in the Culture section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Elockid (Talk) 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's Erik Spoelstra (head coach of the Miami Heat, 2012 NBA Champions) the first Filipino-American in the NBA, and Vanessa Hudgens? I think its either replace or add these two, what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.169.231 (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would oppose those individuals. Both are notable, but their notability is more recent. Furthermore, they are not the most distinguished within their fields among Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That does bring up a good question, who are the most acclaimed, and most decorated Filipino Americans, within the fields of Entertainment and Athletics?
Among Filipino American Athletes, Natalie Coughlin has earned multiple Olympic gold medals, and various other accolades within her field. I am sure there are others that may have similar awards, but do they have the amount that she has?
Among musicians, there are numerous Filipino American Grammy recipients.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
More people watch the NBA than the WWE. And I highly doubt that anyone honestly knows who Fake is. Erik Spoelstra always visits the Philippines and hosts fitness programs down there. The fact of the matter is that these two claim to be Filipino and even announce their pride in being of half-Filipino descent. I don't see Fake doing the same. Spoelstra is in his prime. Let's not forget Jessica Sanchez. I think the mosaic needs to be changed so it displays smaller pictures which means it can display more. Something similar to the mosaic found on the Russians, Germans or Filipinos articles. There's many famous Filipino-Americans and honestly, nobody knows half the people on this mosaic. The only reason I don't oppose Batista beinhg on there is because yes, he claims he is of Filipino and Greek descent and even tatooed himself with flags of both countries to show it. Let's not forget Brian Viloria, someone on Wikipedia should get a image of him and attain permission so he can be put on there. Viloria even speaks Filipino still, despite being born in the United States because he's one of the Filipino-Americans who hasn't renounced his language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.177.148 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 July 2012
FakeVicki Draves is dead, and is a historic individual for Filipino Americans, one of the pre-1965 individuals that I spoke about earlier.
Jessica Sanchez, although she is notable, I think we should consider WP:RECENT. Good that she did well in American Idol in the most recent season, and sure the Miami Heat has won the most recent NBA post season however that does not mean that they makes the best representatives of Filipino American in the areas of Athletics or Entertainment.
There is an entire list of notable Filipino Americans we can choose from see List of Filipino Americans, and even before we had Batista, there was Natalie Coughlin.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Fake isn't dead! I just read an article on her, why are you lying to me? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I believe I meant to say Vicki Draves, I shall strike my statement above and edit it accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Change made without consensus

A registered editor recently made changes to the infobox that were done without consensus, per WP:BRD these changes were reverted. Please discuss changes to the infobox prior to making the changes, and receive consensus before changes are made. If it is the goal to add Allan Pineda Lindo, Jr., since the subject is known as an entertainer/singer the subject can take the place of Bruno Mars. Personally, I would not support the change, but it would be better than replacing two notable Filipino labor rights leaders, members of the manong generation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Declassified report

Recently Wtmitchell tagged content as having failed verification. I kindly request the reason for the addition of the tag.

The source provided:

states the following:

A bright spot in the battle for recognition recently was brought to the surface by a D.C.-based group called American Coalition for Filipino Veterans. They were able to obtain a copy of a declassified formerly confidential Army document consisting of hundreds of pages titled "U.S. Army Recognition Program of Philippine Guerrillas." It spells out details of WWII campaigns, the development of the guerrilla movement, development of guerrilla recognition, policies, rosters, unit missions and casualty statistics, among other topics.
The pages add credence to many of the local claimants' stories, backing up in print what they have been saying all along about their service and the combat battles that were fought. Perry said, "The key point is, this is an official U.S. Army document, chapter by chapter, it has every commander's name that connects up to documents we have on unrecognized (individuals) in Las Vegas. It's a crying shame that this wasn't available earlier. The book offers authorized proof that the men have served. There is no way that these men can make up these stories ... those stories are all in this book."

The content which the source is used to verify is as follows:

In 2013, the U.S. released a previously classified report which detailed guerrilla activities in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, including guerrilla units not on the "Missouri list"

If the content can be better worded please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it was apparently an error on my part. I've removed the tag. I missed seeing the part of the cited source which verified the content. I don't recall for sure, but I probably did a text search for "release", "report", and "Missouri" and left it at that when none of those failed to find content in the source which verified the assertion. My bad; thanks for the heads-up. 04:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit

Upon request, editing this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • Way too many citations. Pick the best and have done with it. (I left almost all of them.) I merged the multiple cites into single footnotes where possible to reduce the footnote strings.
  • The article talks about "perpetual foreigners" and "white washed". This appears to be a contradiction. The text should be restructured to eliminate the confusion.
  • While there is every reason to talk about the denial of veteran's benefits, The topic deserves an article of its own, but it currently receives a disproportionate amount of treatment in the main article, especially given that many of the eligible recipients are Filipinos rather than Filipino Americans.
  • I'd love to see more treatment of the successes of individuals among the group beyond politicians. Scholars, authors, celebrities, etc.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Perhaps an article regarding Filipino American World War II veteran benefits can be spun out containing the content from its former version, with an even more summarized version of the content that is in the article now, can be created. It would a sub-article of this article, and given that the article already meets WP:LIMIT it is something that would make sense. No?
Also regarding the more notable contributions. This is done for the greater Asian American article, but for the most part this is limited to the List of Filipino Americans sub-article. Perhaps something similar to what exist in the Asian American article can be replicated in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Malay or Austronesians?

After an edit by Obsidian Soul, the changed content was tagged by Administrator Wtmitchell. I am seeking to nominate this article for good article review, as it was just copy edited. I would like to resolve this before nomination, as these tags would kill a promotion attempt. So which is it Malay or Austronesians? The reference specifically says Malay, but are there other reliable sources that say Filipinos are Austronesians? If not, would a reversion to Malay, as used in the present reference be sufficient to remove the tags?

I will be notifying relevant WikiProjects regarding this discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Here, I removed a link to archiveurl http://web.archive.org/web/20090728184902/http%3A//www.gov.ph/, which fails saying that it is no longer archived, and to http://www.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200020&Itemid=26, which apparently fails a lookup at the server and redirects to a general info page not supporting the assertion to which the cite is attached. Then, here, I placed some {{fv}} tags with an edit summary about linkrot. I must have been in a hurry when I did this as it looks like I ought to have done more.
The article currently contains a ref named "url=http://www.gov.ph/1" which provides a cite linking to dead archiveurl http://web.archive.org/web/20090728184902/http%3A//www.gov.ph/ which is ref'd in two places.
  • One place cites it for support of an assertion re a blend of Eastern and Western cultures. I've googled around a bit, and it looks to me as if [1] and/or [2] might be workable alternative sources to support this.
  • The second place refs it along with other sources in support of the assertion, "The Philippines is religiously and ethnically diverse: 91.5% Christian Austronesians, 4% Muslim Austronesians, 1.5% Chinese and 3% other." I haven't looked closely at those asserted percentages vs. the cited supporting sources but, re sources supporting an assertion about Austronesian roots of Filipinos, some quick googling turned up [3], [4], [5], among others.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't controversial. Please see our articles on the concept of the Malay race and Austronesian peoples.
In short, Austronesians refer to the same people once known as the "Malay Race" or the "Malayo-Polynesians", with a few exceptions (e.g. most Mainland Southeast Asians of Indochina are closer genetically to Chinese people than to the peoples of Maritime Southeast Asia). But in the same way that we don't say "Japan's population is composed of 99% Mongoloids" or "Kenya's population is mostly Negro", is the same way that we don't say "Christian Malays".
The term "Malay" for the indigenous ethnicity of the Philippines (i.e. the "Indios" of the Spanish period) is outdated, inaccurate, and easily confused with the ethnic Malays of Malaysia. "Malayo-Polynesian" is acceptable, but still too locational in the naming.
That Filipinos were taught that they were "Malay" in the local education system is an artifact of the American Commonwealth, when theories of northward migration of actual Malays from Malaysia as the origin of the Philippine population was championed by an American anthropologist in the Philippines. That theory is largely discredited nowadays (with the mainstream theory being that Filipinos and other Austronesians descended from southward migrations from ancestral Austronesians from Taiwan). Nevertheless, however controversial the Austronesian origin theories might be, "Austronesian" is the more neutral ethnonym as it doesn't imply one or the other.
Calling all Austronesians "Malays" is also a bit like calling all Filipinos "Tagalogs". Even among other Maritime Southeast Asians (Malaysians, Timorese, Bruneians, and Indonesians), Oceanians, and Malagasy, only Filipinos still refer to themselves as "Malays" in the meaning of race; even though all of them were once grouped under the "Malay race" and all of them are Austronesians. You won't hear an Indonesian or a Hawaiian refer to himself as a "Malay" for example. Even Malaysians differentiate between ethnic Malays and the Suluk ethnicities which originated from the Philippines (Tausug, Badjau, etc.) as well as other ethnicities native to Malaysia but not part of the Malay ethnic group (e.g. the Kadazan-Dusun and the Dayak), even though all of them might be full Malaysian citizens and are certainly Austronesians. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Here. This Filipino parent explains the problems of the Philippine education system perpetuating Beyer's obsolete theories much more clearly. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The source(s) that Wtmitchell provide appear to be reliable sources, the link above appears at best an opinion piece (even if accurate), and at worse a self-published blog. That being said the term Malay and Austronesian can both be verified to refer to Filipinos, perhaps as a compromise, we can use both terms, and attribute the sources to indicate what sources use which term.
Another option is to leave out the content altogether as this belongs more in the Filipino people article, as what could replace it with the breakdown of Filipino Americans, A% Tagalog, B% Tsinoy, and so on and so forth. If this is the course that achieves consensus, we can start with this source which states that there are a wide variety of characteristics for Filipino Americans do to the Filipino peoples diverse make up. Then if we can find a reliable source we can go into the breakdown of what is referred to in this reference as "ethnolinguistic groups".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the original geographic distribution of Austronesians. We are in it.
This is the extent of the core Srivijaya Empire. It roughly corresponds to the geographic distribution of their descendants - the true ethnic Malays. It does not extend to the Philippines (though they conquered satellite kingdoms there who paid tribute), nor does it include the rest of Austronesia.

That "opinion piece" cites specialists (the late William Henry Scott, a prominent American historian who spent decades in the Philippines and is responsible for preserving most of what we know of Prehispanic Philippine history), and as noted on top it has also been published in a magazine. But I merely linked it not as a ref, but to provide a clearer explanation of what is wrong with Philippine history taught in Philippine elementary schools (their outdated textbooks).

I didn't include references, because what Wtmitchell posted is already enough. Not to mention you can easily find modern sources for all of this. There is NO controversy on whether the indigenous population of the Philippines is Austronesian. We ARE Austronesians. The only issue is what term to use.

You used "Malay", which, as I already pointed out, is scientifically outdated, inaccurate, and ambiguous (not to mention mildly racist). Everyone else in the world has since moved on from Blumenbach's 5 races system (that's from the 19th century, ferchrissakes). No one calls indigenous Filipinos "Malay" except Filipinos themselves. Have a look at our articles on the Malagasy people, the Polynesians, Native Indonesians, etc. None of them use "Malay" except when referring to actual ethnic Malays. They use Austronesian to refer to the larger ethnic grouping of their related cultures.

This is Wikipedia and the 21st century. We use the most up-to-date understandable terms for everyone, which means we use Austronesian. I'm really quite puzzled by how something as simple as this requires me to write paragraphs to explain.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Wtmitchell's issue seems to be with the percentages and the dead references, not on whether indigenous Filipinos are Austronesians or not.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That's correct. This edit replacing e.g. Malay race with Austronesean caught my eye while running my watchlist. I noticed & fixed some problems with links in nearby cites. I had inadvertently caps-lock'd the edit summary, and I remember deciding just let that go rather than retyping. I'm following discussion here with a bit of interest and it seems to me that you make good points above re the two terms. As my attention has been drawn back to this by watchlist hits, I've done more googling, stumbling over interesting items such as [6] and [7]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. I was only familiar with the Out-of-Taiwan theory (again because it is the one most widely accepted scientifically), so this was the first time I've ever heard of the term "Nusantao" as an alternative name for maritime Austronesians. Even more interesting is that he nails one almost universal Austronesian root word - "tao" (human). Solheim's views however are more unconventional, given that he classifies people by culture rather than by genetics. Which would mean he would include peoples who have assimilated the Austronesian languages, technology, and culture, even though they are not related genetically to actual Austronesians (e.g. the Negritos of the Philippines and the Melanesians of Oceania and Papua New Guinea). There are obvious problems with that. It would be akin to classifying all inhabitants of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. as "Germanic" regardless of their genetic origin, because they all speak English (a West Germanic language) and mostly follow English (Angle) culture, which is a subgroup of the Germanic peoples.
Anyway thanks for clarifying that. I'm afraid I can't help with the population percentages thing, as I merely came across the use of "Malay" and quickly edited it to reflect more accepted terminology. I've been automatically doing it with other similar usages in our articles on the Philippines (which I again blame on our school system).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the comment where Obsidian Soul took issue with my using the term Malay, please see the sentence:

That being said the term Malay and Austronesian can both be verified to refer to Filipinos, perhaps as a compromise, we can use both terms, and attribute the sources to indicate what sources use which term.

I used both terms because they can both be verified.
Again, perhaps this belongs more in the article regarding Filipino people, and not in this article. Background on who Filipino people are can be summarized using references from the Filipino people article.
More importantly who are the Filipinos who make up Filipino Americans? We already have a percentage with reliable sources, who are Multiracial Filipino Americans, and we have percentages of what percentages speak what, but would it be OR to say that if a person speaks X that they are part of X ethnicity? For instance my father is Ilocano but speaks tagalog as well, but that doesn't make him Tagalog.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think Malay should be used at all. Again, it can be verified yes, but to old books and to non-specialists. You can browse the Google book results and see quite clearly how modern scientists and historians avoid using "Malay" to refer to Filipinos. You only see it used in textbooks written by Filipino authors (some of them recycled from ancient editions), memoirs, or popular culture books written by travel writers. Also notice how they tend to be people who still believe in Blumenbach's neat five races - the white (Caucasian), yellow (Mongolian), brown (Malay), black (Ethiopian), and red (American), which formed the basis of later scientific racism that eventually led to Hitler. Needless to say, the latter has long been abandoned in modern science.
They're a far cry to the actual historical and scientific works you see when you google "Filipino Austronesian". That difference is even more stark when you browse for them in Google Scholar. Plenty of genetic, linguistic, and cultural studies for "Filipino Austronesian". Whereas the only hits for "Filipino Malay" are works which discuss both Filipinos and ethnic Malays as distinctly separate peoples.
WP:V is not simply about finding something written about it. It also takes due weight into consideration, as well as clarity. I'm just asking you not to use "Malay" or "Malay race" when referring to Filipinos. As for everything else, I'm sorry I can't help with that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that it it does have some weight, although as shown above it is used less often, for instance the 2003 CIA factbook uses the term (which is a reliable source presently used in the article), where as the current one does not.
Again, I propose that the following content be removed:

The Philippines is religiously and ethnically diverse: 91.5% Christian Austronesians, 4% Muslim Austronesians, 1.5% Chinese and 3% other. As a result of intermarriage, many Filipinos have some Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, American, Arab, or Indian ancestry.

The content belongs more in the article Filipino people and not in the article of "Americans of Filipino descent".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I would argue it does not. You used wayback machine. This is, of course, from 2003. While yes it does repeat Beyer's theories in the "People" section of the background notes, you will note that the page has been deemed outdated by 2012. Please see the same page in Sep. 10, 2012, which says that the "Background Notes are no longer being updated or produced. They are being replaced with Fact Sheets focusing on U.S. relations with countries and other areas and providing links to additional resources".
And it has been replaced. Visit the new page and you will note that the "Ethnic groups" section no longer inaccurately says "Malay, Chinese" as in previously, but "Tagalog 28.1%, Cebuano 13.1%, Ilocano 9%, Bisaya/Binisaya 7.6%, Hiligaynon Ilonggo 7.5%, Bikol 6%, Waray 3.4%, other 25.3% (2000 census)". All of the previous content which repeats Beyer's outdated theories have been expunged.
But yes, maybe it belongs more to the Filipino people article. I think it's already there though, so I won't really protest if you decide to remove it altogether.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Filipino American/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 06:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA nomination! As a Filipino American, I'm excited to see that so much work has been put into this article. Unfortunately, more work is needed to bring this to GA standards. I have decided to fail this article's GAN, and below I provide suggestions for improvement.

The lead section needs to provide an overview of the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. It should summarize important points, and significant information in the lead should be further explained later in the article.

The "Demographics" section could be further expanded. Its main article, Demographics of Filipino Americans, contains important historical and socioeconomic information that is not reflected in this article. Furthermore, the section currently contains statistical data that lack inline citations. The GA criteria requires that statistics be sourced with inline citations.

The "Culture" section could be reorganized, since some parts of it suggest that the section was written to focus on Filipino culture, not Filipino American culture. Here are some suggestions:

  • In the "Names" section, it seems irrelevant to mention that Filipinos celebrate fiestas. Furthermore, the names are part of Filipino culture, and you do not explain why the names are significant to Fil-Am culture
  • The section named "In the United States" is unnecessary, since the entire article is about Filipinos in the US.
  • The "Language" section should talk about language in the Fil-Am community, not in the Philippines. The following sentence focuses too much attention on language in the Philippines: "Filipino and English are constitutionally established as official languages in the Phillipines, and Filipino is designated as the national language, with English in wide use." It might be better to say, "Because Filipino and English are official languages in the Philippines, Filipino Americans widely speak both languages."
  • "Another significant Filipino language is Ilokano." -- This seems to be awkwardly stated, since the article doesn't discuss the various languages in the Philippines. Furthermore, the reference does not appear to be a reliable source for this kind of statement.
  • In the "Religion" section, it seems irrelevant to say "one of only two in Asia, along with East Timor". Remember that this article is not about the Philippines, but rather Filipinos in the US.

The "History" section should be expanded to broadly cover the history of Filipino migration to the US. The "Politics" section needs a copyedit, since much of it is awkwardly worded.

The "Community challenges" has some issues with neutrality, clarity, and adherence to the sources:

  • "The number of Filipino restaurants does not reflect the size of the population." I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that there are a lot of Filipinos, but not enough restaurants to satisfy their demand for Filipino food? If so, then it would be good to explain why this happens. It also might be useful to compare Filipino cuisine to other types of Asian cuisine, such as Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, or Indian. You should also clarify what it means to be "noticeable".
  • "On television, Philippine cuisine has been criticized, such as on Fear Factor,[57] and praised, such as on Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations,[58] and Bizarre Foods America.[59]" -- Here you should expand the statements by explaining what each program has said about Filipino food.
  • "Philippine cuisine remains prevalent among Filipino immigrants" -- Doesn't this seem obvious?
  • "Filipino Americans have little identification with their heritage" -- That's not what the source said. The study only found a correlation between low cultural identification and delinquency. Or did I read the source incorrectly?
  • Why is the "Citizenship" section kept under a "Community challenges" section? I see no mention of challenges related to dual citizenship.

Perhaps the "Celebrations" section can be condensed and merged into the "Culture" section? Also, the "Notable Filipino Americans" section should have a summary of the main article.

I hope my comments thus far have been helpful. Right now I do not have time to review the rest of this article, but I'm sure that further issues will be addressed in future edits and reviews. Happy editing! Edge3 (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Prostitution in the Republic of Korea

I have removed content regarding the possibility of Filipina's immigrating to the United States after marrying service-members in the Republic of Korea. Although, some prostitutes in Korea are Filipina, not all prostitutes are Filipinas; not all Filipinas immigrating to the United States through the Republic of Korea are prostitutes. The content is much more related to Filipinos in South Korea, and does not fall within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you need all prosititutes in South Korea are Filipinas? There have been over one million prostitutes, thus Filipinas cannot occupy majority. You always argue as all or nothing. Your argument seems no sense.--Syngmung (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The content which was removed does not fall within the scope of this article, it falls within the scope of Filipinos in South Korea and Prostitution in South Korea, but not in this article. There are many Filipino Americans who immigrate from another nation, rather than directly from the Philippines, but until they begin residing within the United States, or are U.S. Nationals and/or Citizens they do not fall within the article's scope. There are Filipino Americans that reside outside of the continental United States, such as Filipino American servicemembers, their dependents, etc. However, Filipinas in South Korea are not automatically Filipino Americans and thus fall outside of the scope of this article.
Also please do not discuss myself, discuss the disputed content. See Ad hominem.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipino American Buddhism

I am here in Texas but I never meet a Filipino American Buddhist,I think they settled in California mostly.My question is did they marry a Chinese?Sinhalese?Thai?or other nationality why they become Buddhist or did they are grow up as a Buddhist or mostly they are Newly convert?Or they are Chinese or Thai descent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.121.95 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 4 July 2013

To speculate why the respondents of the poll became Buddhist is WP:OR, and not allowed as content within the article itself. If one can find a reliable source that states why it is certain Filipino Americans have the religious preference they have that can be used to expand content in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Invisible minority -- significance

I've reverted these edits, which removed some material from the article, saying "I would like to remove the statement "and is often not seen as significant even among its members" at the end of the first paragraph under invisible minority. It's a negative opinion that is an injustice to the Filipino American self image." This revert is mainly based on WP:COI which says, in part, "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.", but also thinking of WP:CENSOR. The article cites a supporting source, but I have not been able to confirm whether or not that source supports the assertion. This is a WP:BRD revert, and I'll leave it up to regular editors of this article to come to a consensus decision on whether or not the material ought to be removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Aren't "Filipino-Americans" pretty much also dual citizens of the Philippines and the United States? I think we should add Nonito Donaire and Lea Salonga to the infobox, both of these individuals are Filipino-Americans, in the sense that they contain American citizenship along with the Philippine.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Fil-Ams are, for purposes of this article, whatever this article defines them as being. This artcle defines them as "Americans of Filipino descent". That is sufficiently vague that I am not sure that I fully understand it, but my best guess is that it is intended to mean persons who (1) are citizens of the U.S. and (2) have a Philippine-citizen ancestor close enough in their background to be identifiable as such. That may or may not be a good definition (my opinion is that it is not), but that is my understanding of the definition for purposes of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the article Lea Salonga, there is no content about the subject becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, therefore the subject does not appear to meet the definition of American. Therefore, I cannot support, and would out right oppose, the subject falling within the scope of this article, at this time.
Regarding Nonito Donaire, there are forum post that state that the subject has become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but no reliable sources verifying this. The subject is stated to be a Filipino American in multiple reliable sources (IBT, HBO, ABS-CBN, Los Angeles Times), therefore the weight of reliable sources are sufficient verification. Donaire, if added to the infobox, IMHO would replace Erik Spoelstra, who is the sports representative in the infobox. I would not oppose it, nor would I support it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filipino_Americans/Archive_3&oldid=1146812042"