![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Pinoy 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
And it advertises a website in its caption's reference. -- seav ( talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
This article has passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | Sikat ang Pinoy a website in Filipino dialect that features Filipino Talents are also visible in the web. | ” |
I've removed this entry as it seems unreliable and unneeded. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed the following as completely unsourced:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
References
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Pinoy 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
And it advertises a website in its caption's reference. -- seav ( talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
This article has passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | Sikat ang Pinoy a website in Filipino dialect that features Filipino Talents are also visible in the web. | ” |
I've removed this entry as it seems unreliable and unneeded. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed the following as completely unsourced:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
References
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)