Talk:Pacific Islander

message: Is Filipino classified as pacific islander? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.174.124.90 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You will not find a single person native to the Philippines that doesn't consider himself or herself Asian. TheCoffee 06:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Filipinos have never been classified as Pacific Islanders. The only people who believe this are Fil-Ams who use the excuse that the Philippines is a island nation in the Pacific Ocean. As if there are no other island nations such as Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia that are considered as part of Asia. Why is it so difficult to understand that FILIPINOS are considered Asian ? which includes by both the U.S. and the Philippines. - Skillz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillz4Realz (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filipino = pacific islander? 

message: Are filipinos classified as asians? Many filipinos consider themselves "filipino" with no strings attached, not "asian" not "pacific islander" just "filipino". If it is true, I'm not sure why these tongans, chinese or whatever are outraged, they should be greatful to be considered in a category that includes filipinos. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.79.70 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that both the Malay filipino and the pacific islander(polynesian, micronesian, melanesian, etc) are all closely related under the term austronesian.--Chicbicyclist 11:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually most Filipinos consider themselves Asians .23prootie 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the current information within the "Usage Dispute" is completely accurate. All the facts are there. It explains it perfectly. Just read it. -Anyonymous Filipino American, March 10, 2008, 8:13P.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.3.28 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If Filipinos didn't consider themselves with no strings attached, such as "ASIAN", why in the world is the Philippines apart of the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). Many "ASIANS", also consider themselves by their ethnicity. To clarify, it's  not Filipinos who wouldn't consider themselves Asian...it's mostly Fil-Ams who have a huge problem with the term "ASIAN", yet do not consider that both the U.S. and the Philippines acknowledge that Filipinos can and are considered "ASIAN". Fil-Ams for some reason have a huge problem with associating themselves with other groups, even Filipinos from the Philippines. Youtube the show, Speak Out: Filipino vs Filipino-Americans. -Anyonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkillzDatKillz (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Chicbicyclist, you still fail to acknowledge that the Austronesian background can be found in other parts of Asia. How is that you only manage to mention the Malay Filipino being the only ones closely related under the term austronesian as compared to other Asians?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkillzDatKillz (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Geographically the Philippines are located in South East asia, not Oceania. The People on the other hand, are of austronesian descent. Look up the history of the austronesian people and you'll discover that a lot of the Pacific Islanders originated from the same race. The Filipinos are indeed a very mixed race, we are still linked in blood from our Austronesian ancestors. Fil-ams have taken it far by saying we are Pacific islander, in fact Pacific-Islanders and Filipinos share the same common ancestor and race. The best we can do is link to the Austronesian-link between nations. It's even more evident in our indigenous peoples. The Philippines has the Negritos, NZ has the Maori, Indonesia has the Papuan's etc... Keep that in mind. Lovebus 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  austronesian people. They constitute the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, the Pattani region of Thailand, and East Timor inside the Malay Archipelago, in Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia inside Oceania, in Madagascar, and in the Cham areas of Vietnam, Cambodia, and China (the remnants of the Champa kingdom which covered central and southern Vietnam). The Philippines isn't the only country in Asia that has the Austronesian background, sounds like Fil-Ams who claim Pacific Islander do not know the history behind the word Austronesian. Just because someone is Austronesian doesn't mean they can't be Asian and are Pacific Islanders. The Philippines and other several SE ASIAN countries also share common ancestors and race. The majority of Fil-Ams who started to claim Pacific Islander began in Hawaii. They start claiming Pacific Islander because "HAWAIIN/PACIFIC ISLANDER" sounds cooler to them. I've met plenty of Fil-AMS who have admitted to this. IF these FIL-AMS knew anything about FILIPINOS, they would know that FILIPINOS from the PHILIPPINES have a lot of similarities with SE ASIANS...including race...so there is nothing wrong with FILIPINOS and the ASIAN label. PinoyFilamPride 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Filipino = asian? 

message: I think this article has many flaws, its seems to be grouping Pacific Islanders that include people from Hawaii and Maoris as Austronesains, when they are in fact Polynesians. Malays from Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are not Polynesians. Theyre respective languages though are classified under the Malayo-Polynesian family. --Jandela 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polynesian is a subgroup of Austronesian.  From what I gather, "Malayo-Polynesian" is a lingual subgrouping, whereas Austronesian is a term not restricted simply to linguistics. Adrigon 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austronesian VS Polynesian 

message: An anyonymous user or users who apparently take issue with Filipinos not fitting the definition of "Pacific Islander" have once again taken the liberty of not only removing text which mentions the reasons for why that is the case, but also removing any mention at all of the others (Oceanics and Asian-identified Filipinos) who take exception to Filipinos calling themselves "Pacific Islander".  The content the person or persons have replaced it with uses weasel words to make a POV statement about why the deleted content was irrelevant.  And as it stands, the sentence in what remains of the paragraph, which reads "It should be noted however that both groups are closely related ethnically..." no longer makes sense without the context provided by the material which they removed.  I think this is not only poor editing, it's also borderline/possible vandalism and should be reverted to the last revert made by user Gadfium on March 6, 2007, which was itself a reversion of similarly-motivated revisions. Adrigon 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Borderline vandalism

message: Seems like whoever deleted the Usage dispute, probably took exception to why Filipinos are not considered Pacific Islander. There's tons of information as regards to why Filipinos aren't Pacific Islander and are in fact, Asian. However, the current information regarding the definition of Pacific Islander is enough and there should no longer be a need for a usage dispute. Anyone who thinks so can visit here. - Anonymous Filipino American, April 1, 2008 3:00P.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillz4Realz (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, anonymous Filipino American, you yourself removed that material - again. But let it stand. You have been informed that removing talk page content is deprecated, and you seem to be a new user - perhaps not used to the norms of Wikipedia. The debate is over, I hope? The problem seemed to lie around the lack of clear definition of the area. The Philippines do not lie within that clearly defined area, so any attempt to describe Filipinos as "Pacific Islanders" is quite wrong, as you point out. Many thanks for that support. I look forward to seeing you blossom as a regular Wikipedia editor! docboat (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I never removed the "Usage Dispute". I only removed the "Unacceptable Entry" part of the talk because all the information regarding the "Usage Dispute" has been removed or added to the Pacific Islanders Wikipedia entry. So why keep the "Unacceptable entry" when the information has all been deleted and understood from both parties? Get It? It's clear how a Pacific Islander is defined. Any information regarding Filipinos should be removed, as it has been said that the discussion is not relevant to this topic. The debate is over, any debate regarding Filipinos being Pacific Islanders should not be placed on the Pacific Islander section. Anyone who feels otherwise, should discuss this in the Filipino-American discussion board. That is understood. If anyone feels otherwise, they are more than welcome to discuss that here, correct? And thank you for the welcoming Docboat. I also look forward to having any further discussions with anyone who would like to share more information regarding anything on this topic.  -Anyonymous Filipino American, April 1st, 2008, 1:13P.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiXpress (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage Dispute 

message: This article is - or should be - about Pacific Islanders, not about how American-Filipinos may, or may not, consider themselves Asian. The geographic area is clear. The Philippines does not belong there. Any discussion to the topic surely belongs on a page devoted to Filipino attitudes within the USA. docboat (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent revert 

message: Why are filipinos in a different category on Standardized Testing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.155.146 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be because of the relationship between both the U.S. and the Philippines. Remember the Philippines was once colonized by the United States of America. If it makes any difference, I have seen this mainly in California which makes sense because of the large population of Filipinos. I have also seen Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese receive their own ethnic categories. Remember these tests can bring scholarships and grants. In California, some of the universities have students of Asian descent that outnumber other groups. PinoyFilamPride</b> 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories of ethnicities on Standardized Testing 

message: I have removed the previous text associated with the use of the term in Australia.  They are unsupported by a citation and do not seem to be supported by the coding under Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG).  At the very least a citation needs to be provided for the assertions to be reinserted. --Matilda talk 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statements associated with Usage of term in Australia 

message: Why is Palau not included in the list at the beginning of the article? The other Caroline Islands (FS Micronesia) are included. I didn't want to edit it myself because there might be some reason which I'm missing. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palau 

message: The regions' context is missing from this map. Someone who doesn't already know that they're located in the south/southwestern Pacific would find no help from the map. Context could be provided by showing the western neighbors of the -nesias — Australia, Papua N.G., Indonesia, Philippines — at least in an inset. SamEV (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pacific Islander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130403171145/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI525211.htm to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI525211.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest adding Nauru in the micronesian headline 2600:1702:3930:5AC0:2D4E:6BAF:9D59:9793 (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Nauru isn't included in micronesia