Talk:Filipino Americans

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number: 4M or 2.8M 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spanish and Chevacano 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Content in article introduction 

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

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