Talk:Filipino Americans

"Flip" (yet again)

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

Spinout proposal

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

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

This process will take some time, so I will start with the Demographics section first. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any progress. Are you still going to split the article?Op47 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I had already moved the demographics section into a subarticle, but given that the article is 100K SIZERULE does prescribe that it is highly advised to create another subarticle. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the tag on Community Challenges further down. Op47 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Readable text (barring references) the prose is 32kb. Hardly 100k. Half the page is references and external links. Quite a few can be shortened and some of the other links to existing pages can be fixed up as well. I see no reason to split until other matters are addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On second looks, I agree. I have replaced the split tag with an improve tag. Op47 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of images

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

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

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

Removing images is not what we typically do to reduce article size. I have reverted the removal. Sections such as the Background section in my opinion would be better off in other pages such as Filipino people. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps for the background, there should be a See also hatnote for that section directing others to read the article Filipino people, and the content that can be verified to be specifically about Filipino Americans can be left in the article in the Culture section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's Erik Spoelstra (head coach of the Miami Heat, 2012 NBA Champions) the first Filipino-American in the NBA, and Vanessa Hudgens? I think its either replace or add these two, what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.169.231 (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose those individuals. Both are notable, but their notability is more recent. Furthermore, they are not the most distinguished within their fields among Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That does bring up a good question, who are the most acclaimed, and most decorated Filipino Americans, within the fields of Entertainment and Athletics?

Among Filipino American Athletes, Natalie Coughlin has earned multiple Olympic gold medals, and various other accolades within her field. I am sure there are others that may have similar awards, but do they have the amount that she has?

Among musicians, there are numerous Filipino American Grammy recipients.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

More people watch the NBA than the WWE. And I highly doubt that anyone honestly knows who Fake is. Erik Spoelstra always visits the Philippines and hosts fitness programs down there. The fact of the matter is that these two claim to be Filipino and even announce their pride in being of half-Filipino descent. I don't see Fake doing the same. Spoelstra is in his prime. Let's not forget Jessica Sanchez. I think the mosaic needs to be changed so it displays smaller pictures which means it can display more. Something similar to the mosaic found on the Russians, Germans or Filipinos articles. There's many famous Filipino-Americans and honestly, nobody knows half the people on this mosaic. The only reason I don't oppose Batista beinhg on there is because yes, he claims he is of Filipino and Greek descent and even tatooed himself with flags of both countries to show it. Let's not forget Brian Viloria, someone on Wikipedia should get a image of him and attain permission so he can be put on there. Viloria even speaks Filipino still, despite being born in the United States because he's one of the Filipino-Americans who hasn't renounced his language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.177.148 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 July 2012

FakeVicki Draves is dead, and is a historic individual for Filipino Americans, one of the pre-1965 individuals that I spoke about earlier.

Jessica Sanchez, although she is notable, I think we should consider WP:RECENT. Good that she did well in American Idol in the most recent season, and sure the Miami Heat has won the most recent NBA post season however that does not mean that they makes the best representatives of Filipino American in the areas of Athletics or Entertainment.

There is an entire list of notable Filipino Americans we can choose from see List of Filipino Americans, and even before we had Batista, there was Natalie Coughlin.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake isn't dead! I just read an article on her, why are you lying to me? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I believe I meant to say Vicki Draves, I shall strike my statement above and edit it accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Change made without consensus

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

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Declassified report

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

The source provided:

• Chuck N. Baker (6 March 2013). "Filipino solders who fought for the U.S. now battle for benefits". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

states the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Copyedit

Upon request, editing this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

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

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

Thanks!

Perhaps an article regarding Filipino American World War II veteran benefits can be spun out containing the content from its former version, with an even more summarized version of the content that is in the article now, can be created. It would a sub-article of this article, and given that the article already meets WP:LIMIT it is something that would make sense. No?

Also regarding the more notable contributions. This is done for the greater Asian American article, but for the most part this is limited to the List of Filipino Americans sub-article. Perhaps something similar to what exist in the Asian American article can be replicated in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Malay or Austronesians?

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

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

Hmmm... Here, I removed a link to archiveurl http://web.archive.org/web/20090728184902/http%3A//www.gov.ph/, which fails saying that it is no longer archived, and to http://www.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200020&Itemid=26, which apparently fails a lookup at the server and redirects to a general info page not supporting the assertion to which the cite is attached. Then, here, I placed some {{fv}} tags with an edit summary about linkrot. I must have been in a hurry when I did this as it looks like I ought to have done more.

The article currently contains a ref named "url=http://www.gov.ph/1" which provides a cite linking to dead archiveurl http://web.archive.org/web/20090728184902/http%3A//www.gov.ph/ which is ref'd in two places.

• One place cites it for support of an assertion re a blend of Eastern and Western cultures. I've googled around a bit, and it looks to me as if [1] and/or [2] might be workable alternative sources to support this.
• The second place refs it along with other sources in support of the assertion, "The Philippines is religiously and ethnically diverse: 91.5% Christian Austronesians, 4% Muslim Austronesians, 1.5% Chinese and 3% other." I haven't looked closely at those asserted percentages vs. the cited supporting sources but, re sources supporting an assertion about Austronesian roots of Filipinos, some quick googling turned up [3], [4], [5], among others.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't controversial. Please see our articles on the concept of the Malay race and Austronesian peoples.

In short, Austronesians refer to the same people once known as the "Malay Race" or the "Malayo-Polynesians", with a few exceptions (e.g. most Mainland Southeast Asians of Indochina are closer genetically to Chinese people than to the peoples of Maritime Southeast Asia). But in the same way that we don't say "Japan's population is composed of 99% Mongoloids" or "Kenya's population is mostly Negro", is the same way that we don't say "Christian Malays".

The term "Malay" for the indigenous ethnicity of the Philippines (i.e. the "Indios" of the Spanish period) is outdated, inaccurate, and easily confused with the ethnic Malays of Malaysia. "Malayo-Polynesian" is acceptable, but still too locational in the naming.

That Filipinos were taught that they were "Malay" in the local education system is an artifact of the American Commonwealth, when theories of northward migration of actual Malays from Malaysia as the origin of the Philippine population was championed by an American anthropologist in the Philippines. That theory is largely discredited nowadays (with the mainstream theory being that Filipinos and other Austronesians descended from southward migrations from ancestral Austronesians from Taiwan). Nevertheless, however controversial the Austronesian origin theories might be, "Austronesian" is the more neutral ethnonym as it doesn't imply one or the other.

Calling all Austronesians "Malays" is also a bit like calling all Filipinos "Tagalogs". Even among other Maritime Southeast Asians (Malaysians, Timorese, Bruneians, and Indonesians), Oceanians, and Malagasy, only Filipinos still refer to themselves as "Malays" in the meaning of race; even though all of them were once grouped under the "Malay race" and all of them are Austronesians. You won't hear an Indonesian or a Hawaiian refer to himself as a "Malay" for example. Even Malaysians differentiate between ethnic Malays and the Suluk ethnicities which originated from the Philippines (Tausug, Badjau, etc.) as well as other ethnicities native to Malaysia but not part of the Malay ethnic group (e.g. the Kadazan-Dusun and the Dayak), even though all of them might be full Malaysian citizens and are certainly Austronesians. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here. This Filipino parent explains the problems of the Philippine education system perpetuating Beyer's obsolete theories much more clearly. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The source(s) that Wtmitchell provide appear to be reliable sources, the link above appears at best an opinion piece (even if accurate), and at worse a self-published blog. That being said the term Malay and Austronesian can both be verified to refer to Filipinos, perhaps as a compromise, we can use both terms, and attribute the sources to indicate what sources use which term.

Another option is to leave out the content altogether as this belongs more in the Filipino people article, as what could replace it with the breakdown of Filipino Americans, A% Tagalog, B% Tsinoy, and so on and so forth. If this is the course that achieves consensus, we can start with this source which states that there are a wide variety of characteristics for Filipino Americans do to the Filipino peoples diverse make up. Then if we can find a reliable source we can go into the breakdown of what is referred to in this reference as "ethnolinguistic groups".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the original geographic distribution of Austronesians. We are in it.

This is the extent of the core Srivijaya Empire. It roughly corresponds to the geographic distribution of their descendants - the true ethnic Malays. It does not extend to the Philippines (though they conquered satellite kingdoms there who paid tribute), nor does it include the rest of Austronesia.

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

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

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

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

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but Wtmitchell's issue seems to be with the percentages and the dead references, not on whether indigenous Filipinos are Austronesians or not.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. This edit replacing e.g. Malay race with Austronesean caught my eye while running my watchlist. I noticed & fixed some problems with links in nearby cites. I had inadvertently caps-lock'd the edit summary, and I remember deciding just let that go rather than retyping. I'm following discussion here with a bit of interest and it seems to me that you make good points above re the two terms. As my attention has been drawn back to this by watchlist hits, I've done more googling, stumbling over interesting items such as [6] and [7]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I was only familiar with the Out-of-Taiwan theory (again because it is the one most widely accepted scientifically), so this was the first time I've ever heard of the term "Nusantao" as an alternative name for maritime Austronesians. Even more interesting is that he nails one almost universal Austronesian root word - "tao" (human). Solheim's views however are more unconventional, given that he classifies people by culture rather than by genetics. Which would mean he would include peoples who have assimilated the Austronesian languages, technology, and culture, even though they are not related genetically to actual Austronesians (e.g. the Negritos of the Philippines and the Melanesians of Oceania and Papua New Guinea). There are obvious problems with that. It would be akin to classifying all inhabitants of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. as "Germanic" regardless of their genetic origin, because they all speak English (a West Germanic language) and mostly follow English (Angle) culture, which is a subgroup of the Germanic peoples.

Anyway thanks for clarifying that. I'm afraid I can't help with the population percentages thing, as I merely came across the use of "Malay" and quickly edited it to reflect more accepted terminology. I've been automatically doing it with other similar usages in our articles on the Philippines (which I again blame on our school system).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the comment where Obsidian Soul took issue with my using the term Malay, please see the sentence:

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

I used both terms because they can both be verified.

Again, perhaps this belongs more in the article regarding Filipino people, and not in this article. Background on who Filipino people are can be summarized using references from the Filipino people article.

More importantly who are the Filipinos who make up Filipino Americans? We already have a percentage with reliable sources, who are Multiracial Filipino Americans, and we have percentages of what percentages speak what, but would it be OR to say that if a person speaks X that they are part of X ethnicity? For instance my father is Ilocano but speaks tagalog as well, but that doesn't make him Tagalog.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think Malay should be used at all. Again, it can be verified yes, but to old books and to non-specialists. You can browse the Google book results and see quite clearly how modern scientists and historians avoid using "Malay" to refer to Filipinos. You only see it used in textbooks written by Filipino authors (some of them recycled from ancient editions), memoirs, or popular culture books written by travel writers. Also notice how they tend to be people who still believe in Blumenbach's neat five races - the white (Caucasian), yellow (Mongolian), brown (Malay), black (Ethiopian), and red (American), which formed the basis of later scientific racism that eventually led to Hitler. Needless to say, the latter has long been abandoned in modern science.

They're a far cry to the actual historical and scientific works you see when you google "Filipino Austronesian". That difference is even more stark when you browse for them in Google Scholar. Plenty of genetic, linguistic, and cultural studies for "Filipino Austronesian". Whereas the only hits for "Filipino Malay" are works which discuss both Filipinos and ethnic Malays as distinctly separate peoples.

WP:V is not simply about finding something written about it. It also takes due weight into consideration, as well as clarity. I'm just asking you not to use "Malay" or "Malay race" when referring to Filipinos. As for everything else, I'm sorry I can't help with that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that it it does have some weight, although as shown above it is used less often, for instance the 2003 CIA factbook uses the term (which is a reliable source presently used in the article), where as the current one does not.

Again, I propose that the following content be removed:

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

The content belongs more in the article Filipino people and not in the article of "Americans of Filipino descent".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue it does not. You used wayback machine. This is, of course, from 2003. While yes it does repeat Beyer's theories in the "People" section of the background notes, you will note that the page has been deemed outdated by 2012. Please see the same page in Sep. 10, 2012, which says that the "Background Notes are no longer being updated or produced. They are being replaced with Fact Sheets focusing on U.S. relations with countries and other areas and providing links to additional resources".

And it has been replaced. Visit the new page and you will note that the "Ethnic groups" section no longer inaccurately says "Malay, Chinese" as in previously, but "Tagalog 28.1%, Cebuano 13.1%, Ilocano 9%, Bisaya/Binisaya 7.6%, Hiligaynon Ilonggo 7.5%, Bikol 6%, Waray 3.4%, other 25.3% (2000 census)". All of the previous content which repeats Beyer's outdated theories have been expunged.

But yes, maybe it belongs more to the Filipino people article. I think it's already there though, so I won't really protest if you decide to remove it altogether.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prostitution in the Republic of Korea

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

Why do you need all prosititutes in South Korea are Filipinas? There have been over one million prostitutes, thus Filipinas cannot occupy majority. You always argue as all or nothing. Your argument seems no sense.--Syngmung (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The content which was removed does not fall within the scope of this article, it falls within the scope of Filipinos in South Korea and Prostitution in South Korea, but not in this article. There are many Filipino Americans who immigrate from another nation, rather than directly from the Philippines, but until they begin residing within the United States, or are U.S. Nationals and/or Citizens they do not fall within the article's scope. There are Filipino Americans that reside outside of the continental United States, such as Filipino American servicemembers, their dependents, etc. However, Filipinas in South Korea are not automatically Filipino Americans and thus fall outside of the scope of this article.

Also please do not discuss myself, discuss the disputed content. See Ad hominem.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipino American Buddhism

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

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

Invisible minority -- significance

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

Malkin in the infobox

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

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--203.87.162.90 (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 conservatives? Darren Criss is pretty famous too. Far more famous than she is, certainly. There are other people who also fit that description, and still you insist that she gets the spot. Weird.--203.87.162.90 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)