Talk:Pinoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePinoy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2008Articles for deletionKept
September 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Pinoy is a demonym referring to Filipino people in the United States, the Philippines and around the world?
Current status: Delisted good article


Where/When coined[edit]

 Done I saw a {{fact}} recently placed in this article regarding this. I wasn't able to find a citeable shource, but apparently User:Christopher Sundita has traced usage of the term in the U.S. back as far as 1926. See Much ado about Pinoy. -- Boracay Bill 05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexipino[edit]

At some point it may be appropriate to also add Mexipino which is a similar term of self-identification relating to those who identify as a combination of Mexican, Chicano, Filipino and Pinoy. Banjeboi 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an appropriate fact though. It's more like a slang created by OFWs or Overseas people of Filipino descent.Blueknightex (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the cosplayer photo really needed?[edit]

And it advertises a website in its caption's reference. --seav (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed it. --seav (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref was to cite that it was a self identified Pinoy cosplayer at ... Pinoy cosplay website. It wasn't spam. Banjeboi 10:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

Well Written: Pass
Factually Accurate and Verifiable: Pass
Broad in its Coverage: Fail
Neutral:Pass
Images: Pass
Stable:Fail

FONT COLOR=DARKGREEN:Pass
FONT COLOR=ORANGE:Needs Improvement but Passed nevertheless
FONTCOLOR=RED:Failed

The article is too short and there are persistent vandalism.

So for now its I won't say pass.

Improve the article by being more broad and adding more facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduhello (talk • contribs)

Really, this is about a word and the use of it. How broad does this need to be? And the article is quite stable with a rather low volume of vandalism. ::Banjeboi 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. The self-proclaimed reviewer did not even post the review in WP:GA, so let's just think that of this as a mere I don't know. Starczamora (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I relisted it so hopefully it will go smooth from here. -- Banjeboi 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there are pretty hardcore vandalisms like sex malubag listed in the history. Well I do respect your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduhello (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinoy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Succeeded "good article" nomination[edit]

This article has passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, all makes sense, and has not been invaded by cruft adding anons.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Could cover a bit more, but I'm not sure if there is more. Consider expanding, but I'll give you a Pass here.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.
5. Article stability? Pass, stable enough for me. I'll be a bit looser since I've seen many other Pinoy related articles get vandalized and loaded with cruft and such but this surprisingly is good.
6. Images?: Pass. Helps demonstrate the terminology outside of the country, and all freely licensed too.

Hopefully this will make you a bit more happy. Great work, also whoops I used the FAILURE template by accident sorry, you passed— ViperSnake151 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My happiness is indeed improved. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Bar[edit]

Pinoy Bar on Reeperbahn in the red-light district of Hamburg, Germany.
  • Uh... why is a brothel used as the article's pic? Simoncpu (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, check pages which link to that image. The image as used in the article on Prostitution is captioned as shown at the right.-- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of the "Pinoy Bar" photo[edit]

I've just reverted the deletion of this image. My edit summary was truncated, so I'll explain further here.

The image was deleted by an anon user with the edit summary, "This picture used is from a brothel in Amsterdam; thus, it is insulting to the Republic of the Philippines and her People to be depicted in such a manner that is detestable, and abhorred." I checked WP:CENS, and found that it says in part, "On Wikipedia, the general concept is that concepts should not be censored, and that media which illustrates such concepts should likewise be not censored, if it has encyclopedic value." I attempted to quote that in my edit summary along with some added remarks when reverting with WP:Twinkle, but my entered text was truncated. My intended added remarks were to the effect that the reasoning stated in the edit removing the photo did not justify the censorship.

As understand it, the question is not whether some consider the image "detestable, and abhorred" but, rather, whether the image adds sufficient encyclopedic value to the article to justify its inclusion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of "Pinoy Bar" should be removed[edit]

A pinoy is not a thing. The word "pinoy" is a noun. Of the categories that classify a noun (persons, places, things, states, or qualities), the term "pinoy" would be classified as a type of person, not a thing or place as so depicted with the photograph of a bar. If there is a consensus agreeing to post this photograph of the bar in this article, then I suggest that it is not located at the top/introductory section of the article. Instead, a photograph of an actual pinoy, a Filipino man, would be very much more sensible as opposed to posting a photograph that uses the term in another context--naming a bar.XXXpinoy777 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pinoy bar photo must be removed and the "pinoy" word for Filipinos must be abolished.[edit]

Pinoy sounds like Penoy an egg dish it degrades Filipinos who want to live in dignity with the international community, Pinoy Bar is a shame it must be removed and deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree..so where do I sign the petition? This picture makes our country look like Thailand with their sex tourism through prostitution.[citation needed] Blueknightex (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I have seen the suggested exclusion of this particular photo discussed multiple times in the past. I expected to find the past discussions in the archives of this talk page, but did not find them there. Regardless, the following probably pertain:
No, the following that you presented do not pertain. In the first place, the photograph is not offensive, not vulgar, not obscene, perhaps may not be inappropriate, and does not need to be censored (I do not see why one would think so anyway, except its appropriateness needs further consideration, which I will discuss further.). Instead, the photograph is out of context and irrelevant (Thus, unnecessary to be included in the article) to the original meaning and definition of the word "pinoy." In other words, the photograph of the bar called "Pinoy Bar" is not in accordance with, does not involve, and is not a visual representation of the primary or strict meaning of the term, "pinoy." Hence, the photograph is not a visual representation of the literal meaning of the word, "pinoy."
Allow me to explain. The photograph is out of context and irrelevant to the article because the photograph is a photograph of a bar, specifically, a particular bar entitled "Pinoy Bar." Nevertheless, it is still a bar, not a pinoy. Furthermore, read the first sentence of this wikipedia article entitled "Pinoy." It reads, "Pinoy is an informal demonym referring to the Filipino people in the Philippines as well as overseas Filipinos around the world." Notice that the sentence reads "...referring to the Filipino people." It neither reads "...referring to a bar..." nor "...referring to the bar in Hamburg, Germany."
Analogously, what do you expect to see when you search "José Rizal" in wikipedia? You should expect to see thee José Rizal himself. Of course, a visual representation of him such as a photograph, painting, photograph of a statue, et cetera. You should not expect to see a photograph of the José Rizal Bridge in Seattle. Also, you should not expect to see the Dr. José Rizal Park in Seattle. Instead, you should expect to see--especially in the introductory section of the article (which is the very top section of the article)--a visual representation of José Rizal himself that support and give visual aid to the reader to help the reader understand who/what José Rizal is/was.
If one searches "José Rizal" in a search engine such as google or bing, what should one expect to see when he or she clicks on "images"? José Rizal, right? Not a bridge called José Rizal or a park called José Rizal. Likewise, what should one expect to see when one searches "pinoy" in a search engine? A pinoy, right? Well, yes, one should expect that. But it does not show that. Instead, it shows many other photographs irrelevant to the literal meaning of "pinoy." But that's okay because that's what most people are searching for. Similarly, what does the search engine put out if one searches "one piece"? Well, the search engine returns images of the Japanese series entitled "One Piece." Is this the literal visual representation of a one-piece? No, of course, it's not! A one-piece is a type of article of clothing that is complete in one piece as a garment. In the same degree, just because this may have been an image that was returned to you from a search engine when you searched "pinoy" does not mean that this photograph of a bar is an accurate visual representation of the literal meaning of a pinoy.
So, again, a bar called "Pinoy Bar" is not a pinoy. Instead, a bar called "Pinoy Bar" is still a bar. I could go to that bar, offer the owner money to buy it, and become the owner of the bar and then change it to another name like "Pinay Bar" or "American Bar" and that still makes it a bar, not a pinoy. Like I said before, if there is a consensus agreeing to post this photograph of a bar called "Pinoy Bar" in this wikipedia article entitled "Pinoy" (NOT entitled "Types of Bars" or "Examples of Bars"), then I suggest it should at least not be posted in the introductory section of the article because it is irrelevant and because it does not give an accurate visual representation that aids the reader to further understand what/who a pinoy is. And as for a consensus, I read here on this discussion page that there isn't much of a consensus agreeing with you or supporting you that this photograph should remain posted up on this article. As a matter of fact, you are the only one. Thus, I suggest to you that you remove the photo.XXXpinoy777 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I could find those past discussions I spoke of, there would probably be some bits in there where I opposed deletion of the photo on the grounds that it was considered by some editors to be offensive. The two initial comments in this talk page section seem to fall into that category, and I think that the items to which I pointed do speak to those expressed concerns.
You raise a different concern -- relevance. Deletion on the grounds of irrelevance to the topic is a different breed of fish. The question of relevance is a due weight question, and should be decided IAW the policy enunciated at WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the image as showing the term had such relevance that a business took on the name but the same idea is expressed already by noting the existence of Pinoy Idol. Jnast1 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the Term "Pinoy" ?[edit]

The term pinoy is used to refer to people who came from the Philippines right? So does that include Filipino residents and citizens? Filipino blood or not? Blueknightex (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like many words its usage has evolved. Whereas it may have only referred to those who moved to America it now is used by some to refer to all Filipinos. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog removed[edit]

I've removed this entry as it seems unreliable and unneeded. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy boxing[edit]

I have heard that the fighting style of filipino boxers in USA in the 1920s or 1930s was called pinoy boxing and official boxing rules some years later were changed to stop them winning against white champions?

Anybody knows whether this is true? If so, it should be mentioned in this article about meanig of pinoy. Might be interesting to add some details about exact dates, name of one or two prominent fighters, what was different in their fighting style and what rules were changed. if sources available, of course....

nn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.16.240 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only offensive to Americans/ Filipino-Americans?[edit]

"Both Pinoy and Pinay are still regarded as derogatory by some Filipinos though they are widely used and gaining mainstream usage."

Is this actually true, or should it read 'some Filipino-Americans?' The word is used [everywhere in the Philippines itself](http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=Pinoy+site%3A.ph) (media, advertising, you name it) including [by the government](http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=Pinoy+site%3Agov.ph) with no apparent sense of it being derogatory or pejorative. The reference supplied is to a book on Asian Americans, not Filipinos in the Philippines, so I suspect it should.

I've been bold and changed it, but as I am neither Filipino, Filipino-American, nor particularly knowledgeable in the subject, feel free to discuss/ revert if you know better. Blorg (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pinoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word pinoy is not offensive in the Philippines; none of the cited sources support this[edit]

Removed the following as completely unsourced:

The term, though in popular usage, is still considered by most Filipinos as a racial slur and derogatory.

Also removed this, I looked up the source and it is not in it. It also completely clashes with the etymology further down in the article that the term originated among Filipino Americans in the United States in the 1920s, and comes from Tagalog, not English:

It dates to the early 20th century when American soldiers in the Philippines mockingly called Filipinos as "Pee-Noys".[1]

I looked the cited book up on Google Books, there is no reference to "Pinoy", "Pinoys" or "Pee-Noys" in it whatsoever. I note no page number is given in the reference. As far as I can make out this idea that it comes from English slang word "pee" meaning urinate is NOT supported by the source and was just completely cooked up by whichever editor added it, this is complete bullshit.

The Oxford English dictionary gives its origin as from Tagalog.

Wiktionary gives it thus:

Last two syllables of Filipino + y; Pinoy caught on with the Florante song “Akoy isang Pinoy”("I am a Pinoy") that became mainstream with Filipino culture to denote their country of origin and background.

This is also the explanation given previously in the article. Whether this is accurate or not origin from Tagalog IS supported by the OED which is a reliable source. Historian Dawn Mabalon, referenced further down in the article, also claims it comes from Tagalog.

The other source saying that it is offensive is a book by George J. Leonard called The Asian Pacific American Heritage: A Companion to Literature and Arts. Note the American. I also looked up this up in Google Books, and this is what it has to say:

The United States immigrants and U.S.-born children call themselves Filipinos (Filipino Americans) while in the Philippines they call themselves Pilipinos (there is no letter "F" in the Philippine alphabet). Newspapers use "Filipino-American," and "Am-boy" or "American boy" is also used as a slang term. No one agrees on the proper term. Pinoy and Pinay are also widely used slang; some younger people think the terms derogatory, according to my classes.

OK, so he is an American, talking from an American context about Filipino Americans in a book specifically about Asian Pacific Americans and even then it is an extremely weak, and unsourced claim attributed only to "some younger people", "according to my classes".

The Melinda L. De Jesus book Pinay Power: Feminist Critical Theory : Theorizing the Filipina/American Experience by contrast gives a very positive view of the word and, quoting historian Dawn Mabalon of San Francisco State University (a Filipina American), explains it as having originated amongst Filipina/o Americans in the 1920s and used to describe those born in the United States and later travelled back to the Philippines. She concludes:

I LOVE the term "Pinay" because it's a term created by Filipina/o Americans early in the 20th century as a way to differentiate their identities and experiences from Filipina/os in the Philippines, and it's a very postiive and affirming term in my own experiences. (p14)

If you want to say this is an offensive term in the Philippines, please source that it is an offensive term in the Philippines, because it is quite extraordinary that the government of the Philippines would so widely use an offensive denonym in its official programmes. Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Blorg (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jones, Gregg (2012). "Honor in the Dust." Theodore Roosevelt, War in the Philippines, and the Rise and Fall of America’s Imperial Dream. New American Library.
  2. ^ Pinoy Rice Knowledge Bank, Department of Agriculture & Philippine Rice Research Institute
  3. ^ Agri-Pinoy, Agricultural Training Institute, Department of Agriculture
  4. ^ Pinoy eMall, Philippine Postal Corporation
  5. ^ Pinggang Pinoy: Healthy good plate for Filipino adults, Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST)
  6. ^ Sayaw Pinoy: 2015 National Dance Conference & Competition, National Commission for Culture and the Arts
  7. ^ Batang Pinoy: the Philippine Youth Games, Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Leagues of Provinces, Cities,/Municipalities and Barangays, in conjunction with the Philippine Olympic Committee and National Sports Associations
  8. ^ PinoyME Foundation, a Microfinance organisation founded by former Pres. Cory Aquino]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

I looked at this article today for the first time in a long time and was surprised to find no information abo9ut the origin of the term Pinoy in the Origins section of the article named Pinoy. I have looked back in the article and have used content from this 2008 version as the basis for a WP:BOLD rearrangement of content related to this. I don't know that this is the best solution, but it seems clear to me that it is an improvement. Please improve further as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pinoy/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am fulfilling a request to open a GA reassessment for this article. My primary concern is verifiability. The article contains uncited content, cites to "Dolan & 1991-3" with no indication what that is, cites to non-RS blogs (Christopher Sundita only has a master's degree and doesn't seem to be a recognized expert for SPS), and citations to an entire book without page numbers, which is not verifiable since one is unlikely to read the entire book to find the info. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:. just a reminder that this is still open. Aircorn (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuộc thi hoa hậu[edit]

Xin chào 2001:EE0:56AF:6A50:E97E:A7A:9CC:946C (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pinoy&oldid=1213664533"