Talk:Filipino American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Declassified report[edit]

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)


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)

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?[edit]

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, which fails saying that it is no longer archived, and to, 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=" which provides a cite linking to dead archiveurl 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. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 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. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 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).-- OBSIDIANSOUL 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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

Malkin in the infobox[edit]

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. -- (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
@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-- (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.-- (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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: [8][9][10] 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?-- OBSIDIANSOUL 10:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 12:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
"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?-- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 04:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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: [11][12][13][14][15][16] 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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 05:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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, 6) her facebook page, 7) Her Youtube page, 8) Her profile page on, 9) Her profile on, 10) Her profile on 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)

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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)
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)
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)
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)
@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 [17].
  • 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 [18]), 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)
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*.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
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.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 03:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


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)


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)

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)