Talk:First landing of Filipinos in the United States

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)