Talk:Filipino American

Sources are broken links

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

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)

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. http://www.militarymuseum.org/Filipino.html. 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. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWy4TexzsScC&lpg=PA452&ots=bfnd8Wi9oZ&dq=agricultural%20workers%20First%20Filipino%20Infantry%20Regiment&pg=PA452#v=onepage&q&f=false. 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)." 

• "Introduction: Filipino Settlements in the United States". Temple University Press. Temple University. http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1100/1157_ch1.pdf. 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". The San Joaquin Historian (The San Joaquin County Historical Society) 8 (4): 3-18. http://www.sanjoaquinhistory.org/documents/HistorianNS8-4.pdf. 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. http://books.google.com/books?id=_yD8ND6gMUsC&lpg=PA14&ots=6IRqSeOZAa&dq=manongs%20filipino%20immigrants&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false. 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." 

--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 above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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:

• The Filipino alone or in any combination Total Population figure is 3,177,947
• The Asian Indian alone or in any combination Total Population figure is 2,844,179
• The Filipino Alone Total Population figure is 2,475,794
• The Asian Indian Alone Total Population figure is 2,602,676

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)

"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)