This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
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.Hihellowhatsup00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article said there are currently 8,000 U.S. forces in the P.I. Where are they?
Don't forget to sign your comments on Discussion pages. There are not 8,000 members of the US Military stationed in the Philippines, though there are times when there are that many and more, specifically when US Navy ships are visiting. There are a fluctuating number of American military members in Mindanao. There is no permanent base there nor any individuals that are permanently there but there is a perpetual if not technically permanent American presence.--Bruce Hall (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 TurinWilyD13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.. WilyD01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:NPOVanyhow, i.e. Armenian Genocide. Names are too short too allow for long explanations. WilyD02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Deepstratagem09:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). WilyD12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try United States Americans in the Phillipines. As you well know American already means two different things so don't evade the issue. Deepstratagem15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. WilyD16:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 AmericanorAmericans 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 PhilippinesorForeigners 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 Bill04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "The Philippines currently has [...] Asia's third largest number of military personnel of the United States Army", supporting this assertion with a cite of a source which, as far as I can tell, does not support the assertion. I have palced {{Dubious}} and {{Failed verification}} tags. -- Boracay Bill01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked for supporting sources with info or stats on this, but my guess is that Fil-Ams either retiring in the RP or establishing a second residence in the RP probably swelled the numbers of Americans settling in the Philippines, especially in the wake of RA9225. If someone has visibility of some sources on this, it would probably make a useful addition to the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I am not sure how to find such information. My experience in anecdotal. For instance, most of the Americans in the American association where I live were born in the Philippines. In my view there are basically four groups of Americans in the Philippines - citizens born in the Philippines who have lived their whole life here and are basically Filipino, Filipinos born in the Philippines who moved to the US and then retired back "home", non-Filipino-Americans who are in the Philippines temporarily often for work, and non-Fil-Ams who have retired to the Philippines often married to Filipinos or Fil-Ams. I have never seen any numbers however that broke out these subgroups. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section breaking listing these four groups. I have no references or any sources for this breakdown except my own experience. We need some better sources. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm reverting this edit -- there's lots of other instances of colonialization in the article and no other instances of colonization. This relates to this wider 2020 edit by me. I didn't explain that well at the time, so I'll do so here.
I'm no academic, but I've always distinguished "colonialize" from "colonize" by thinking of the latter as implying significant occupation, probably of a previously unpopulated or sparsely populated area, and the former as implying subjugation of a previously populated area without significant occupation. That's probably not 100.00 percent correct.
Merriam-Webster defines the two terms
colonialization: the act of colonializing or being colonialized
colonialize: of, relating to, or characteristic of a colony
colony: an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control
colonialize: colonialization (n.) 1965, noun of action from colonialize "render colonial in character" (1864); see colonial + -ize. Or else a back-formation from decolonialize.
colonize: colonize (v.) 1620s, "to settle with colonists, plant or establish a colony in," from stem of Latin colonus "tiller of the soil, farmer" (see colony). From 1630s as "to migrate to and settle in." It is attested by 1790s in the sense of "to make another place into a national dependency" without regard for settlement there (such as in reference to French activity in Egypt or the British in India), and in this sense it is probably directly from colony.
I had a lot of internet problems while putting that together -- I hope I haven't jumbled the links and definitions. Follow those links for more complete definitions.
I've reverted this edit, assuming good faith. Though I have not seen a full copy of the cited source, I note that the content that the reverted edit would have added says that American colonization has been a contributor to colonial mentality but, seemingly contrarily, I see on page vihere that chapter 11 of that book is headed, Filipino-American Decolonization Experience (FADE) FADE-ing Away Our Colonial Mentality. Perhaps more detail from the source and page-numbered cites would resolve this. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
