Talk:Filipino Americans/Archive 4

Archives

Malkin in the infobox

Why do people insist on adding her there? Her main claim to fame in the first place is because of her completely disavowing her Asian roots. Completely. Just googling her name alone will give you plenty of sources where she is variously described as "hating herself", "forgetting where she came from" to being outright called a "racist". I know we don't base things on personal opinion, but given that this is what she is notable for, putting her in the front page of an article for Filipino-Americans is more than a little ironic. There are plenty of other Filipino-Americans out there, of the same or more notability, who are less reluctant to admit they have Filipino blood. Use them instead. I've replaced her again. If anyone wishes to retain her, at least give a valid reason on why you'd retain someone who doesn't even consider herself Filipino-American. In short: she is too controversial to be there, regardless of whether or not you agree with her views. --203.87.162.90 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've given the reason yourself... you are removing her based on your own personal opinion. She is a very prominent American of Philippine descent. And she is hardly notable for what you claim she is. Binging her, I get not a single hit on your above claims. Until consensus is reached, per Wiki guidelines, she should remain in the article. I've reverted your deletion again. Please restrain yourself until more folks weigh in. And keep in mind, consensus is not a vote. Rational explanations based on existing wiki guidelines need to be cited.Onel5969 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Onel5969 here. The point of the infobox gallery is to show a diverse range of people in the group. Malkin is simply a more interesting selection than adding another entertainer to a list that already has several others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, oh come on. Don't pretend you don't actually know who she is. Here's the more famous one by Keith Olbermann. She has an informal reputation of "turning her back" on her ethnicity. Whether that's true or not (she's certainly done nothing to dispel it, and even freely acknowledges that other Filipino-Americans don't like her), that makes her a very questionable choice to be one of the images used to represent Filipino-Americans. And to clarify, I'm not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about theirs.

@Arxiloxos. Actually, no. The point of the infobox images is relevance to the topic. If prominence is the only criteria for being included up there, again there are plenty of other Filipino-Americans who are of the same or more notability. The question is why can't you use them instead. Seems to me, the reason she is there is to push a POV point. The fact that changing something as minor as this results in reversions, every time, is suspicious, no?

She has done absolutely nothing to justify her being here, aside from being the child of Filipino immigrants. In stark contrast to whom I replaced her with, for example, Darren Criss has talked about what it's like to be a Filipino-American. That's relevance. You can find plenty of others who've done the same if you don't want Criss there for some reason. But Malkin hasn't. Nothing of her notability in any way, is about her being Filipino-American. So I'm questioning why she is given priority in the infobox. She probably doesn't even want to be there. No one really cares who you replace her with, so if you want another author, why not go for a Pulitzer prize winner, for example? There are several who are Filipino-Americans. Just that it be someone who at least publicly acknowledges their being Filipino-American in some way. This is an article on Filipino-Americans, remember? Relevance is important in what images you use.

Here: WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE--203.87.162.90 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making the point against your argument. At first it was "Her main claim to fame in the first place is because of her completely disavowing her Asian roots. Completely.", now it's "She has an informal reputation". Never said I didn't know her. She is quite well known. And of Philippine descent. In fact, right now, she is probably the most well-known of any of the Filipino-Americans who are pictured in the infobox. Which would seem to run counter to your own point. You don't like her. We get it. That is not a valid reason for not including her. She is a Filipino-American. She is one of the most well-known Filipino-Americans in the country. Can't get much more relevant than that. The article is about folks of Philippine ancestry. In fact, since the article brings up the fact that politically this demographic is generally conservative, and she is one of the most well-known conservative women in the country, would indicate her relevance to the subject of the article.Onel5969 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are. Are you admitting that you're including her because she's conservative?

Yes Filipinos are generally socially conservative (Mexicans are too, being Catholics), but no, that doesn't mean her kind of conservatism. Steve Austria already represents that demographic very well. Have you read her blog yet? Making fun of Filipino-Americans and other Asian-Americans isn't clear enough for you? Or how she actually takes pride in getting hate mail from other Filipino-Americans? And you somehow think that she represents Filipino-Americans best...

You asked for guidelines earlier. I gave mine. Which guideline is it again that says we have to include her because she's famous among [non-Asian] conservatives? Darren Criss is pretty famous too. Far more famous than she is, certainly. There are other people who also fit that description, and still you insist that she gets the spot. Weird.--203.87.162.90 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I do not support her removal. Part of the reason, beyond her high notability outside of the Filipino American ethnicity (no hyphen used in most academic papers), is as a highly notable Filipino American author, perhaps the most well known Filipino American author in the United States. She is not a political representative, as that is done by fmr Rep. Austria and fmr Gov. Cayetano (right and left sides of the political spectrum). Therefore I oppose your efforts to remove Malkin, based on the POV reasoning stated above. Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the IP editor. Sorry for not editting logged in. I was out of town in a public computer. Not that it matters. Anyway, here let me break it down for you: I think it's insulting for an article on Asian-Americans to be represented by a person who defended the internment of other Asian-Americans during WW2 and agrees with racial profiling. I mean she's the person who said "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake." and she is used to represent an article on Asian-Americans? Why?

Including her because she is the "most well known" Filipino American author, which is disputable (I haven't heard of her at all until I actually checked who the people are in the infobox), is also covered in WP:NOTADVOCATE. Including her is advocating her specific views. Removing her is not (given that as I have stated again and again, I do not care who you replace her with).

I assume you're both conservatives. I'm not American, so that doesn't even matter. But surely you are aware of how she is viewed by non-conservatives? As well as other Filipino-Americans? You do agree that she is highly controversial, correct? She is a controversial figure in terms of race and nationality among Asian-Americans. That itself is grounds enough not to include her. You're already aware of the problems in her article itself, the edit wars and the long arguments in the talk page. Others have already pointed out the way the Asian-American community feel about her in her talk page repeatedly: [1][2][3] How could she represent Filipino-Americans when they actively dislike her (again, something she freely admits in her blog)?

You're also active there, so how am I the one violating WP:NOTADVOCATE by suggesting we include a less controversial figure instead? This article is broad. Who we place in the infobox matters. But more importantly, we have dozens of other choices aside from her of the same notability. It shouldn't be this big a deal, should it?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since template:infobox ethnic group/doc doesn't seem to provide any relevant guidance, how about coming to a consensus here about WP:NPOV criteria for image inclusion in the infobox in this article? What characteristics should be required for inclusion? Notablity, American (citizenship required?), Filipino (by recent ancestry?), What else? What characteristics should require exclusion? Perception by some as controversial? Something else? Once we can get past include/Exclude, we can go on to ranking those not excluded on consensus NPOV grounds. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least, someone who self-identifies as Filipino-American. That's really it. Being active in or having contributed to the Filipino-American identity is also ideal. That's really the problem with Malkin. Because she doesn't. For all intents and purposes, the only reason she actually blogs about the Philippines, Filipinos, or Filipino-Americans, is to make fun of them.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that from the subject as the above user suggests. To remove Malkin due to disliking the individuals opinions, can be seen as WP:CENSOR, and I do not support it.

The political opinions of editors should have zero matter as to whether editors support or oppose individual portraits in an infobox, and therefore is a moot point, and it would be great if that was never brought up again in this discussion.

The subject is one of the most notable individual Filipino American authors, having been on multiple television shows in the mainstream media. While controversial, to some, that shouldn't preclude their inclusion in the infobox. While it can be said that Carlos Bulosan, is by far more important within the Filipino American community, few outside of the community know of the author.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes personal political opinions shouldn't matter, which is why I brought it up. Malkin is notable in conservative circles. Outside of that, she isn't. Thus insisting on including her is WP:ADVOCATEy from a conservative point-of-view. It isn't WP:CENSOR when she isn't even actually that relevant nor representative of the topic. Removing her has zero impact on the quality of the article. She may belong in an article on conservatism, but it's weird to feature her in this article when she herself has problems acknowledging her ancestry. The only rationale you can come up for retaining her thus far is that she is a notable author, and we don't have another author featured in the infobox. Her notability, however, is restricted to conservative Americans. Meanwhile, we have other Filipino-American authors like Philip Vera Cruz, Bienvenido Santos, Cecilia Manguerra Brainard, Thelma Buchholdt, Jessica Hagedorn, Emil Guillermo, Al Robles, Barbara Jane Reyes, Linda Ty Casper, or Aimee Nezhukumatathil. They may not be as popular/notorious in modern mainstream culture, but they arguably contributed far more significantly to the Filipino-American identity and garnered more universal acclaim. These people actually wrote about Filipino-Americans. Why is the amount of appearances in TV shows important? What makes Malkin a better representative for Filipino-Americans than them?

If you can answer that satisfactorily, then I'll drop this whole thing. But I really can't see any reason at all other than her being currently popular as a conservative blogger (and not as a Filipino-American). And that isn't a good enough reason. Despite the infobox itself not having guidelines, we do still have WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE as I pointed out earlier.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see in WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE#Images for the lead which would disqualify an image of Malkin from appearance in the lead? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Malkin doesn't consider herself Asian-American. Nothing of what she does is relevant to what it means to be Filipino-American. She is Filipino-American, but she herself objects to being characterized as such.

Furthermore WP:LEADIMAGE has the number 2 criterion: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred." Malkin is controversial with regards to what it means to be Asian-American. It may not be "shocking", but it is ironic given that she does everything to distance herself from her ancestry.

Now again, why is she more appropriate than any of the dozens of other Filipino-Americans that have done things more relevant to the topic, other than just having Filipino ancestry?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing at this point (speaking re IMAGE RELEVANCE#Images for the lead) for her inclusion in the images, I'm saying that I don't see grounds for barring her inclusion. You say that you see her as irrelevent to or not significantly related to the topic of Filipino American and that you consider images of her to be shocking. I see her as a well known Filipino American, and see nothing at all shocking about her images or about the inclusion of an image of her in leadimages. I see the question of whether she ought to be excluded as a question separate from her relative ranking against others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing for replacing her based on her own stance on her ethnicity (again she distances herself from her Filipino ancestry), as well as her relevance to the topic in comparison to the other possible replacements. If she wasn't there yet, and we had to choose who to put there, what does she have or have done that she has to take precedence? She is notable, that's the only thing speaking for her inclusion. But so are the people I've enumerated. It's not so much barring as it is about choosing the most representative image. And given how she views her own ethnic heritage, she is a very bad choice for this article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is her own stance (not your impression of her stance -- her self-expressed stance) on her ethnicity? I haven't been able to find anything where she clearly expresses a stance on her ethnicity -- something may be out there, but I have not found it. Again, at this point I am arguing only against your contentions that her images ought to be excluded from consideration for inclusion in the infobox, I'm not considering her comparative ranking in relation to persons who you would not wish to exclude from consideration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement she is most famous for: "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake." (in response to being called an "Asian Ann Coulter"). And the book she is most famous for : her stance on the internment of Japanese-Americans. And her characterization of other Asian-Americans as "dishwashers" and people who can't speak English. That pretty much cemented her public perception as "turning back" on her ethnicity. It dominates her google hits: [4][5][6][7][8][9] So we can't really just pretend it doesn't exist. Most of them are attack pages or forum discussions so not RS, but it's real. And it's too controversial. Again, for someone with this reputation being used as the ideal representation of an article on an ethnic minority is very very ironic.

And this straight from her blog: "I find some of the e-mail I’m getting to be laced with hypocritical ethnic entitlement. Some Filipinos have seen fit to dismiss my ethnic heritage entirely and consider me “white” because of my politics and past criticism of the Philippines’ reckless decision to pay ransom for hostages taken by jihadis." She's talking about the perception directly. Acknowledging it. And she does nothing to refute it. Instead she makes fun of it, underlining how she thinks nothing of "ethnic solidarity".

And why not consider her comparative ranking? That's the strongest reason why we should replace her. Whether you agree with her politics or not (I don't, obviously), her being a volatile subject when it comes to ethnicity makes her among the last choices for an article ON ethnicity.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We had a mural of both Itliong and Vera Cruz, but the mural didn't fall into public domain. I had found fair-use images, but due to fair use, the images can only be placed on the biography articles, beyond that is stretching it. Reading above it appears that the opposition is due to Malkin's opinions. This doesn't change the fact that she is a Filipino American, and is the most notable (whether one considers the author famous or infomous doesn't change the notability aspect) Filipino American author known outside of the Filipino American community. I have looked at other authors within the "Category:American writers of Filipino descent", and none are as notable as Malkin.

Alumit, 13k google hits; Bacho 130k, Manguerra Brainard 22.9k, Buchholdt 2.9k, Bulosan 121k, Casper 369k, de Las Casas 121k, Estrada 442k, Gloria 9.14m, Gonzalez 116k, Gotera 15k, Holthe 11.7k, Malkin 9.89m, RDML Mariano 429k, Murray 538k, Nezhukumatathil 20.4k, de la Paz 9.36m, Realuyo 15.8k, B.J. Reyes 1.1m, L. Reyes 417k, Robles 113k, Santons 1.13m, H. Sasrowardo 8.85k, R. Sastrowardoyo 86.3k, Tabios 50.5k, Tenorio 12.3k, Veridiano-Ching 9.17k, Villa 466k.

Some come close, but not are nearly as notable.

Looking at WP:LEADIMAGE, the subject's portrait does not have shock value. It is a portrait of a Filipina female, it isn't as the example describes "treatment of prisoners or corpses from the camps." The portrait image is not of a shocking nature; it is not like it is of a corpse or mutilated cadaver. Therefore I think that #2 of LEADIMAGE does not apply.

Looking at the quote taken from her blog above, the editor advocating for removal of the subject is doing what the subject writes about, dismissing her ethnicity. I am looking at the front page of google results, and I am finding the following: 1) her website, 2) Her Wikipedia page, 3) News articles that mention her, 4) Her twitter, 5) Her profile on townhall.com, 6) her facebook page, 7) Her Youtube page, 8) Her profile page on jewishworldreview.com, 9) Her profile on nationalreview.com, 10) Her profile on humaevents.com. I did not find any of the links that another user provided in their comments on the lead search results for the subject; therefore the subject doesn't appear to be as controversial as the other editor portrays. Based on the top 10 google results for the subject, the subject is clearly conservative, but that shouldn't be a reason why the subject should be excluded from the infobox, least we confirm criticism of Wikipedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I hear again is you reinforcing that the only reason you include her is because you think she is "more" notable (which I think is personal bias, given your personal political views). Not even your "it is only a portrait of a Filipina female" argument makes sense. Since if that is the criteria, we have plenty of Filipina females that can take her place. Again, I am not dismissing her ethnicity. She herself has dismissed her ethnicity.

And are you also seriously pretending she is not controversial because the first few google hits are profiles? LOL. Sure, we can play that game (and stop addressing me in third person). I'm guessing your computer filters out "liberal" media or something. Because almost at the point you cut off listing your top ten results are these articles (I'm excising the contentless profiles, the commercial links promoting her, and her own articles, which you should have also done per common sense in the first place):

1) A GoldSea (a website about Asian-Americans) article that opens by acknowledging the irony of a Filipino-American arguing that the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 was justified.

2) A RationalWiki article that that calls her racist and again describes how her views on Asian-Americans are ironic given how her own parents were immigrants.

3) A New York magazine article that reports her quitting Bill O'Reilly's show because someone called her "the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met".

4) A Politico article that discusses Malkin's confrontational tactics and her penchance for creating controversies.

5) A Media Matters article that isn't really about her. But nontheless characterizes Malkin as a "notorious Common Core misinformer"

You get the drift. Also I'd point out that the keywords I used for the earlier search was "Malkin Asian-American" which gives more relevant hits on the controversies regarding her and ethnicity. And note that the keywords themselves are not leading. That is the public perception of her, and you can't really ignore that when we're talking about including her in this article.

You still have not explained WHY you think she is more appropriate or relevant to an article on Filipino-Americans than the names I have mentioned. Do you think notability only has to do with google hits? Have you actually taken the time to see the awards the other authors have garnered? But most importantly, have you taken a look at the works they have done? Because they DO pertain to being Filipino-American more than Malkin's. And that's an understatement considering Malkin's book is itself denigrating other Asian-Americans (if there's a thing like negative relevance, it applies here). Aside from being on TV more recently, really what else is Malkin's claim to notability? Syndication? Notoriety? The only award I can find is one from the Heritage Foundation. Which, surprise surprise, is a conservative propaganda machine. To give a quick comparison (all of these have pictures we can use freely):

Bienvenido Santos has a Palanca award, a Republic Cultural Heritage Award, and a Guggenheim Fellowship. His books include The Day the Dancers Came, a book about the Filipino diaspora
Linda Ty Casper has won a UNESCO award, a SEA Write award, a Siliman University fellowship, Djerassi writing fellowship, Radcliffe institute fellowship, and the Filipino-American Women's Network literature award . Her books include Awaiting Trespass a novel on the Marcos dictatorship.
Al Robles may not have won awards himself, but he is the subject of a documentary on the San Francisco Filipino-American community where he is regarded as an elder (Manong).

Their acclaim is universal and NOT political; and their works are VERY relevant to what it is to be Filipino-American. And even you can't deny that. And no, this isn't about partisanship (as again, I'm not American and I'm not demanding that you replace her with someone "liberal"). This is about putting someone whose main claim to fame was for insulting Asian-Americans as the preferred lead image in an article about Asian-Americans. At this point, all you have done is confirm my suspicion that you placed her there because of your personal political views. And I do not find that acceptable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the political views of WP editors or infobox image candidates (with a NPOV, that is), it seems to me that someone who is a dual U.S./Philippine citizen is a Fil-Am; the definition of Fil-Am for purposes of this article is wider than that, but it surely includes persons who are dual U.S./Philippine citizens. It seems to me that such a person should not be excluded from consideration of having their image appear in the infobox unless disqualified by reasoning explained in WP:LEADIMAGE. Malkin would be a Philippine citizen by birth, and would likely have acquired U.S. citizenship either as a child when her parents naturalized or by individual naturalization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of this discussion was born in the United States, therefore birthright citizenship. There are many non-rs anti-Malkin comments in some of the articles that I have read on the subject provided by the editor who opposes subject's inclusion that describe the subject as a "self hating anchor baby". Human Events also mention that this opinion of the subject exist. Not that I agree with that opinion, but it's the internet.

Please, let us all remain civil.

Please don't make accusations against me. I provided the link to my search.

Also reading the links that are provided, I am seeing a lot of vitriol about the subject of this discussion because of the subject's political views. This should not be a reason to exclude an individual from the infobox.

I oppose removal of the subject of this discussion from the infobox.

The reasoning, for the subject's inclusion is not partisanship, and please don't accuse me of that. The subject of this discussion's book Culture of Corruption, although political, spent six weeks as #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list. Are there any other books written by Filipino Americans that have topped the NYT Best Seller list, for six weeks or more? If so, then please inform me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re her birthplace, I remembered it differently and commented above from my misremembered misbelief that she was born in the Phils and came to the US with her parents as a young child without checking. My mistake. Presumably her father was a Philippine citizen in 1970 (I don't know when, or if, he naturalized in the US); her father's Philippine citizenship would make her a birthright Philippine citizen as well under the 1935 Philippine constitution which was in force in 1970. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly off topic, so feel free to collapse or strike. My understanding is that unless one claims the Philippine citizenship prior to the age of majority, 18, that citizenship possibility drops, or at least that was the case from my understanding until the passage of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast:, my understanding differs. As I understand it, it is more complicated and more individualized than that.

Malkin was born in 1970. At that time, the 1935 Philippine constitution was in effect. See [10].
Article IV of that constitution says, in part, "Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: ... (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. ... Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."
So, presuming that Malkin's father was a Philippine citizen and had not lost his citizenship prior to her birth, Malkin is a birthright Philippine citizen.
In Commonwealth Act No. 63 (see [11]), Section 1(1), which was in effect until August 29, 2003, provided "Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. – A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country;". So, if Malkin's father had naturalized in the U.S. prior to 1970, he would not have been a Philippine citizen at the time of her birth and she would not have acquired birthright Philippine citizenship through his patrnity.
RA9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, effectively invalidated section 1(1) of CA63, but it did not reverse the effects on persons who had been impacted by it. I am presuming that Malkin's father had not lost his Philippine citizenship by naturalization in the U.S. prior to Malkin's birth. If this is true, neither would have been impacted.
RA9225 did provide a means for some impacted persons (e.g., persons stuated similarly to her father as a former birthright citizen who, if he naturalized in a foreign country prior to the passage of RA9225, would have lost his Philippine citizenship by application of CA63) to re-acquire Philippine citizenship subsequent to the 2003 passage of RA9225.
RA9225 also provided for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by children of persons re-acquiring citizenship under its provisions, but limited this to unmarried children under the age of 18. Malkin would not have qualified for this in 2003, and so if her father had lost Philippine citizenship before Malkin's 1970 birth by operation of CA63 and reacquired it under provisions of RA9225, Malkin would not have been able to acquire Philippine citizenship when her father reacquired it.

That is my understanding, anyhow. Sorry about the slow response -- I missed this when it first appeared here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her popularity is partisan-based. She's popular to conservative white Americans, but unpopular to hated among Asian-Americans (not to mention the Philippines itself). I remain unconvinced as to why you think that makes her the best person to represent Filipino-Americans.

Aside from being an oddly specific notability requirement, being on the NYT bestseller list the longest doesn't erase the fact that her work has nothing to do with Filipino-Americans. She complains about being the target of racism, but actively criticizes Asian-Americans to the point that she herself has been called racist. She is relevant in an article on conservatism perhaps. But here, her relevance is eclipsed by people who have actually been part of the Filipino (or Asian)-American identity and have no negative or controversial reputations with regards to the subject matter.

Anyway, I've lost interest in this discussion. This is pointless, so do what you will really. I have a feeling that if I had tried to replace someone else, there wouldn't be this much opposition *shrug*.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. again, the question is not why she should be excluded, but on why she should be preferred, given the range of other choices we have that are far less controversial. She is Filipino-American, that hasn't been brought to question.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OVERLINK

Please see the MOS WP:OVERLINK, the reversion violates MOS. Why include to links to the article which the reverting editor created Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region, and only one for Filipinos in Hawaii? The reversion should be reverted, per MOS, and other repeated links should be removed per MOS. If this article is to become a GA one day, the article should abide by manuals of style. I will invite others to this discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, puhleez - it was an oversight - if anything, note that the Hawaii page actually had no links before I stepped in. I'm more than happy with the Hawaii article getting a piped link AND a 'See also' linkage. But if you only want one for each, then they both belong in 'See also', that is obvious.

Castncoot (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of a connection between Protestantism and Trinitarianism

This edit caught my eye. Its edit summary says, "Religion: Iglesia Ni Cristo is not Protestant; it denies Trinitarianism that Protestantism espouses" (wikilinks added). I'm not an expert in that area, but I think that the edit summary mis-states the situation (see the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist article) and that, as a consequence of this edit, this article may now do the same. Perhaps a need for some rewording is indicated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Filipino Australian which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Filipino Americans/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. At least, not yet. Some very problematic material in both lede and history section. The lede conflates "North America" and the United States" in discussing the "first" Filipino to arrive. And links its claim of 18th century settlers to a dead link. The history section claim that "Filipino sailors were the first Asians in North America." Needs waaaaay more reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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 https://web.archive.org/20110823164007/http://www.seasite.niu.edu:80/Tagalog/Cynthia/festivals/flores_de_mayo_at_santacruzan.htm to http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/Cynthia/festivals/flores_de_mayo_at_santacruzan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 17:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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/20150922032801/http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/210157/pinoyabroad/filipino-veterans-fairness-bill-filed-at-us-congress to http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/210157/pinoyabroad/filipino-veterans-fairness-bill-filed-at-us-congress

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} 14:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130217034041/http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf to http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.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) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link does not work

I found a link that no longer works. Under the Politics section where it states that Filipinos have been known to be conservative, the link goes to a magazine called Perspective Magazine. It does not sound like a reliable source, but I would not be able to confirm that since the link does not work anymore. Please remove as soon as possible.FP1997 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fil -Ams, 2nd sentence

Hi Wikipedians,

As a suggestion, remove where the article talks about Filipinos being sometimes refered to as "Fil-Ams". I checked the source, and it leads to allwords.com, which isn't a great site to use for this article. FP1997 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added information

Hello Wikipedians,

I added some information to the History section of the article. I hope that I was able to add some more information to expand the History section. Feel free to make any changes necessary if needed. FP1997 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 14:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of this article

Hello Wikipedians,

There is a broken link within the Filipino Cuisine section. Citation [53]

https://books.google.com/books?id=WSm5d0TfZNwC&lpg=PA131&dq=Filipino%20Cuisine%20America&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q=Filipino%20Cuisine%20America&f=false

Also under the Filipino Cuisine, I am not sure of a particular mentioning and section: On television, Philippine cuisine has been criticized, such as on Fear Factor,[59] and praised, such as on Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations,[60] and Bizarre Foods America.[61] I am not sure what the true intention of mentioning Fear Factor or saying that Fear Factor can be considered a criticized point of view. Also, instead of praised, shouldn't it be featured? Perhaps Filipino food has been featured on several American shows such as...

The link is not coming from a scholarly or peer reviewed source towards the Fear Factor mention or citation [59]. The article is mainly focused on an artist, and not about Filipino American food.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/222828/lifestyle/artandculture/balut-as-pinoy-pride

I also believe that there should be a an added section about Filipino American Music or Filipino American Musicians.

Thanks, Cnilss2 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the broken link, another edition of the cited work is not errored

Steven A. Shaw (2009). Asian Dining Rules: Essential Strategies for Eating Out at Japanese, Chinese, Southeast Asian, Korean, and Indian Restaurants. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-198083-1.

However, it is not previewable online there and I am not able to look at page 131 to confirm support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnilss2: please see WP:OFFLINE, regarding broken links. Filipino food has been criticized, and it has been praised, as seen here and here. Per WP:NEUTRAL, the article should provide a balance representation of how Filipino American cuisine has been depicted in mainstream media. Even among Filipino Americans, how our cuisine is presented is a matter of debate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of this article

When reviewing some of the citations, it was apparent that not all of the links were working links. The article touches on many aspects of Filipino Americans; however, there is no section on health/mental health/psychology of Filipino Americans. There is reference to certain theories and/more models of psychology rooting from topics discussed in the article such as identity, but there is no clear and specific section on health itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaelmore (talk • contribs) 07:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different English dialects

Thoughts on this edit? The source did not specify different English dialects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language

@Shhhhwwww!!: please see WP:BRD. Modification of the infobox was reverted once before, and there was no consensus for the change. Placing Chinese and Spanish before regional languages does not keep with what the reliable in the sources verify; it gives both languages undue weight. Please stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 05:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fil -Ams, 2nd sentence

Hi Wikipedians,

As a suggestion, remove where the article talks about Filipinos being sometimes refered to as "Fil-Ams". I checked the source, and it leads to allwords.com, which isn't a great site to use for this article. FP1997 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FP1997: I have found additional references. Hope this helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

filipinohistory.us

I have removed content which was sourced primarily to a blog. While it is an opinion, Wikipedia is not the place to correct history. If a reliable source can be found, the contention, should be included at the article History of Filipino Americans, with perhaps a brief mention here. Not a complete rewrite of the content, relating to Saint Malo, Louisiana.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I have reverted Agila81 (talk · contribs) about their edits about the population. The editor has added information which is not up to date or accurate to the scope of this article. Each time linking to the 2010 Census information and referring to Table 5 Filipino (Asian alone) population. The scope of this article includes Multiracial Filipino Americans, which is a far higher 3,416,840. Moreover, the editor erases a more recent estimate of the population of Filipino Americans according to the 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates which is 4,037,564. I consider these changes to the older figure to be vandalism. Reverting back to a population figure which is older than the current (most recent that we have a source for) estimate and one that does not include all persons who fall within the scope of this article is discounting more than a million persons. Agila81's edits have no consensus, and therefore I am reverting them per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Agila81 (talk · contribs) has been busy vandalizing the articles of Demographics of Filipino Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Overseas Filipinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), removing more current information with older information. This needs to stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Ideation and Depression

Apologies in advance in being roundabout and long-winded here. All of this relates to this earlier article edit, which added this subtopic without explanation.

This edit popped up, because I've watchlisted this article. That was a good correction, but I noticed a snippet nearby saying, "These topics are supported by a study that was conducted in 1997 by the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that revealed that 45.6% of Filipina American teenage students in San Diego public schools had seriously thought about committing suicide." I thought the unexplained sex distinction there was odd, and I saw that the supporting source cited was Wolf, Diane L. (1997-09). "Family Secrets: Transnational Struggles among Children of Filipino Immigrants". Sociological Perspectives. 40 (3): 457–482. doi:10.2307/1389452. ISSN 0731-1214. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) That's not a CDC study, and the only instance of 45.6 I saw in there was in a table on page 768 for the percentage of Vietnamese (not Filipino) fathers not in the workforce. A bit more googling for 45.6 and Filipina/o turned up this, which is off-topic, and some other interesting items, along with this, which is on-topic and may have been the source behind the subtopic creation, and also this. Those last two items do support the sex differentiation mentioned earlier. Anyhow, I think that this recently inserted section could use a look by someone with more topical expertise than I. Could someone look this over, please? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: I too saw this addition, and was familiar with some of these studies prior to it being added. That said, I did not add it because the studies were specific to Filipino Americans within a certain region of the United States, and weren't more inclusive. I didn't add it because I didn't want to extrapolate the finding for that given geographic limited area of that study, to apply to Filipino Americans everywhere.

That said, it is cited to reliable sources, and has some value. I am Ok with leaving it be as long as it continues to state the limitations of the studies findings.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]