Talk:Filipino Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fil -Ams, 2nd sentence[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

filipinohistory.us[edit]

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

Suicide Ideation and Depression[edit]

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

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

@Wtmitchell: I too saw this addition, and was familiar with some of these studies prior to it being added. That said, I did not add it because the studies were specific to Filipino Americans within a certain region of the United States, and weren't more inclusive. I didn't add it because I didn't want to extrapolate the finding for that given geographic limited area of that study, to apply to Filipino Americans everywhere.
That said, it is cited to reliable sources, and has some value. I am Ok with leaving it be as long as it continues to state the limitations of the studies findings.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Population[edit]

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

Number: 4M or 2.8M[edit]

There is currently a bit of an edit war going on over this. The number has stood at 4,037,564 (or so) for some time and, in recent edits, has been revised to 2,843,071. The later number is supported by a cite of this U.S. census bureau source, giving data from U.S. Census Bureau 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. This figure, I think, is a later figures than earlier figures from the U.S. census bureau and from other sources giving numbers in the 4 million range. I have reverted the article to a version using the 2.8 million figure and citing the source which supports that. Please discuss below instead of edit-warring in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that Kagoikunai, here, has again changed the figure in the article from about 2.8M to his user talk page 4.1M. The edit summary of that change says The 2018 US Census data shows 4.1 million Filipino Americans, both full and partial Filipino ancestry. The 2.8 million is for full Filipino ancestry. It would be a complete disservice for those multiracial Filipino Americans to not include them in this entire population. If you’re editing this article for other reasons, please refer to actual US Census Bureau data as you would see both full and partial Filipino ancestry are counted within the same group

I have placed a warning about edit warring on that user's user talk page and asked that he join this discussion. I have not reverted the change because I do not want to perpetuate this edit war, and am hoping that he will join this discussion.

Kagoikunai:

  • The source cited to support your assertion that the 4.1M figure does not mention that figure, but gives a figure of 2,843,071. where is the support for your 4.1M figure?
  • Where is the support for your assertion that the 4.1M figure includes Filipinos with both full and partial ancestry and the 2.8M figure includes just those with full ancestry?

Digging around, I found this U.S. Census source titled, "Census 2000 PHC-T-43. Table 1. First, Second, and Total Responses to the Ancestry Question by Detailed Ancestry Code: 2000", which gives figures of First Ancestry:1,938,790; Second Ancestry:177,688; Total:2,116,478, and I found this source which gives some information about that. Your assertions appear to contradict this. Do you have a source which would help resolve this apparent contradiction and explain these ancestry issues further?

Also, I see that you currently have a total of 457 WP edits under this username, yet you conduct yourself as an experienced editor. Are you a new WP editor or an experienced one? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I placed a {{discuss}} tag in the article, and Kagoikunai removed it, saying What’s there to discuss? Even the US State Department says, “There more than four million U.S. citizens of Philippine ancestry in the United States.” Please refer to both the Census and State Department websites as these are official data. Are you editing the Filipino American population data for your own prerogatives? I do recall past official statements to the effect that there were more than 3.8 million Filipino illegals in the U.S. and, googling for the quote in Kagoikunai's edit summary, I found this U.S. State Dept web page where that appears. I have changed the asserted figure to "Over four million" and replaced the cite of this census bureau source which gives the 2,843,071 figure as a supporting source with a cite of that State Dept web page.

Kagoikunai: Please read WP:BURDEN, WP:V, WP:CRP, WP:EW, WP:TE and WP:DE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Spanish and Chevacano[edit]

This edit caught my eye. I've reverted it because Spanish has a constitutional basis along with Arabic. I also moved mention of Chavacano from among outside languages to a place which presents it as a language of the Philippines. The second part of that followed on the description of Chavacano as a Creole and info in the Creole language article saying that that is "a stable natural language that develops from the simplifying and mixing of different languages into a new one within a fairly brief period of time". I read that as Chevanaco is a language which developed in the Philippines (i.e., a Philippine language). I'm not a linguist, and what I see here gives me second thoughts about Chevanaco as a Philippine language, but I see here that Ethnologue seems to classify it that way. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Content in article introduction[edit]

Recently there's been a dispute over the proper content in the introduction. I added rearranged some content in the introduction, which was subsequently deleted by another editor. While my version of the introduction is far from perfect, I think it is better than the alternative. First of all, it is unusual for a Wikipedia article, especially one as that is otherwise well-developed, to have a single sentence as the first paragraph, and that tends to signal lower-quality articles. Secondly, per MOS:LEAD, the lead paragraph "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic", and it "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." In an article about a particular minority group in the United States, surely the population and distribution of this group is among the most important points, which is why articles like Vietnamese Americans, Chinese Americans, Italian Americans, and Korean Americans all touch on these topics. Kagoikunai made the argument in their edit summary that the information is already in the infobox, but the infobox of any article usually includes information that is also in the introduction (e.g., Barack Obama, Bolivia, etc.), and the introduction should be able to stand on its own. -- Rublov (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
As no one has dissented, I've gone ahead and restored the previous version of the introduction. -- Rublov (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rublov made that edit here, as indicated above. I nitpickedd his edit with modifications here and here and, hopefully improved it. Kagoikunai then reverted both of us here. Since a discussion had been opened on this, with a reasonable waiting period for comment before the reverted edits had passed, I believe that the reversion was against WP:CONSENSUS as supplemented by WP:SILENCE and have undone Kagoikunai's reversion. Consensus can change, as noted in WP:CCC; please discuss further significant changes here per WP:TALK#DISCUSS rather than WP:edit warring.over them in the article. As this concerns the opening paragraph of this article, please note the guidelines in [[W{:LEAD]], particularly MOS:OPENING. That guidance includes the statement: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", and the disagreement appears to be over the importance of the information at issue. Input from other editors would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filipino_Americans&oldid=1032715538"