Talk:Filipino Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Self-contradiction

This article appears to contradict itself. It defines Filipino Americans as citizens of the United States, yet uses a state department "estimate" instead of the official census - which includes almost 600,000 non-citizens among the almost 3 million people claiming Filipino ethnicity. DHN (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as a self-contradiction in the article but, rather, as a seeming contradiction between supporting sources used by the article. The State Department Background Note: Philippines (October 2008), cited in support of the four million figure, says "There are an estimated four million Americans of Philippine ancestry in the United States, and more than 250,000 American citizens in the Philippines." Table 4, Asian Population by Detailed Group: 2000, on page 9 of The Asian Population: 2000; Census 2000 Brief puts the population of Filipino Asian detailed group alone or in any combination at 2,364,815 persons. The article probably ought to be clearer about that. I see that one source is dated 2000 and the other is dated 2008, which probably accounts for some part of the difference. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2006 estimate shows 594,764 people of Philippine ethnicity who are not US citizes. The "estimate" used by this article apparently not only counts non-citizens, it also counts non-residents. DHN (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence reads;

Filipino Americans (Filipino: Pilipino Amerikano) are citizens of the United States of Philippine ancestry, which trace back to the Philippines, an archipelagic nation in Southeast Asia.

Nonresident U.S. citizens who have Philippine ancestry (my wife, for example) are Filipino Americans by this definition.

The 4,000,000 figure in the infobox quotes its cited source dated 2007 as speaking of "Americans of Philippine ancestry", which I read as being the same group spoken of by the lead sentence.

The lead sentence made no numerical assertion, and cited a US Census brief titled "The Asian Population: 2000" I didn't see how the cited item supported the lead sentence, so I've removed that ref/cite from that point. The cited item wasn't referenced elsewhere in the article, so I've moved it to the External links section (also retitling it).

Regarding the 594,764 figure, that appears in an item which was cited in support of an assertion saying, "More than half of the community are either naturalized or American-born, while the remainder are dual citizens of both the Philippines and the United States" The assertion seemed to misunderstand and mis-state the situation regarding dual citizens, and assertions about that aren't supported by the cited item anyhow. I've retained the citation, and changed the assertion to say something which the citation does support.

Do you still see problems? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I still see a problem with the State Department "estimate" (essentially one passing mention in the whole page) being given more credence than the census figure given by the government agency whose task it is to count people. DHN (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify this in the article. I've also corrected some apparent errors and removed the 1.5% figure (I saw no supporting source for that -- perhaps I missed it). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Population figures and "Filipino-American" vs. Filipinos in America

This is in reaction to a series of edits starting from revision version after an edit I made yesterday. my edit yesterday was made following discussion in the talk page section above, headed "Self-contradiction". The contradiction at issue there concerned differing figures from State department estimates and Census figures, and my edit sought to clarify that. My edit summary explained what the edit was meant to clarify, but did not refer to the talk page discussion as it probably should have. Anyhow, let me go through the edits which followed one by one and comment on them...

• Revision as of 12:34, February 3, 2009 was my edit yesterday, with the summary, "The 2007 Census shows there are 3.1 million Filipinos, full and mixed, regardless of citizenship. The 2.5 million for 2007 is underestimating for the 2000 Census registered 2.4 million." The edit summary should also have referred to Talk:Filipino American#Self-contradiction this talk page discussion. In the process of doing that edit, I took note that the topic of this article specifically defined only U.S. citizen Filipinos as "Filipino Americans" (see the lead sentence), and the edit also clarified some figures in the text which seemed to apply figures for citizen plus non-citizen Filipinos to Filipino Americans.
• Revision as of 15:01, February 3, 2009 by Kagoikunai was summarized as, "The 2007 Census shows there are 3.1 million Filipinos, full and mixed, regardless of citizenship. The 2.5 million for 2007 is underestimating for the 2000 Census registered 2.4 million.".
• Revision as of 15:09, February 3, 2009 by Kagoikunai was summarized as, "Removal of percentage is unexplained and somewhat biased, for EVERY ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA FOR ETHNIC GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES HAS IT!"
• Revision as of 15:14, February 3, 2009 by Kagoikunai was summarized as, "Population: There's no reason to question the percentage share of the Filipino community to the entire US population, 4 million/ 300 million (US population) is 1.5%"
• Revision as of 15:34, February 3, 2009 by 71.167.78.254 was summarized as, "Articles for Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans, etc. have their total population counted regardless of citizenship. Kindly compare articles before editing."
• The net effect of these edits was

1. To change the Census figure in the infobox from 2.5M (approximately the census figure for U.S. Citizen Filipinos, or Filipino Americans as defined in the lead sentence) to 3.1M (approx the census figure for Filipino Americans as defined in the lead sentence of this article plus non-citizen Filipinos). Clarification is provided in a cited footnote regarding the portion those 3.1M persons who, being native and naturalized citizens, are Filipino Americans.;
2. To reinsert an unsupported assertion which I had removed that Filipino Americans constitute approximately 1.5% of the U.S. population;
3. To remove the citation of a supporting source for the infobox assertion that religion-wise, Filipino Americans are "Predominantly Roman Catholic; minorities of Protestantism, Islam, Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, and other." (The previously-cited supporting source supported this assertion regarding the people of the Philippines, but not specifically regarding Filipino Americans);
4. To change the focus of the Population section of this article about "Filipino Americans" to speak primarily about the population of "Filipinos" and the "Filipino Community" rather than about "Filipino Americans", though providing clarification in a footnote regarding the portion of the Filipino Community who, being native and naturalized citizens, are Filipino Americans as defined in this article's lead sentence.

These changes leave the article's assertions regarding the religious composition of the Filipino American community and regarding population percentage unsupported. I would rather see these supported, but the unsupported assertions seem to be not unreasonable.

IMHO, an article on the topic of Filipino Americans which defines that term as excluding non-citizen Filipinos should, rather than including non-citizen Filipinos in the population figures it asserts and only explaining in a footnote that the figures asserted for Filipino Americans also include Filipinos in America who are not Filipino Americans. Rather, the article should assert population figures for Filipino Americans, possibly providing in a footnote information about the population figures for Filipinos in America who are not Filipino Americans.

I have nothing to say here regarding the WP articles on Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans, etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Min/Max Fig

In a recent edit done by User:Druid.raul he changed the population figure to a minimum and maximum estimate, citing data from the American Community Survey 2007. The figures that he provides for the min and max are that of only those born in the Philippines and those who are one or more races. The latter figure is already provided in the Filipino American#Population, the former figure is one that does not match the description provided in the introduction paragraph and is not inclusive enough to match the topic of the article.

Given that the user is providing a minimum and maximum figure then all reliably sourced reference should be considered. In a recent reversion of my edit he removed the information from the CIA 2007 estimate saying "The data i have put is of the official US govt statistics". Being that both are estimates, and the CIA is also a government entity and is also a reliable source, and provides a higher estimate for the same time frame, it would make logical sense to have their estimate of 4 million being the high end.

Now for the sake of the article, and not to get into an edit war, we should come to a consensus as to what the population figure in the infobox should be; this should also include providing third opinions from uninterested parties/users. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with using 1.7 million at all. It's completely misleading because it only accounts for people born in the Philippines and does not factor in other generations of Filipino Americans in the country.(Filipinos who were born in the United States or some other country are not included). In other words, people whose parents are Filipino but was born in the United States are not accounted for. I would say that most people would still consider people of Filipino ancestry who were born in the U.S. as Filipino American.

The country of birth is not very relevant to the population of Filipino Americans because it excludes a huge number of people who from the 2000 census and 2007 census estimate identified themselves as Filipino. If we were to use figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, then we should use this source from the census Bureau because not only does it include Filipinos born in the Philippines, but it includes Filipino Americans who were born in the U.S. or other countries.

'However, seeing as how all the sources are reliable, I don't think it would be bad a idea to add a min or maximum. It doesn't seem to be doing harm to the article and this way we would have a compromise. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Population figures given in the article should be figures for persons falling within the topic of the article. The lead sentence of the article says, "Filipino Americans are Americans of Filipino ancestry." I personally don't think that this is a good definition, but I am apparently in the minority on that. In order to fall within that definition, a person must be (1) "American" and also (2) "of Filipino Ancestry".

The four million figure is from this source, where a 2009 US State Department source says "There are an estimated four million Americans of Philippine ancestry in the United States". That seems to fit the topic of this article.

The 1.7 million figure is from this source, and represents the number of people who answered the "Country of birth" question on the 2007 American Community Survey with "Philippines". That does not seem to fit the topic of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 1.7 million figure does not fit within the scope of this article, and rather exclusionary. Regarding the Filipino American definition question let me suggest the following reliable source:

Root, Maria (1997). Filipino Americans: transformation and identity. SAGE. p. 96. ISBN 9780761905790. Retrieved 25 September 2009. For the purpose of this chapter, Filipino American identity is assumed to be the product of our historical and cultural backgrounds and the process of negotiating and constructing a life in the United States. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Although it is more inclusionary then I would like as it is my opinion that the word is a joining of ethnic identity (Filipino) and nationality (American), my opinion is not backed by a reliable source that I can find (so far), and thus given that verifiability is the test by which information is judged to be sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia, I must ceede to that test. Another interesting read for this matter of debate can be found here:

Bonus, Rick (2000). Locating Filipino Americans: ethnicity and the cultural politics of space Asian American history and culture. Temple University Press. p. 217. ISBN 9781566397797. Retrieved 25 September 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The book goes onto look into what the term Filipino American means through various chapters, and comes to a conclusion that what the term means is subjective but is based on those from a Filipino culture who are not fully integrated into what is termed as 'American'. Perhaps this should be its own discussion, as any consensus that changes the current definition would drastically alter the boundries of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On a different point of contention, in the recent edit done by User:Druid.raul, he added the following text: (includes Multiracial Filipinos). I do not believe that is necessary, as it creates an unstated opinion that those who are not of 100% filipino ethnicity that they may not be considered as Filipino American, which I believe is rather exclusionary. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the definitions. It can be difficult to determine the definition of what a Filipino American is because as it seems, people have different opinions. This is in regards to the census bureau estimates, since the people who fill out the survey is basing whether or not they are Filipino is based on opinion, it really doesn't help in solving the problem and still goes in the lines of opinion. I think the major problem is that the definition of any race is subjective and it will most likely cause conflicts between others. I'm not sure if there is a straightforward answer to this. Consensus to this issue seems to be the best way to go.

Also to your other statement concerning Druid.raul, I don't agree with the term "Multiracial" Filipinos. For some reason, it has some negative connotations to me. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added the exact population of Filipino American according to the official US govt statistics. Previous mentioned population figures are approximates. We have to mention Multiracial Filipinos as US govt statistics has these categories:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPCharIterationServlet?_lang=en&_ts=272091352425

• Race or Ethnic Groups
  • xxx alone
  • xxx alone or in any combination (i.e. Multiracial)

^{xxx i.e. Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Japanese etc etc}

• Country of Birth

(Druid.raul (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

The only problem is the last exact population count, and not an estimate (which comes with its own margin of error) dates back to the 2000 U.S. census, which would then push the number down to 2,364,815 taken from the following source: "Filipino alone or in any combination". Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 27 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |038&-ds_name= ignored (help)

The numbers you provided are themselves estimates from the 2007 ACS, therefore your numbers cannot be exact. Furthermore, given the definition provided in the article Filipino Americans are not only those who are born in the Philippines, or those who only have a single ethnicity, this is why most other figures you have seen on this page are of the title "Filipino alone or in any combination", as not to be exclusionary and to be as inclusionary as the definition provided in the article introduction. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting an error with the link that you posted Druid.raul. Could you repost it? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the term Filipino-American meant someone who is an American citizen and who has Filipino ancestry. This is actually why I get into very heated arguments when visiting the Philippines because they think that "American" is some kind of ethnicity and don't view me as a Filipino-American. Anyway, I definetly don't believe that any figures which only count Philippine born people living in the US is correct. Surely, those with Filipino ancestry who are 2nd, 3rd generations etc. should be counted. There are two types of Filipino Americans here. Those who came to the US and gained citizenship and those who were born here who have Filipino ancestry. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely agree that people who have Filipino ancestry have to be an American citizen to be Filipino American. If Person A met a person B who has Filipino ancestry somewhere, oh let's say a store, Person B would probably be considered thought of a Filipino American by Person A because it seems as if the live in the U.S. and Person A doesn't take into account their citizenship (I'm assuming based on experience this is similar for most people). Who does? From experience, it's assumed that the people around you usually live in the U.S. and are considered American. The term Filipino American I think are people of Filipino ancestry who are either permanent residents/long-term residents or citizens of the U.S. or rather have settled in the U.S. To my understanding, this is what the census accounts for. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Census counts all persons who are residing in the United States, regardless of citizenship, legal nationality, or legal residency status. Here is the source:

Chris Weigant (3 October 2007). "Should the Census Count Illegal Immigrants". Huffington Post. Retrieved 28 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Teresa Watanabe (31 May 2009). "U.S. Census sparks feud over the counting of illegal immigrants". LA TImes. Retrieved 28 September 2009.

However, the definition of who or who isn't a filipino american, regardless of our individual POVs, is what can be verified by a reliable source. I have already posted two reliable sourced references earlier in this thread, one giving a definite definition, the other giving multiple definitions saying that no single definition is agreed upon by all. However, both agree that the person lives in the United States and has a cultural and/or social connection to the Philippines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I did not have the time to thoroughly look through the subsection, I'll be sure to look at them more thoroughly in the days to come, and I'll try to use my experience as a Filipino-American to clarify things up as to what the term means. Commonly, the term refers to any American who is of (or is mostly of) Filipino descent, whether or not he/she has U.S. citizenship, and is primarily resident in the United States. Multiracial persons are counted if their primary ethnicity is Filipino, and that's what I'm getting from the sources being thrown around. By extension, the term would include people like myself: persons born in the Philippines, to Filipino parents, who emigrated and naturalized. Hopefully that clears a few things up, and I'll be happy to explain myself if it does not. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look forward to discussion/clarification on what the lead sentence should say in defining the term "Filipino American" for purposes of this article. Re the comment above, "any American [...], whether or not he/she has U.S. citizenship" confused me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is American citizenship a prerequisite to be called an American? I'd presume immigrants and permanent residents are just as American as citizens (therefore I may have been Filipino back in the day, but I was just as American as the next guy). The same goes for Americans in the Philippines: I'd presume you're as Filipino as the next guy I see. ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we're discussing things within the context of Wikipedia, I looked at the American article. That is a disambiguation page with American people (disambiguation) as one choice. That further disambiguation page has People of the United States as one choice. The lead sentence of that article reads, "The people of the United States, U.S. Americans, or simply Americans or American people, are citizens or nationals of the United States." The lead sentence of the Filipino people article (redirect target from People of the Philippines) reads, "Filipino people refers to nationals of the Republic of the Philippines and to persons having Filipino ancestry.". Depending on when you naturalized as an American, you may or may not have lost your Philippine nationality. If you did loose it then, you can reacquire it now. If you have dual citizenship, nationality-wise you would be both be both American and Filipino as well as, (Fil citizenship not being a prerequisite for Fil status) for present purposes of this article, Fil-Am. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I really do not agree at all with the notion that "it's assumed that the people around you [who] live in the U.S. are considered American". So what does that make illegal immigrants residing in the US? This is the first time I've ever heard that non-citizens are considered American. Of course there are exceptions such as those who fight in the military who are not citizens yet I consider them just as American as the rest of us. In general though, to me, simple residency makes you a "resident" of the US but not an "American". However, regardless though of my point of view and those of others, I do agree that any definition must come up with a reliable source. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We're off topic here from the original discussion, of what the min/max figure should b;, although this discussion is very important, let us start a whole new discussion on what the lead sentance, and thus the scope, of this article should be.

So are we in consensus that the figure, until the data from the 2010 Census comes out, should be based on the minimum of the 2007 ACS "Filipino, alone or in combination", and the maximum being the 2007 State Department estimate?

Waves of Immigration

In the settlement section, should we add a new subsection regarding the waves of immigration of Filipinos to the United States? From what I have read elsewhere there was insignificant immigration prior to 1903, significant agricultural based immigration from 1903-1934, service-based immigration from 1941-1965, and post-1965 modern immigration. Each have different characteristics, different gender make up, and different sub-national dominant groups.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Questional Paragraph in Background Section

The questional paragraph is as follows:

The Filipino character is actually a little bit of all the cultures put together. The bayanihan or spirit of kinship and camaraderie that Filipinos are famous for, is said to be taken from Malay forefathers. The close family relations are said to have been inherited from the Chinese. The piousness comes from the Spaniards who introduced Christianity in the 16th century. Hospitality is a common denominator in the Filipino character and this is what distinguishes the Filipino. Filipinos are probably one of the few, if not the only, English-proficient Oriental people today. Filipino is the official national language, with English considered as the country's unofficial one.

There is no citation to this article, and sounds like a POV statement on assumptions of the evolution of the cuture based on other cultures interactions. Furthermore, it uses the term Oriental, which could be seen as derogatory. Unless this can be backed or properly cited, I am proposing tha that this paragraph be removed no later than 01JUN2009. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Supporting part of this, Rowena Fong (2003), Culturally competent practice with immigrant and refugee children and families, p. 70, ISBN 9781572309319 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |pyblisher= ignored (help) says, "In Filipino culture, mutual support networks are formed, members of which assist one another in times of difficulty. These networks encompass the nuclear family, the extended kinship system, close friends, and neighbors. (para break) In the Philippines, community members practice bayanihan , which means "mutual help. ..."; Tomas Quintin D. Andres (1998), People empowerment by Filipino values, Rex Bookstore, Inc., p. 17, ISBN 9789712324109 says, "The bayanihan has always been a special feature of the Filipino character. The Indo-Malay Filipinos brought this with them when they landed on our shores. Families helped other families in the common struggle to survive."

Highlighting another aspect of Filipino culture, Michael Pinches (1999), Culture and Privilege in Capitalist Asia, Routledge, p. 298 (Note 26), ISBN 9780415197649 says, "I had more difficulty organizing interviews with Filipino-Chinese than with other Filipinos. Some businesspeople I did interview, and who were indentified as Chinese by non-Chinese Filipinos, did not identify themselves this way with me, though they did speak of others as Chinese. In these cases the issue seemed less one of secrecy than of the ambiguity and situational character of ethnic identity, as it concerns many Filipinos. Despite the ideological power of ethnic categories, the social and interpersonal boundaries constituted in terms of Chinese, Filipino, mestizo, and Spanish identities are contentious and blurry." Alfredo R. Roces; Grace Roces (1992), Culture Shock!: Philippines (3rd edition, illustrated, revised ed.), Graphic Arts Center Pub. Co., ISBN 9781558680890 is a popular reference about differences between Western and Filipino cultures, but it is not previewable online.

Regarding languages, the Philippine constitution designates Filipino as the national language, and designates both Filipino and English as Official languages. (See Article XIV, Sections 6 & 7 here). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations, please feel free to add those citations to the section in question, and remove the dubious and fact tags. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disregardg, I will add the citations myself, thanks for providing them. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor has recently done a major contribution[1] to the background section. For all the text it is only backed by a single reference, which is a blog site. Now this doesn't meet reliable source requirements, however it itself is well referenced. Should this content be removed? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Blogs should generally be avoided and the only source that was provided does not seem very reliable or is not very well known for its credibility. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on that IP user's talk page, creating it actually, asking for the editor to improve its references as, as I had said in most initial statement, the blog itself is VERY well sourced. However, given a period of time, I say 72 hours, and such improvement isn't made, I say we should go ahead and revert to prior to that edit's edition of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an ample amount of time to fix the additions. For now, let me fix the citation because it's showing as a cite error. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox picture edit wars

As of recent there have been many changes to the infobox at the top of the page. It is my belief that all are valid individuals, but that these edits need to come to an end, and we need to reach consensus as to whom should be included and how the pictures are formatted. If this continues unabatted, it is my suggestion that we make this article semi-protected so that such edits can be done as a consensus rather than individual fiat.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the info box images have unbalanced the image containing. Although I will not change the most recent edit, I would much rather come to a consensus as to whom should be there and from what categories of individuals they come from. Prior to the most recent edit, from Top Left to Bottom Right, we had a leading White House staff worker, the highest ranking Filipino officer (retired), the highest ranking Filipino Naval Officer (retired), a Filipino Conservative commentator, the highest ranking Filipino elected official (Democrat)(former), and an entertainer (half-filipino). All of these individuals are from the past 30 years, thus the images have a heavy recent bent to an ethnicity which has been in the US since before 1900. Now we have the same on the top row except for now on the bottom row we have two conservatives and a liberal.

I suggest the following categories be covered, taking from the List of Filipino Americans:

• Three Historic Individuals (Pre-1969)
• One Conservative Elected Official
• One Liberal Elected Official
• One Non-TV/Movie Notable Individual
• One TV/Movie Notable Individual
• One Athlete
• One Servicemember

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are few if any historic individuals with images on wikicommons Therefore I propose the following change for the picture box to include nine individuals, in the arrangement shown: Former Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano, RDML Eleanor Mariano (ret.), CPT Jose Calugas (ret.)
Michelle Malkin, Tim Lincecum, Cristeta Comerford
Dante Basco, Vanessa Minnillo , Rep. Steve Austria --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In Reality Pacific islanders

Acutally to tell the Truth The Phillipines is not classified as Asian but the US cenus does. Flipinos are acutally diverse people they come from different cultures and races or ethnic groups many of them are Eurpeopen. Plus the country was named after King Phillip the second of Spain. discovered by a Portegusese man there is alot of Eurpeopn influence on the country too. So The US cenus needs to change that to Pacific islanders which is the real classification for the Phillipines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.169.109 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like original research, which should not be added to this article. Unless you can cite multiple reliable citible sources which back up this statement, this statement will be considered for removal, as this is not a forum. The Philippines, is connected to Asia by the continental shelf via borneo. Furthermore it is not part of the Polynesia or Micronesia Island Groups, woes people are usually covered under Pacific Islanders.

It can be definitely debated as to whether the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Melanesia islands should be incorporated or be considered part of Oceana, but I have not seen consensus leading to such a change in definition.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree RightCowLeftCoast the only real ones who are arguing is mostly Filipino-Americans no other Country classifies us as Pacific Islander.The Philippines and it's people classifies themselves as Asian there is no point arguing that we are Pacific Islanders.--AkoDanielle (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkoDanielle (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Need for sub-article

Perhaps there is a need for a sub-article, or related article to the subject of this article. As with other "slash americans", many of them have an article that is specific to that ethnicities history in what is today the United States. The Filipino Americans do not have such an article, but has a well cited timeline on this article page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? AFAICS, the sub-article you are requesting would contain a redirect to this article. I must misunderstand. Please elucidate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify my statement. Perhaps there is a need for a History of Filipino Americans article. Other ethnicities in the US have such articles, perhaps the Filipino American ethnicity needs the same. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Now I understand. The Wikipedia:Article size guideline remarks that readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, saying in articles significantly longer than that it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (per the Wikipedia:Summary style style guideline). This article is currently sized at 79 KB, and so looks like a candidate for such action. -- Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

4 million figure

The current population figure being used for this article is very contradictory. First of all, the 4 million figure contradicts the statement used in the article that Filipino Americans are the second largest Asian American group since the U.S. Census Bureau puts the largest Asian group, Chinese Americans to be 3.53 million. This also contradicts two other articles, Chinese American and Asian American which shows that Chinese Americans are the largest Asian American group. Also, having two figures, 3.1 million (US census bureau) and 4.0 million (US State Department) may be a bit confusing since the article does not have a definitive figure. Based on the fact that the U.S. Census Bureau deals more with the demographics of the country, it would be more likely that the 3.1 million figure is the better figure as well as accurate figure to use for the infobox. Furthermore this is the only Asian American sub-group to not use figures from the U.S. Census Bureau for the infobox. Elockid (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Both figures are properly cited/references and should be retained, as they are presently in the population sub-section. However, for the figure box, I contend that the lower number should be placed, with a footnote as to when that figure was taken and noting the higher estimated figure from the other reference.

I don't think that anyone is contended that at the time the 2000 census occured that Chinese Americans were the larger population, and I am sure their estimated population has grown as well.

Lets reach consensus on this before a change is made.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 3.53 million figure is the 2007 estimate, the same year estimate for this article. Chinese American 2007 Figure. So that's why I made that statement about being contradictory because the most current estimates of all three articles are 2007 estimates (Filipino Americans, Chinese Americans, and Asian Americans). So comparing the populations in each article, it would appear that Filipino Americans are the largest group. However, it is not stated or shown that Filipino Americans are the largest group in the Asian American article or Chinese Americans as the second largest group. I didn't make any changes because I know that would cause trouble. Perhaps we can do a range figure, including them both? Elockid (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Only problem with changing Filipino Americans as the largest asian group, which may actually be the case based on the present estimates of 2007, is that the ranking of populations within Asian Americans was based on the actual head count done in the 2000 Census. We will have a definite answer in 2011 following the 2010 Census. We can make a statement that based on the present estimates, it is estimated that group A is bigger then group B, of supergroup X, but anything more then that is original research.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I updated the ranking populations for Asian Americans to the 2007 estimates from the US Census Bureau a while back since I noticed the other Asian American pages were based of 2007 estimates. I'm assuming that the ranking populations you were speaking of were in the "Demographics" section? Maybe perhaps you meant the Demographics of Asian Americans article? That's still based on the 2000 data. But I guess we'll just have to wait. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Manuel L. Quezon

Would he fall under this group? Although he was never a US Citizen, it cannot be argued that while in Exile as President of the Commonwealth, and while serving as a Resident Commissioner for the Territory of the Philippines that he did reside in the US. Furthermore, he died here. Using the very encompassing definition used in this article would he fall into the scope of this category? If it is determined he does fall into the scope of this article, I will tag him with the appropriate catergory and place him as a notable person in the InfoBox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's lead sentence says that Filipino Americans are (1) Americans (2) of Filipino ancestry. Are you arguing that he was an American? If not, it would appear that he would not fall under this group. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the inclusion of PVT Nisperos as an Asian & Filipino American, rather than as a foreign recipient of the Medal of Honor, all Filipinos during that time were considered US Nationals, and thus Americans, until 1946 the Philippines became independent and thus dropped the legal status of US Nationals therefore no longer Americans; that is, except those who retained US Nationality, via military service or other routes, and later became US Citizens.

The reason why I am looking for inclusion is because of historic filipino americans, as proposed in my infobox discussion, which there is no comment about, above, there is only one pre-1979 Filipino American of notability who has a picture, that is Jose Calugas, whom I have already placed in the infobox. If Quezon a Commonwealth of the Philippines President is determined to be a Filipino American, than he can be added in the info box. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point re persons having pre-independence status as US nationals. However, there is probably a long list of persons who had that status, no doubt some very notable and probably most of whom forfeited US National status. I've read something about some mechanisms for electing US citizenship as part of the 1946 RP independence process, but I don't recall details and am too rushed to research them at the moment (I'm just back from vacation and am currently trying to catch up on lots of things).

Offhand, it strikes me that this article ought to contain information on this situation and that notables in this situation perhaps ought to be listed somewhere (perhaps in this article with an asterisk and an explanatory footnote, perhaps in a separate section of the article, perhaps in a separate article wikilinked from here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, due to this reference M. Licudine v. D. Winter, JR 1086, p. 5 (U.S. District Court for D.C. 2008) ("“[f]rom the time the United States obtained dominion over the Philippines in 1899 until it granted independence to the islands in 1946, [the United States] Congress classified natives of the Philippines as Philippine citizens, as non-citizen United States nationals, and as aliens, but never as United States citizens.”"). that at the time, that President Quezon was in the US until his death that he was a Philippine Citizen, a former U.S. National, and then an Alien legally residing in the United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet arguement could still be made, that because of the wide definition of inclusion of this article, which I have stated my opinion against, but consensus of other editors have been for, does not limit inclusion of individuals to the group Filipino American (the subject of this article) based on citizenship/nationality; but rather it limits itself based on ethnic background/heritage and residence of an individual within the territorial boundries of the United States. Therefore, the Philippines being within the legal territorial boundries of the United States, per the citation previously provided, until July 4 1946, and President Quezon being obviously ethnically Filipino, would then fall under the definitions provided in this article. Or would could argue against all this as Original Research. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation about Education

Under the section on Education, this article read, "Filipino Americans have some of the highest educational attainment rates in the United States with 47.9% of all Filipino Americans over the age of 25 having a Bachelor's degree, which correlates with rates observed in other Asian American subgroups." This is a false statement, as the source provided (U.S. Census) actually shows that Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, and Korean Americans have higher attainment rates than Filipinos in the Asian American group. In addition, the editor completely left out the Indian American subgroup, which has the highest educational attainment rate. Ironically, the editor did bother to include the Indian American subgroup in the chart under Household Incomes. Whether the intent was bias or mistake is irrelevant, I have added the subgroup to the chart. Finally, "In California, Filipino Americans are more likely to graduate from college than their Asian American counterparts." was another incorrect statement. The data provided by the source shows that Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and especially Indian Americans are more likely to graduate college than Filipino Americans. The original statement has been removed to honestly reflect the data from the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It does roughly correlate with other Asian American groups. A statement which you deleted. You also deleted the primary source link for this, so clicking on the the reference superscript does not directly put you to the source link. Also, you can add {{fact}} tags to statements that are controversial instead of removing large chunks of information. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the information provided by the source does not target one state, so it is possible that in California, that is the correct statement. Furthermore, the source just targets Asians alone without any mixed ancestry, so it is entirely possible that the rates are higher. If there's missing information, just add it. But please don't delete large chunks of information unless you look at the source closely. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You also deleted another statement which appears to be true. "Filipino Americans have some of the highest educational attainment rates in the United States". This includes all groups, not just Asian Americans. You can see that the total U.S. population total is 27% which is much lower. The statement says it is has some of the highest not the highest which is true. Comparing it to other groups, this statement appears true also. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide 'rough' estimates, but rather to state factual information. I apologize for deleting the source. It was not my intention. Additionally, the original opinion written by the editor, indeed stated that the data pertained to the Asian subgroups in the State of California. How can you say that 'it is possible' that it targets California when the the opinion says it does, and the Census clearly does not. Again, Wikipedia is not to contain assumptions or opinions, but rather facts. If the source does not state a target area or population, then it should not be in the article nor should we assume 'possibilities'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote. "Finally, In California (bolded for attention), Filipino Americans are more likely to graduate from college than their Asian American counterparts. was another incorrect statement. The data provided by the source shows that Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and especially Indian Americans are more likely to graduate college than Filipino Americans." The source didn't target a state. The statement just referred to California. So saying that it is incorrect because of a source that was a broad overview of the entire country, doesn't mean it is necessarily an incorrect statement. That statement also doesn't seem to be basing it on the source from the U.S. census because it is a broad overview rather it was an additional statement that wasn't referring to source number 32 (source being used). Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)