From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFilipino Americans was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2013 Good article nomineeNot listed
December 10, 2015 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cnilss2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrisM148. Peer reviewers: Gingyrael.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FP1997. Peer reviewers: FP1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Number: 4M or 2.8M

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Spanish and Chevacano

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) reply

Content in article introduction

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) reply

Agree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

Infobox image

Per WP:UNDUE & MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, I attempted to remove the infobox image added by Kagoikunai ( talk · contribs) in March 2020. FDW777 ( talk · contribs) reverted this removal.
The majority of FilAms do not reside in NYC, New York state, or the NY Metro area. To choose the image which FDW777 re-added is to give undue representation of that population of FilAms, and does not represent the entire FilAm population, who are the subject of this article, as a whole. It is best to return to the way it had been added.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not refer to a single image. It refers to galleries such as this one, which I actually removed. FDW777 ( talk) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Quoting: "should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images". (emphasis added). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
It's not a photomontage either. It's a single unmodified image. FDW777 ( talk) 20:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Per WP:APPNOTE I have notified relevant wikiprojects, and users of this discussion.
Even though it is not a collection of images, part of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, when it was developed was to avoid contentious editing by removing images in the infobox are in the introduction of ethnic group articles. As I stated, choosing an image which highlights the population of FilAms in NYC, gives undue weight to a portion of the population which make up less than 5% of the the total population of the ethnicity. Thus why at Demographics of Filipino Americans, no single population concentration is highlighted in the introduction section, and relevant images are included in their relevant sub-sections.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 22:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
According to the Philippine Independence Day Parade article, the New York parade is the biggest in the US. Simply because there is a larger population elsewhere than New York doesn't make that larger population a better representation of Filipino Americans. No matter where in the US they are from, and no matter how big the population is there, they are still Filipino Americans. FDW777 ( talk) 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree this is a good call, not only because of the policy that RightCowLeftCoast has stated, but the removed photo is objectively very poor to illustrate the article in the first place, showing only a parade crowd. Additionally, if you look at the articles for all the major Asian American ethnic groups (or any American ethnic groups in general) they have shunned the idea of illustrating the infobox with the faces of people. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Is that because of the lack of a suitable photo though? That appears to be a circular argument; other articles have no suitable photos, therefore no photo can be suitable. FDW777 ( talk) 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply
It's not the most exciting image, but I don't think it contravenes MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. On the due point, while the image certainly doesn't represent all filams, I would not expect any individual image to represent all of any group of people. That said, if a good map or other abstract image is preferred as is used in the Demographics article, it seems likely to win out on individual merits. CMD ( talk) 01:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Filipino_Americans&oldid=1207222279"