Talk:Pacific Islander
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Pacific Islander, or visit the project page for more details. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. |
|
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:
|
|
[edit] Filipino = pacific islander?
Is Filipino classified as pacific islander? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.174.124.90 (talk • contribs) December 11, 2004 02:49 (UCT).
- 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)
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)
[edit] Filipino = asian?
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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.79.70 (talk • contribs) September 14, 2006 06:06 (UCT).
- 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)
Filipinos are asian and most consider themselves to be. That is because most of us Filipinos are not stupid and are trying to be something were not resulting in other races thinking we are try hard wannabees that wish we were them. Although alot of Filipino Americans are not stupid just misguided and are told they are something they are not. --Jandela 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Austronesian VS Polynesian
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)
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)
