Talk:Americans in the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Philippines doesn't have the largest American population outside the United States; Mexico does. I'm removing the sentence that states that it does.Hihellowhatsup 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8000 U.S. Forces

The article said there are currently 8,000 U.S. forces in the P.I. Where are they?

[edit] Americans?

Are we talking about U.S. Nationals or Americans? Should ambiguous or inaccurate titled pages like this even be on Wikipedia? Deepstratagem 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deep, please stop pushing POV - the title has zero ambiguity and you know perfectly well it refers to Americans, not people from the Americas. It's titling is in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions, specifically that articles should be at the location they most commonly know as in english. If you're interested in how it works out, read the old (and possibly still smouldering) discussion on where to locate the article on Kiev or for a briefer read, try Turin WilyD 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The title is out of line with NPOV Policy. Deepstratagem 09:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read WP:NPOV you'll find that it's not, especially in light of Wikipedia's article naming convention, which forbids the kind of change you're requesting.. WilyD 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part...? I just showed it is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus Deepstratagem 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An article about Americans being focused on Americans is not what that policy is talking about. England has an anglocentric focus, and it's appropriate, as is this article. It is named as it would most commonly be called in english, as the naming convention requires. FWIW, naming doesn't really follow WP:NPOV anyhow, i.e. Armenian Genocide. Names are too short too allow for long explanations. WilyD 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are going to evade the issue? This article is immune because it is immune circular logic, right? This article is not about England. Deepstratagem 09:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to evade an issue that does not exist. The article is about Americans in the Philippines - what name could be more appropriate than Americans in the Philippines. Of course it focuses on Americans because that's what the article is about. I included the england example because you were unclear on when an Anglo-American focus is called for (i.e. articles about Americans and the English). WilyD 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Try United States Americans in the Phillipines. As you well know American already means two different things so don't evade the issue. Deepstratagem 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Americans already has a word in english Americans. American actually means many different things (see American) but it has one primary meaning (of or relating to the United States) so I again refer you back to the naming convention. WilyD 16:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, if there is a conflict there must be a disambiguation page. Deepstratagem 17:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See Americans. Also see America. These are disambiguation pages for those terms. -- Boracay Bill 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not for this page. Deepstratagem 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But there's not a conflict, because no other article is jockying for the same name as this one. As well, it's not unusual to keep something at Article, and have a seperate Article (disambiguation) for unlikely confusion. If you're looking for an example, see Squid amd Squid (disambiguation) WilyD 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here, de-indent the discussion back to a reasonable level, and contribute my two Pesos worth. The word American can refer specifically to someone from the USofA or can refer more generally to someone from the Americas (North, Central, and/or South). This particular article presently uses the word in the first sense and the content of the article fits with that. If there were info which needed presenting regarding, say, Canadians, Peruvians, or Mexicans in the Philippines, this article could be sectionalized by country and such info might be placed into appropriate sections. Until there is more than one country to discuss here, however, IMHO the use of the word Americans here to refer specifically to persons from the USofA is not out of line and anyone who is confused by that can look at the pages on American or Americans to resolve their confusion. (Considering [1], [2], etc., there might well be some such information regarding Mexicans. I run into many more Canadians here than persons from the USofA. AFAIK, I haven't yet met a Peruvian here, though I do know at least one Brazilian.) If and when there is more than one country to discuss, it would probably be appropriate to sectionalize this page, to revise the present content somewhat regarding the use of the term American, and to retitle the page Non-Filipinos in the Philippines or Foreigners in the Philippines or somesuch. If and when that is ever done, Americans in the Philippines could be turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of that new page. -- Boracay Bill 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)