Talk:Pensionado Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pensionado Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pensionado Act has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 23, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Low‑importance Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance Philippines portal 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Asian Americans / Government / History Low‑importance United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

A fact from Pensionado Act appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 October 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that upon their return to the Philippines after attending college in the United States, pensionados were referred to as "American boys" and faced discrimination? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pensionado Act.

Wikipedia

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[History of Filipino Americans#Immigration history|second wave of immigration to the United States from the Philippines]] The anchor (#Immigration history) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

C-class

@Yoninah: what parts of WP:WIABCA is the article missing? What suggestions would one make to improve this article to WP:GA status?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I think you should definitely apply for GA. The article has a good length, is fully referenced, and has an image. C-class is the highest that I as a regular editor can give (well, maybe B-class, but I'm not familiar enough with that), but the GA review can give you more. Best of luck, Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: thanks for the reply. I will nominate after it goes onto the main page via DYK. Good to know it was not given B-class due to a significant issue with the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

General comments

• I'm personally not much of a fan of having citations in the lead section for topics like this. MOS:LEADCITE says: Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. I don't believe any of this material is particularly contentious, and a good article will repeat "lead" information in more detail later in the article. I therefore suggest finding new homes in the body of the article for all citations in the lead.
• I know the program's start date is included in the infobox, but I think it should be in the text of the lead as well.
• Is there a specific end date to the program, or do sources only state the end year?
• This point is mentioned in the article body, but I think it's important to include at least a sentence in the lead on the political motivations of the United States in having this program.

Specific comments

• From the initial 100 students, the program provided education in the United States to around 14,000 This appears to be incorrect. The source (Lee, 2013) actually says that 14,000 Filipinos total enrolled in US educational institutions between 1910 and 1938. This does not mean that they were all pensionados. Regardless, this figure does not cover the entire 1903 to 1943 timeframe of the act. Indeed, according to Danico, "By the time the program ended in 1943, close to 500 pensionados were able to participate" (Danico, 2014, p. 681).
• The alumni of the program went on to work for the government in the Philippine Islands;[6] they would go on to play important roles in the education of their fellow Filipinos, and be influential members of the Philippine society. I would reverse the order of this sentence because it is unclear. As it stands, I'm made to think initially that all program alums went to work for the government. I might even simplify it to say: "The alumni of the program went on to be influential members of Philippine society." The source from which this sentence was originally drawn (Lee, 2013, p. 53), lists "agriculture, business, education, engineering, and government" as examples of "high-status" jobs to which the initial 100 pensionados returned. I think it's not great to just pick "education" and "government" from the list in this way. Saying pensionados played an important role in the education of their fellow Filipinos could even be read as disingenuous (re: the political aspects of this program: "Such a history of schooling within colonization assisted in the preparation of Filipinos for independence, but it also brought about the inculcation of beliefs in the supremacy of U.S..." (Danico, 681)). Indeed, Danico says that the program brought "mostly men and members of the elite" to the US for school.
• During World War II, Japan initiated a similar program during its occupation of the Philippines. I know it's included later in the body, but I think it might be nice to include the program's name in the lead.

Changes made by Airplaneman

• specify which congress