Talk:First landing of Filipinos in the United States

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Landing of the first Filipinos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am the reviewer of your other article 'History of Filipino's in America' after noticing this article, I believe the two should be combined. Some notes though for this article in any case:

1. The name is a bit ambiguous and perhaps should include 'in America' or something. I am Austalian, when I saw the name I assumed it meant their first landing in the Philippines.

2. There is not enough broad coverage, the aftermath section kind of glosses over 300 years, nothing to mention for the the 16th to the 19th centuries?

3. The background section goes off topic, background would assume 'the background for the journey', not a thousand year history of the people. This section needs a rewrite to stay on topic.

4. The article is not broad enough and doesn't include information on the demographics of those who arrived? I can't actually see how many people there even were.

In light of the above, I do not think the article will meet the criteria without substantial edits. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlackfullaLinguist: This article meant for only a single event, not the entirety of the History of Filipino Americans. The article name was chosen based off of the name of the historical marker placed in Coleman Park, Morro Bay in 1995. The aftermath section is limited in scope to the aftermath crew that made the landing, follow on Manila Galleon landings in California, the impact the first contact with the Chumash people had on them, and the obscurity of the event which is the subject of the article that is further acknowledged in the aftermath section. Due to the surviving documents the exact number of individuals in the first landing party is not stated specifically, thus we cannot provide a specific number as that would be OR. The background section gives background of the Spaniards in the Pacific (to include the Manila Galleons), Chumash people, and the Luzon Indios (Filipinos), as well the specific background of the voyage that led to the event which is the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: this GAR has also been open for over a month, and my response has not been responded to. Perhaps another reviewer can take it over if this review has been abandoned, so we can collaborate to improve this article to get it to GA status.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I'll assess this one. It looks interesting. Give me a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check. I have been on the bold side, so please flag up anything you don't like or don't understand.

• "Inland expeditions were prohibitive" Do you mean 'prohibited'? If not, could you explain how, or in what way they were prohibitive?
• "attempts to contour the coastline" Do you mean 'survey'? Or perhaps 'follow'?
• Either all cites of works should give publication locations or none should. Currently one, cite 17, does. If you were to delete "Austin", you would be fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)|3=alt

• Cites 7, 33 and 34: Is there a reason for the quotes after the citation information?
• "the events at Plymouth Rock" I know that there is a Wikilink, but could you add a brief inline explanation; for the benefit of non-US citizens?

That's all I have. A fascinating, well written and well researched article. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Sorry for my delay in getting back to editing Wikipedia. I will try to edit more, with what limited time I have available.

The reason for the quotes were due to WP:EXTRAORDINARY; the claim that the event which is the subject of this article, but had been largely unrecognized until the early 1990s, and that it establishes Filipinos as the first Asian in the modern United States, North America, and the Americas, may be challenged. Therefore quoting the sources, gives creedence to the claim repeated here on Wikipedia. If for style reasons, it is felt that the quotes are not needed, I can remove them.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem.

The quotations: If I had wanted to emphasise them, I would have put the quotes in line, with appropriate attribution. But it's your call. I don't see it as an extraordinary claim by the way - it has been nationally recognised - and would have been happy to let the sources, which are good and wide, speak for themselves. So strike this on as an issue. Ping me when you have a response for my other four comments. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I believed I have made edits that resolve the four other issues which you brought up.

The first issue was about word prohibitive. It was a spelling error. I also included an additional reference showing that it was prohibited for Spanish Galleons to conduct further seaborne exporation

The second issue was a copy edit suggestion, and I agreed with your wording and made the change.

I removed the location of publication.

I have added a footnote about why Plymouth Rock is significant.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to improve.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No, with tidying up those trivial issues you have met all of the criteria. As I wrote above, a fascinating, well written and well researched article. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Moving article

The language used makes it seem as if the Filipinos were on their own ships, which they weren’t. The Filipinos didn’t land, the Novohispanic/Spanish ships landed. My move was reverted, citing “the language used on the plaque”. The language used on the plaque also states “Luzon Indios”, but that isn’t used in this article name either. Somehow, it became “Filipinos”, when that term wasn’t used for the native population during that time.

It is more precise to change the name of the article to “First documented arrival of Filipinos to the Americas”. Many were brought against their will as slaves, and they did not stay there, they visited it. CMD007 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not read the same meaning into the current title, not does the title seem imprecise. Landing does not mean staying in a location. The article suggests the ships did not land, but a landing party including Filipinos did. "Luzon Indios" is explicitly placed in quotation marks in the plaque, clearly marking it as a historical term, as opposed to the term Filipinos which the plaque uses unadorned alongside landing as current English. CMD (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason this page shouldn’t be more specific as “First documented arrival of Filipinos to the Americas”, the article even begins with this language. The whole point of it is to show they were never here before and that they arrived for the first time, so let the article name reflect that. Also, the constant mention of the Mayflower (now removed) does, in their mind, denote a “landing” in the same manner as that ship under their own control, which it was not. CMD007 (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason would be sticking to a title with wording supported by external resources, rather than original research by individual editors. Not seeing anything about the Mayflower in the current text or the GA text, and not sure who "their" refers to, but either way it does not affect how external sources might refer to this event. CMD (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The “first arrival of Filipinos” is original research?? Then that would make this entire article “original research”. That is nonsense. On the contrary, that is exactly what this article is trying to convey, and as such, would be a simpler, much easier to understand name for the article. CMD007 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the title. Which sources were you working from for you edits to this article? CMD (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, the GA text explicitly states “The landing of the first Filipinos at Morro Bay, which occurred 33 years before the events at Plymouth Rock,[a]”, I used the wrong word, but it is still the exact same meaning, Plymouth = Mayflower. The other issue is where is this “landing”, in England? South Africa? No, there is no reason why this article shouldn’t be called “First documented arrival of Filipinos to the Americas”. To fight that is to fight that the sky looks blue. CMD007 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There's an essay on that. Speaking of which, which sources were you working from for your edits to this article? CMD (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This source, , states “the first Filipinos in North America who arrived in Morro Bay, California, in 1587”. This source as well, , from the Statutes of California and Digests of Measures, No.65, uses the exact same language: “The first recorded arrival of Filipinos in what is now Morro Bay”. Arrival is more precise. Also, ‘Asian American History Day by Day: A Reference Guide to Events’ By Jonathan H. X. Lee (2018) states, “Since their first documented arrival in Morro Bay, California in October 1587”. Using Arrival is NOT original research, and the article name should be changed to “Arrival of the first Filipinos in the Americas” or similarly “First documented arrival of Filipinos in North America”.CMD007 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not what I asked or said was original research, but the sources are appreciated, even if from the Statues of California Digests of Measures (they also include a law using "landing" here!). However, I'm not sure how a few sources using arrival relates to the initial argument. "Landing" appears to be in healthy use: "These are the first recorded instances of Filipinos landing on California soil", "It is only in the last decade of the 20th century that scholarship documents Filipinos landing earlier, specifically in Morro Bay". As an aside, comparisons to Plymouth appear to predate Wikipedia, for example this 1997 book includes it in "...celebrated the first landing of Pilipinos...the Morro Bay incident occurred...about a century before the Mayflower". Given landing is the term used in the commemoration of the event, as well as still used in various sources, I don't really see how moving the article from that established wording helps, especially given the title provides the context that it was a landing party. CMD (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If you start typing in “Landing of…” you’ll see a couple articles pop up and underneath “Landing of the first Filipinos” you’ll see it has a second header which reads “Arrival of Filipinos to the current United States in 1587”… WHY? Why would it need a second explanation if we could just put the explanation in the FIRST place. Other articles about “first arrivals” which is a category to which this page belongs, has specifics… “First Africans in Virginia”. Where are these Filipinos landing? Britain? Australia? The title does not provide any context, contrary to what you are saying. It doesn’t tell who landed the ship, it doesn’t tell where they landed, nonsense. CMD007 (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Also, that source that mentions the pilgrims is not at all reliable. They said it was “nearly a century earlier”?? 33 years is NOT equal to a century. Laughable. Back to reality, What is the argument against using the second header as the actual name page? It’s good enough to be a second header, why not just use it as the name page? What is your argument against “Arrival of the first Filipinos in the Americas”? Are you trying to be non concise? CMD007 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As stated since the beginning, the current title seems to follow common language for the event, as reflected by its use in the plaque and a very large number of sources. There should be a compelling reason to shift away from the language used by the sources, which has not been presented. It is further unhelpful to conflate two separate discussions, the landing and the location. As a general point, titles are not meant to hold the entirety of context including what what when and where. I also do not understand your reference to concision when arguing for that longer title. CMD (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The language did not reflect the plaque, but now it does, word for word, with the exception of “continental”. It is perfectly showed in all sources where this “Filipino landing” happened. CMD007 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References