Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY

Discussion

Start new topic

Archives

00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09

Ethnic groups in the Philippines - Population history

I am a little bit baffled about this section in Population history under the “Ethnic groups in the Philippines” article. This history is from Dr. Henry Otley Beyer's theory of waves of migration. This theory is long been debunked by many prehistoric scholars like F. Landa Jocano, Peter Bellwood and Wilhelm Solheim. I am also wondering why many still believe Dr. Beyer's theory. Pls/ update the entire section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gemicat16 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Really? Beyer has been debunked? Back in my elementary days his theory was the one in the textbooks. I dunno now. --Howard the Duck 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as NPOV is concerned, two or more sides to a story should be presented. Otley's theory says prehistoric migration to the Phils started from the south, while anthropologists nowadays say migration started from the north. I don't think Otley's theory should be debunked. Theories are theories. --Weekeejames 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippine historians now approve of Peter Bellwood's theory that Filipinos came from Austronesians, and that Malaysians and Indonesians are the ones who came from the Philippines, not vice versa, Genetics, archaeological evidences, cultural analyses, and population genetics confirm this. Otley's theory was discredited and is now unaccepted as part of Philippine history. --User:Matthewprc 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

According to a retired professor of Southeast Asian history, a lot of Philippine historians had an utang ng loob for Beyer, so they didn't feel a need to challenge him. Consequently, for the most part this has left things unchanged in textbooks. The current Austronesian theory has been supported by arhaeologists and linguists - Dr. Peter Bellwood of Australian National University is a major proponent to this theory. And while Weekeejames may be right that theories may be theories, Bellwood's theory has the most compelling evidence by far. And the body of evidence continues to grow from various, related, academic fields. A good place to start is the 1995 The Austronesians: Comparative and Historical Perspectives by Bellwood, Tryon, and Fox of ANU. --Chris S. 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Theories are not laws. They remain to be theories and can only be debunked by a scientific (empirical) law. Unlike the ancient theory that the sun revolves around the planets of which has long been debunked and proven false by a medieval theory of which is already considered to be a scientific law, Otley's theory still has a possible chance to be proven true despite of all these compelling evidences. That's why I believe that Otley's theory still has to be presented, explained, and compared to other theories in contradiction. --Weekeejames 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course you're right. A theory is a theory, nothing more. And the outdated theories should have a passing mention kind of like the way people theorized the earth was flat. ;-) --Chris S. 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, regarding all these ethnic groups, Filipino minorities and minority groups articles and templates, would you all be so kind to exclude Zamboangueños from these categories and templates? The Zamboangueño is neither one ethnic group nor a minority group. To be precise, the Zamboangueño is one regional collective group of people. Kelan pa naging minority ang mga Zamboangueños? On the article Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines, the Zamboangueño Chavacanos were categorised as "smaller ethnic groups" Waaaaa ang lufet! =( Weekeejames 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a few months ago all Filipino groups speaking Spanish derived language were under "Chavacano"... then someone changed it to Zamboangueño...--Nino Gonzales 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was in opposition to that. But if only to distinguish the Chabacano varieties of Caviteño, Ternateño and Zamboangueño, I gave in. When I wrote the article Zamboangueño, I meant to refer it to the people of Zamboanga City and not the Chabacano variety. In Zamboanga City, when we talk about our language, we generally call it "Chabacano" and when we talk about the people, we call ourselves "Zamboangueños". Back to the ethnic groups of people in the Philippines topics, I certainly disagree that Zamboangueños are a "smaller ethnic group" and a "minority". This is all way too wrong and innacurate. --Weekeejames 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you correct it? Btw, I think the arrangement shouldn't be biggest to smallest. I think it is better to arrange from north to south (or south to north), then the groups dispersed throughout the country (like Chinese, Spanish and tribal groups).--Nino Gonzales 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did edit the list of minorities in the Philippines and the Template:Filipinominorsmall template. I dunno if I should edit the ethnic groups in the Philippines article; I would be tempted to edit large chunks of it. That article needs a major overhaul. Also, why would you think the arrangement should be from north to south? Why not south to north? Bakit ba pag Philippines, lagi na lang ang mga taga north ang una? It's so annoying. :P --Weekeejames 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, why not east to west, or west to east? It would be a matter of one's POV. --Weekeejames 07:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Even south-west to north-east is better than largest to smallest.--Nino Gonzales 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the East Coast-West Coast hiphop war hehehe... --Howard the Duck 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If arrangement by direction is POV, why not arrange it alphabetically instead? --bluemask ^(talk) 07:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kulintang a FA candidate

The article Kulintang is currently a featured article nominee.

The article was currently under peer review but considering the comments of many that it should be featured, I decided to self-nom for feature status. If you believe you have any ideas for improving it, level them here. You're help getting another Filipino article featured would be much appreciated. Thanks - PhilipDM 10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm nice work! I was wondering, why is the History section in the last? Shouldn't it be the first or one of the firsts? Berserkerz Crit 11:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking about putting it first but I also realize... I think a reader would want to know what this is before going into it's history. Where and what seem more important than when in this case. Then again I could be wrong. PhilipDM 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't read the green text on the map, or may I just have bad eyesight. Otherwise, this should breeze through, unless there are some bad grammatical errors. --Howard the Duck 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you open it up and read it very closely it says.... Chalempung... doesn't work well further away though... PhilipDM 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamelan? Also, I noticed referencing is very heavy. This is not bad but for some nit picky FA reviewers, I anticipate they will bring this up. Although for me, heavy referencing is better than light referencing. Berserkerz Crit 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea. Indon brought up the same issue. But as I told him... it's much easier to work from a article with a bunch of references than none at all. To fix it.. all one has to do is delete some and move around others. And yes, Gamelan is the bigger brother of kulintang tradition of the Philippines. PhilipDM 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamaraw

Can I request for a picture? I'm not really good with images. I'm hoping that we could improve this article further as this animal is a unique and endangered Philippine treasure. Lenticel 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bisaya eraser

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.213.127.212) has been deleting large chunks of content relating to Bisaya. Help wanted in cleaning up.

He is of the party which thinks Visayans should not be lumped together. It is really just a matter of opinion whether or not they should be lumped together in Wikipedia. But it is better organized if they are. (If they aren't, then we should break up Moro and Tribal groups as well... then we have to create individual sections for the other Visayan ethnic groups, which are ~20. I'm talking here if the Ethnic groups in the phil article.)

If you are reading this, 210.213.127.212, please discuss first before deleting. Thanks.--Nino Gonzales 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC) --Nino Gonzales 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That happened on the Philippines article too, didn't revert, though. --Howard the Duck 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilonggos, Warays, etc. have always been called Visayans. There are plenty of verified sources for this. I have a copy of 1977 work by an American linguist who specializes in Visayan languages (and is fluent in Aklanon and Tagalog) by Dr. R. David Zorc. He lists 36 known Visayan tongues as well as their alternate names.

For Hiligaynon, he lists only Ilonggo. However the three varieties of Waray-Waray all have Binisaya as an alternate name. Other groups that he lists as having Binisaya as an alternate name are Alcantaranon, Bantayan Visayan, Guimarasnon (this refers to 'both Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a!), the Cantilan dialect of Surigaonon, Kawayan Visayan (Negros Occidental), Masbateño, Naturalis dialect of Surigaonon, Pandan dialect of Kinaray-a, Semirara Visayan, Santa Teresa Visayan (of Brgy. Sta. Teresa, Magsaysay, Occ. Mindoro), Romblomanon, and the Jaun-Jaun dialect of Surigaonon. It would not surprise me that Binisaya would also refer to languages NOT listed by Dr. Zorc.

Also, in the 2001 work Facts about the World's Languages Dr. Zorc writes in the Hiligaynon article:

The name Visayan was the Spanish rendition of the adjective bisayá’ referring to a person or item from the central Philippine islands and the verb binisayá’ meaning ‘to speak Bisayan.’ It applies to 36 different speech varieties, the most well-known of which include Cebuano, Waray, Hiligaynon, and Aklanon. Together, these groups represent over 40% of the Philippine population, almost double that of any other language in the archipelago.

I hope this helps. --Chris S. 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I'm glad I was wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion after all whether or not Visayans could be group together in one heading.--Nino Gonzales 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Its alright to lump these so-called 'binisaya' groups into one group known as bisaya or visayan BUT only in the linguistical aspect and not in the 'ethnicity' context. In the article ethnic groups in the Philippines, the same criteria was used to lump these groups into one group called bisaya. This is certainly wrong. According to the article, the criterias are based on religion, common ancestry and language. Culture is not even considered a criteria. The Surigaonons or the Boholanos for example had different pre-historic cultures than the Cebuanos. Why lump them altogether as one bisaya group? I think the term "bisaya' in the socio-cultural context has been a stereotype in the Philippines. Just because one speaks Boholano for example, people (especially in the north) would right away call them 'bisaya' to mean one belongs to that group of people in central and southern Philippines (as one generic ethnic group) without even realizing that the bisaya they are talking about is just one mere linguistical aspect. In other words, the Surigaonons defnitely cannot be called bisaya in the sense that they do not share the same culture with the Cebuanos or Boholanos for that matter. Yes, they are bisaya because that's what the linguists say (they share the same linguistical roots) and they share the same geographical locations. But as far as ethnicity is concerned, grouping them as one altogether would be disputable. I think that's the point the bisaya eraser is trying to drive at. Even if linguistical factors are to be considered, I wouldn't even group them altogether as bisaya. Oo as alternative names, pwedeng tangapin yan (sabi ng mga linguists, eh). Pero to categorise them as one group, that's another thing. Even then, may punto si bisaya eraser when he wrote "Hiligaynon, Waray-Waray and Cebuano are mutually unintelligible". --Weekeejames 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "Bisaya" is valid as it is. Language, religion, and common ancestry falls under the umbrella of "culture" so I guess that's a point and besides another aspect of defining an ethnic group is self identification so as long as Ilonggos, Warays, Cebuanos, Aklanons, and etc. conisder themselves as "Bisaya" then they are "Bisaya". --23prootie 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but only in the linguistical context. Culture is rather broad that it is impossible to classify the Tausogs, for example, as 'Bisaya' in the "multi-lingual ethnic" context as having shared ancestry, religion, and history. You can't lump these groups altogether as one Bisaya ethnic group just because they have one common, shared linguistical aspect as decided upon by linguists. You gotta consider all aspects. To classify them as one social group according to their languages only is narrow. The subject of "ethnicity" in the Philippines is rather complex and complicated that this topic should be undertaken with serious cautiousness with rather well-researched materials from different sources (linguists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, archeologists, etc). The Ilongos, Warays, Cebuanos, Aklanons surely must have had different ancestors, different beliefs and ways of worshipping their gods and deities, and must have had spoken so much differently from each other. They aren't even mutually intelligible these days! --Weekeejames 05:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Weekeejames. Tinatamad akong kunin yung aking mga anthro textbooks from last year, but I do recall that a sense of "oneness" and "belonging" as well as cultural traits are considered part of an ethnic group. I mean, an ethnic group is all about culture and self-identification to that culture essentially. In any case, it is clear that many Visayans feel they are connected and label themselves as such.

Now, one thing that we must keep straight is that there are people who are considered for linguistic reasons should not be considered Visayans for ethnic/cultural criteria - and I believe this is the point that you were getting at, and if that's the case I agree with you.. The Tausugs are a prime example. They may speak a Visayan language, but they don't consider themselves as such. In fact, Bisaya means "Christian Filipino" in Tausug. Another example are the the people who speak Visayan languages in Sorsogon province and perhaps Masbate in Bicol. They consider themselves first and foremost Bicolanos or Sorsoganons.

These are things to consider when writing the article that Visayan has different meanings based on the perspective be it ethnic, linguistic, geographic, and political. Some examples... Cebuanos, Aklanons, Ilonggos, Hamtikanons, and Warays are Visayans in all those perspectives. A Tausug and a Sorsoganon is Visayan in only linguistic terms. Someone from Cagayan de Oro is Visayan by ethnicity and their language. Abaknons from Capul Island in Samar are politically and geographically Visayan but their language is Sama-Bajaw and I don't know if they consider themselves Visayans (I suspect they do). And people of Palawan have only been politically Visayan for not even two years yet! And I dont't think Palawan has ever been considered Visayan geographically! You get my point. Oh, this would make some kind of lovely Venn diagram, di ba? ;-)

By the way - I think that since this is the English Wikipedia that the name should be Visayan instead of Bisaya. --Chris S. 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Other points:

• The identity of Bisaya came before its geopolitica usage (Check Fr Alcinas Historia de las Islas y Indios de Bisaya... there's a new English translation)
• They identify themselves as Bisaya (the linguists are talking about their language, not their identity)
• Everyone, I'm sure, has different "pre-historic cultures". The ancestors of the "English People"--Britons, Saxons, Normans, etc--have, I'm sure, have different "pre-historic cultures."
• The similarity in history and culture, it seems, is more than the difference
  • pre-1521: animist, datu, agricultural + some trade
  • colonial era: christian, part of the Phil Spanish colony
  • 20th century: part of the RP state
• There are other ethnic groups which have multiple languages

--Nino Gonzales 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oo Chris. Yung example sa mga Tausogs (this group is an excellent example) and you do understand the point I am trying to drive at (it is really more on the socio-cultural aspect rather than the linguistics or geography). Now the Tausogs are just one example in one aspect. There are other groups and other aspects (to be considered) too. The Venn diagram is an execellent diagram to show how these all go about. But just because a small part of me is bisaya doesn't mean I am altogether a bisaya. That would be a narrow concept of what bisaya or visayan is. Also to Nino, while the idea of more similarities is significant, its actually the difference among the many differences that makes everything different. --Weekeejames 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tausugs, btw, were not included in the Bisaya section. "the difference among the many differences that makes everything different"--sorry, I do not understand this. Could you explain. Also, I started a discussion in the ethnic groups in the phil page on this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines#Bisaya_as_an_ethnic_group... the anon doesn't seem to know how to use talk pages yet, so I just copied and pasted his edits...--Nino Gonzales 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to be too novelty. In other words, you don't simply look at the big picture to try to explain everything that makes you and I similar. You have to zoom in to the smaller details too to explain few things that makes you and I different, and that is actually what makes it more significant. Although in the ethnic groups in the Philippines article it does not explicitly say that Tausogs are part of the Bisaya group, there is a link in that subsection leading to multilingual ethnic group where it says the Tausogs speak Visayan language. Of course this will lead to conclusion that Tausogs belong to the bisaya ethnic group where the language criteria will be applicable. I just thought the Tausog was one fine example in this discussion. I try to bring it to this tamabayan page discussion because I believe there are few other ethnicity articles and templates out there involved that need some fine tuning. Like Zamboangueños too. We have been categorised as an ethnic group, and worst - a "minority" group. --Weekeejames 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and edit boldly... we could all use some fine tuning... btw, I don't know if someone has edited it in the meantime, but when I wrote about the Tausugs under the Bisaya section and the Bisaya article (I think a year ago), it was to explain your point--that some ethnic groups speak a Visayan language but do not consider themselves Bisaya, the Tausug being an example.--Nino Gonzales 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Legislative districts of Maguindanao and Legislative districts of Surigao del Norte

Just an FYI: I called COMELEC's Education and Information Division and asked which municipalites/cities now comprise Maguindanao and Surigao del Norte's districts. Since COMELEC Resolution 7813 states Maguindanao and Surigao del Norte will still have 2 legislative districts despite the carving out of Shariff Kabunsuan and Dinagat Islands from them, respectively, as such, they are now re-grouped:

Surigao del Norte:

1. 1st District: Burgos, Dapa, Del Carmen, General Luna, Pilar, San Benito, San Isidro, Santa Monica, Socorro
2. 2nd District: Surigao City, Alegria, Bacuag, Claver, Gigaquit, Mainit, Malimono, Placer, San Francisco, Sison, Tagana-an, Tubod

Maguindanao:

1. 1st District: Cotabato City
2. 2nd District: Ampatuan, Buluan, Datu Abdullah Sangki, Datu Anggal Midtimbang, Datu Paglas, Datu Piang, Datu Saudi-Ampatuan, Datu Unsay, Gen. S. K. Pendatun, Guindulungan, Mamasapano, Mangudadatu, Pagagawan, Pagalungan, Paglat, Pandag, Rajah Buayan, Shariff Aguak, South Upi, Sultan sa Barongis, Talayan, Talitay.

Take note though, 1st District of Maguindanao even if its comprised only of Cotabato City is still called Maguindanao's first district since Cotabato City is not yet a highly-urbanized city. —Scorpion prinz 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It'll be nice if someone comes up with a blank Philippines map of municipalities so that we can color it, hehe. --Howard the Duck 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NAMRIA has one. you need to register though, go to Data Center and then Metadata browser. —Scorpion prinz 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember a Philippine Daily Inquirer article about Didagen Dilangalen running for Congressman (of Shariff Kabunsuan) mentioning that Cotabato is part of the lone district of Shariff Kabunsuan. This is really confusing me. --Sky Harbor 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may check though with the PDI COMELEC, they can fax you that information I obtained from them. I guess this is more official than PDI's report. —Scorpion prinz 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

controversial quotes

I am asking anyone or all to respond to this! I am still absorbing, and/or stalling? heheheh! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He's really taking it to heart to be the Boses ng kabataan sa Senado hehehehe. bothersome though. Well he didn't take an engineering course, hence. —Scorpion prinz 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages aren't discussion forums, you people can use PEX if you'd want to. --Howard the Duck 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's PEX? Berserkerz Crit 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PinoyExchange.com --Howard the Duck 02:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late, late, late response, I know some people were waiting for this. I will be posting my thoughts at the talk page of the Chiz Escudero article, so if you can't find it there, it means that I'm still writing it. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Template

Do you have a Wikiproject Philippines template that usually appears on the talk page of an article within the project's scope? I haven't been seeing any while surfing Philippines-related articles. Shrumster 05:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/notice - fully equipped with ratings assessments. (Perhaps that can be moved to the Template namespace...) --Howard the Duck 07:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Paring Bol-anon Article for deletion nomination

Unencyclopedic, a directory of Roman Catholic priests in a particular geographic area. I guess if I had to pick a criteria for deletion, it would be WP:ORG or WP:NOT#IINFO. (As an aside, I'm probably going to Hell for nominating this article for deletion.) RJASE1 Talk 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections from the Filipino Wikipedia community, I will tag this {{db-author}} and hope that this will find its best place in the Cebuano Wikipedia. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 11:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahm Back

Sorry for the long hiatus. toomany things to do. I'll be back up this summer. I'll just finish classes. I'll have to do a lot of catching up perhaps?- Justox dizaola 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back? Hehe seriously welcome back. Anyway, I remember Pinay06 (or was it Titopao) reminding us about WP's policy on minors and too much personal details, seeing your userpage, maybe you might want to update yourself with that. Calling Pinay06 or Titopao for the relevant link topic or whatever. Berserkerz Crit 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Jollibee article

Hi guys. It'd be cool if we all could collaborate to bring the Jollibee article up to GA/FA status. While it's not really an interesting topic for me, I was thinking if there's one iconic Filipino restaurant/fast food place, it would be that. And right now, it sorely needs attention. So, is the community up to it? (No, I'm not affiliated with the company...honestly, I prefer to eat McDonald's myself. :) ) Shrumster 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oui! ibig sabihin kailangan ako. I am very, matakaw. Justox dizaola 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Philippines political divisions

I kinda changed the layout of the template, if it doesn't look good feel free to rv it. I'm just wondering though i think it'll look better if everything is centered? I dunno how to do it. Ü —Scorpion prinz 08:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited the template to center everything. I hope it's the way you like it. I also shortened a bit the width of the body so that it looks a lil better. --Weekeejames 12:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comelec on fire

The other day I went to Comelec library to get info about previous elections as part of my Wikipedia research. Since its late afternoon, I decide to go back the next day. Then I was surprised that the building is burnt into ashes. Now my research is incomplete. :( --Exec8 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only your research is incomplete but the Filipino people's hope for a clean elections. F**K F**K F**K I really really am angry at Philippine politics. Berserkerz Crit 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, someone should put that in the Comelec article, if it exists. The world must know what happens in this country, through any means necessary. Shrumster 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The library and records sections were burned in the fire but Abalos said that there are no important documents burned. He also ask God's forgiveness for the evil minds that think that the fire is a move to rig the elections. Somebody ought to fire their spin doctor. Lenticel 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What important COMELEC documents do you need? I had photocopied tons of materials from the COMELEC Records and Statistics division several months back. I'm thinking of selling these to them if they dont have copies of it anymore. lol..kidding. I have election results from 1946 to present, if i'm not mistaken. —Scorpion prinz 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move:

Sineserye->Sineserye Presents, then redirect sineserye to teleserye. Thanks! --Howard the Duck 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! TheCoffee 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's reverted, again. argh. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Filipino people

Hi guys, I am requesting your assistance at Filipino people. I'm involved with two young Americans (AFAICT) in a content dispute involving the addition of "Hispanic" in the "related ethnic groups" field of the infobox. Ba't laging Kano ang kaaway ko sa mga Philippine-related articles? ;-) In any case, if you wish to help please see the talk page and the edit history of the article in question. Thanks. --Chris S. 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the main problem? To include Hispanics or not? Berserkerz Crit 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sumuko na yata. Sayang, gumaganda na nga yung mga arguments niya (sort of)--Lenticel 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindi ako sumuko. Naghahanap lang ako ng reliable sources bago ko baguhin yung infobox na yun. --Chris S. 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindi ikaw. Yung Kano. Ibig kung sabihin sa mas maganda eh mas "civil" na yung replies niya. Panget kasi yung mga arguements niya. Bigyan ko lang siya ng tips para gumanda naman yung discussion pero di naman yata niya sinunod tapos bumalik na naman siya sa dating gawi niya. Mas immature pa yata sa kin yun eh. --Lenticel 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave my arguments in the article's talk page. There is no such thing as 'hispanic' in the Philippines in the 'ethnicity' context. You don't based the langauge criteria alone in this aspect. As I was arguing all along, language (or surnames, for that matter) is NOT solely the criteria to create an ethnic group. There is a big difference being in that state of 'hispanized' (as in Latin America) and the process of 'hispanicized' (which we sometimes tend to do it here in Wikipedia on Filipino-Spanish related articles and topics). Tayong mga Filipino, hindi tayo 'hispanics' kahit gustuhin man natin o kahit feel man natin mga wannabees. Bring back Spanish in the college curriculum first before we dream of being hispanics. 300 years of Spanish colonialism is not enough for us to brand ourselves as 'hispanics'. Weekeejames 12:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, even if culture is an added criteria, the Philippines still does not consider itself as 'hispanic'. In Zamboanga City (a former Spanish stronghold), within the the Tausogs, the Yakans, the Subanons, the Samals and other indegenous ethic tribes, you hardly see any Spanish influences in their culture. Maybe a bit because of modern-day technology, but their ethnicity remains un-influenced. You just cannot generalize a 'hispanic' ethnic group in the Philippines because it's simply non-existent. Sabi ko na nga ba talaga. Etong 'ethnicity' concept in some Philippine-related articles, talagang disputable. I know it involves several articles. The latest is the Filipino people article. We all should really be careful writing articles in the 'ethnicity' concept. Otherwise, it simply violates Wikipedia's policy in NPOV. Pag disputable, ibig sabihin, the neutrality of the article is a question mark. Weekeejames 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippines Most Corrupt in Asia

With a score of 9.40 (10 being the most corrupt and 0 as the least), RP has bested both Indonesia and Thailand (8.03) as the most corrupt country in Asia. This statement is from the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy group.--Lenticel 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to assign a date to that citation. These things fluctuate. --Ancheta Wis 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer [1], the info was released yesterday by PERC to Agence France Presse. Last year was 7.80. A chart about the corruption trends in selected Asian Countries can be seen on the front page of the inquirer today. --Lenticel 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

more data could be found here [2]--Lenticel 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Anyway, which article(s) do we stick the data in? Shrumster 07:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You people can also add this on Talk:Philippines, there's an international rankings section there waiting to be developed. --Howard the Duck 09:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the entire discussion and inserted it to your discussion in Talk:Philippines.--Lenticel 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know that the Wikipedia Cebuano is composed mainly of bot-generated stubs? Cebuano tops Tagalog and ranked as No. 31 with 32,520 articles while Tagalog is on the 80th with 5,494. Please see the List of Wikipedias.
_{Fddfred talk} 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Map inc

This user created a bunch of hoax articles in the past few days. He's the one responsible for creating the hoax DZUP article. Please help me verify those articles especially the provincial radio stations he created since I am not familiar with those... thanks! -Danngarcia 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This'll be tough since our radio at home can only pick up stations from Metro Manila, Pampanga and Baguio... --Howard the Duck 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help

That guy recently created new hoax articles, at least on NCR FM radio, and I'm suspecting all of his/her edits are bogus too. Can the admins check it out, and if possible ban this user? --Howard the Duck 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Review of Articles of Incorporation

As part of getting Wikimedia Philippines moving forward, I am now asking anyone and everyone who would be willing to conduct a review of the WMPH Articles of Incorporation and make suggestions on what to change, or to add and/or delete parts of the Articles. After this, I can move onto the by-laws. --Sky Harbor 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Batangas needs to be cleaned

Someone inserted the Batangan vocabulary in the article. —Scorpion prinz 09:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The language stuff can go to the Tagalog language article. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the stuff may be copyrighted.. lifted from another website. --Chris S. 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a Batangueño article similar to Boholano.-- 23prootie 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Batangan instead if it will be in English. —Scorpion prinz 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To make it more in line with other articles about dialectal, how about Batangas Tagalog. There is American English and Quebec French, etc. --Chris S. 18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm for that, just have Batangan redirected to it too. —Scorpion prinz 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm waiting for the day that a genie grants me free time to make the Marinduque Tagalog article. ;-P --Chris S. 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

new article

Please help make Estefania Aldaba-Lim better! 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

added refs and stub tag. A great person should have a better article--Lenticel 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to Chris S. for being a finalist in the Philippine Blog Awards!

See this page under the Socio-political category. Kudos! --seav 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks; I didn't think it'd go this far! I should write another blog entry soon, hah. --Chris S. 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to the awarding ceremony in Makati this March 31? Probably not because you're in the States. :) --seav 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You treat us to a barbeque or something... --Howard the Duck 02:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats in advance, whether you win it or not. With Pinoy blogs almost becoming dime a dozen, being recognized in something like this is already an honor ;-) --- Tito Pao 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was going to be an awarding ceremony. I'd totally go if I could. --Chris S. 12:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ü —Scorpion prinz 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tol, congrats. punta ka! Let me know how i can help. Email me so we can exchange phone numbers. Sige na 'tol. Punta ka. I am sooooooo proud of you! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ate P. The awards ceremony is on the 31st. Even if I could afford the trip, I wouldn't have time to obtain a passport. Besides, I'm totally unprepared. I've not been to the Philippines since 1989, I'd have to visit the whole Philippines para dumalaw sa mga kamag-anak ko roon. Not to mention to taking requests on what to put inside a balikbayan box. hehe ;-P --Chris S. 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Its a great way that we could group together and plan for the future of Pinoy Wikis. --Exec8 16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I smelling a WP EB?? =D Berserkerz Crit 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not, buko nut? ;-) Actually, a Wikipedian will already be there at the awarding night. To be precise, one of the judges =) --- Tito Pao 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You're the Man! I saw this so late, busy with work.--Jondel 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You deserve not only the nomination, but the award itself! --Weekeejames 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. --Ancheta Wis 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys. Ang sobrang bait ninyo. No need for the fuss. hehe. --Chris S. 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sayang tol, at di ka na punta! But this is already a feather in the cap of ALL of us Filipinos. Salamat 'tol, for the gift of you to the Filipino community, and the blogging community as well. Ipagpatuloy ang work with the little ones...na check mo na ang http://www.unitedstreaming.com ? hehehehe Ingat, tol, chat uli tayo ha? this weekend. Or better still, i will email you my cp so we can talk? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but you have an article on the proposed Tagalog Wikinews. You can find it here (in writing as of this time). --Sky Harbor 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gulay! I've become Wikinotable already. LOL So am I not understanding the importance of the Philippine Blog Awards? Is it really a big thing there? --Chris S. 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Big thing", at least for most of the online Netizens. Besides, familiar names in the media are already into blogging as well (among them are Inquirer's Manolo Quezon III and ABC-5's Jove Francisco). Btw, I've updated the information on the Wikinews article...not one, but two (AFAIK) Wikipedians are sitting as judges :-) --- Tito Pao 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only know one, not two...lol. At least I now know Manolo Quezon is a judge. --Sky Harbor 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Magpainom ka naman... ng coke!--Lenticel 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, may 1 coke ang bawat Pinoy wiki na makapunta sa awards ceremony. Just see Titopao after. basta may picture lang with MLQ3 ha? hehehehe. Titopao, check ur talk page and coordinate with our mutual friend at Ayala F. Balita in email pls. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To all, pls magpa head count na dito so we know how many coke soda we will prepare after the Blog Awards Night Ceremonies with matching pic with MLQ3 ha? and Chris S. award, and the owner of WordPress. Sign your name after this thread. Thanks. BTW, Lenticel, puede ka ma mag help pass out the coke or coordinate this? Send me wiki email pls re your availability, or leave a msg in my talk page. Thanks again... --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify...I didn't say that Matt Mullenweg would be coming to Manila for the Phil. Blog Awards (not that I'm aware if he's coming or not, just that there's no news about it). What I did mention is that his company, Automattic, is one of the major sponsors (if I'm not mistaken, they sent in additional funds for the event). Hope this clears up any expectations for those who might be waiting to see him. --- Tito Pao 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another clarification: no single person "owns" Wordpress in the same way as nobody "owns" the MediaWiki software. Both Wordpress and the MediaWiki software were created by a community of open-source programmers, so saying that the "owner" of Wordpress would be coming over to Manila would be taken to mean that all of these programmers (who come from all over the world) would be here (that's a different story, though). Matt Mullenweg is the founding programmer of Wordpress, but that doesn't mean he owns it; however, he owns a company that offers Wordpress-related services. --- Tito Pao 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Titopao, Gotcha, loud and clear. hehehehe! So, where are the answers to my question? I mean the signature of those who are attending the awards ceremony of my favoritest utol, Dalubwika. hehehehe--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Congatz. 'Ay huli na pala!- 23prootie 11:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cagayan de Oro to elect 2 House reps at large?

I don't get this maybe you do, COMELEC Resolution 7837, refer also to [3] and [4]. — scorpion prinz 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RA 9371 is finally being implemented dividing Cagayan de Oro City into two districts. That's how I see it. --Sky Harbor 08:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikinews

Please vote for the establishment of the Tagalog Wikinews. Finally, we'll have reliable Tagalog-language news on the Internet. You can sign your support (if you're willing to contribute or are willing to back up the project) here. --Sky Harbor 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My only complain is that there is a so few (if ever) reliable news sources written in Tagalog (or Filipino depending on your POV). Sigh. --bluemask ^(talk) 10:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by this, bluemask? News sources, whether people, places or things, can be from other languages; the writing form is just in Tagalog. News sources are the raw materials; the news articles in Tagalog is the finished product. So what's the apprehension? --Weekeejames 11:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to use exclusively Tagalog news sources; we can use English-language media and translate them into Tagalog, like with certain articles now. --Sky Harbor 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the Tagalog Wikinews test is available here. --Sky Harbor 14:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't really need sources since its news, and journalists don't research for news on the web, unless you're this guy, hehehe. --Howard the Duck 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But would we really have full-time Wikinews journalists? That's why its another option to summarize the news. --Sky Harbor 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really full-time journalists, of course anyone can write there as long s/he can speak the language. --Howard the Duck 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of news sources, I know. It is just, well, if I want to check out news stories written in Tagalog to see the writing style for inspiration, I am disappointed. Well, this is just my POV. --bluemask ^(talk) 16:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately, what you say is true. However, if you were in the Philippines, grab a tabloid or listen to news on the radio and tv for inspiration. Basically, news-writing style is the same regardless of what language or medium you use. The only difference is whether you are writing in the 'straight' news form or the 'feature' form. Tabloids should not be underestimated. There are plenty of good Tagalog writers in tabloid sheets as much as there are in broadsheets. Good luck. --Weekeejames 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I last wrote a tagalog news lol. Take a look, bluemask [Inquirer news] and [Wikinews]. I know you can do better than that. --Weekeejames 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, most Tagalog-language print news media is in the form of tabloids. --Sky Harbor 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a Tagalog broadsheet, it's gone now. --Howard the Duck 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite the language differences, I wonder now if Wikinews can obtain media accreditation from the International Press Center (a branch of the Office of the Press Secretary). The problem is that Wikinews lacks the hierarchy for such accreditation (if Wikimedia Philippines comes to fruition, I suppose, but I don't know). --Sky Harbor 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Zamboanga City and the Zamboanga del Sur template

I do not know why Scorpion Prinz insists on putting the Zamboanga del Sur template on the Zamboanga City article. I, a Zamboangueño, do not really care whether Zamboanga City is included in that template or not. It's not relevant. This has been discussed at length in the past. Zamboanga del Sur doesn't have anything to do with the independent chartered city of Zamboanga and vice-versa. The only truthful fact is that Zamboanga City gave Zamboanga del Sur a name and nothing else! The Indy Philippine cities template is more relevant to the Zamboanga City article than the Zamboanga del Sur template. If you all read the Zamboanga City article carefully, the first paragraph gives emphasis to the city as a chartered city and not somewhere else in the article. It's something we Zamboangueños are proud of being one of the first in the country and something we have enjoyed and continue to do so. --Weekeejames 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First, we should agree that we should standardize all provincial navig templates. We that said I propose the following options:

• Display HUCs in every provincial navigation template and delete {{Indy Philippine cities}}. All HUCs would display the related provincial navigation template.
• Omit HUCs in the provincial template and add them to {{Indy Philippine cities}}. All HUCs would display {{Indy Philippine cities}}.
• Display HUCs in the provincial template and add them to {{Indy Philippine cities}}. All HUCs would display {{Indy Philippine cities}} but not the related provincial navigation template.
• Irregardless of what happens to any of the 3 options above, we delete {{Indy Philippine cities}} and replace it with {{Philippines political divisions}} and place that on all HUC articles.

You add your own options to the list. --Howard the Duck 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the fuzz. =( — scorpion prinz 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be towards Howard the Duck's first option, because it seems (to me) the easiest and simplest to implement. Just put a footnote in the template saying the city is politically independent. That's what the NSCB does. Their page for Zamboanga del Sur includes Zamboanga City. This is an official government site... The two are not as completely unassociated as Weekeejames suggests. TheCoffee 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Zamboangueños know better than the ignorant and idiotic employees of some government agencies.Just because the NSCB publishes wrong information and it's an official government agency does not mean it is correct and should be followed. --Weekeejames 15:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Basing on RA 7160, is my assessment right? I'd come up with a proposal for templates to fix the confusion I recreated:

Type of city	Independent of province	Votes for provincial officialsTemplate:Mn
Highly urbanized city	YES	Depends on charter
Independent component city	YES	No
Component city	No	YES

Template:Mnb Governor, vice-governor, board members (Congressional representation does not affect the city's independence from or being part of the province). — scorpion prinz 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, how can a city that is independent from the province votes for provincial officials? Are there any examples? --Howard the Duck 16:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mandaue City and Lucena City are classified as HUCs (plus if Lapu-Lapu City ratifies its elevation to an HUC), but still elects provincial officials[5]. RA 7160 affords them such privilege, Section 452 last paragraph provides: Qualified voters of cities who acquired the right to vote for elective provincial officials prior to the classification of said cities as highly-urbanized after the ratification of the Constitution and before the effectivity of this Code, shall continue to exercise such right.

I think it's like the arrangement of Scotland and England before 1999, where Scotland elects members to the parliament in London, however the parliament in London can't pass domestic laws for Scotland, but MPs from Scotland votes on statutes that affect England's domestic issues.

Anyways, what about a city template, grouped into HUCs, independent components and components? — scorpion prinz 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about including cities that both satisfy the requirement that they're independent from a province and don't vote for provincial officials? --Howard the Duck 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway here's my proposal, if we use the {{Philippines political divisions}} template for Highly urbanized cities, like Zamboanga and the likes, other fields there are impertinent to the LGU. I take the cue from TheCoffee to come up with individual templates, and I think we can group them like this in the main Philippines article:

This way we can have {{Philippine territorial disputes}} included in the Sabah, Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal articles, without dragging the entire {{Philippines political divisions}} to it. I can also accede to removing HUCs from provincial templates, but for ICCs lets just have them included, and labeled below as such. What do you think? This will entail however the deletion of {{Philippines political divisions}} as we will render it useless. For the cities it's really hard to monitor their charters as to they will continue to vote or not for provincial officials, so I think lets have them all in one template, and categorize them as HUCs, ICCs and Components. — scorpion prinz 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{Philippines political divisions}} is supposed to mimic the {{USPoliticalDivisions}}, an easy way to navigate between the top political divisions; in this case provinces and HUCs. So I'd rather remove all of the {{Philippines political divisions}}'s contents except for the provinces. --Howard the Duck 08:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well their structure is much simpler than ours. =( — scorpion prinz 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'd be given a choice, I'd revert {{Philippines political divisions}} to the previous version where the provinces, Manila and the LGU hierarchy are displayed, not all of them. --Howard the Duck 10:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Exclude all HUCs in provincial lateral templates, then include them at {{Indy Philippine cities}}; all HUC articles will display only the {{Indy Philippine cities}} and no trace of any provincial navigation template.

(BTW, {{Indy Philippine cities}} is under deletion but it hasn't been started.) --Howard the Duck 10:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing all HUCs from provincial templates, just retained independent "component" cities there and used the {{Philippine cities}} for template. I hope not to resurrect any issue anymore. Btw I was the one who had it tagged as {{TfD}}. Is there a "user for deletion" template? lol... — scorpion prinz 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog Wikipedia concern

One of the regular contributors of Japanese child actors at the tl:Tagalog Wikipedia, tl:User:GNHK, is concerned that an article is used for a French porn community site. Any advice on what to do? --bluemask ^(talk) 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've written in a response on the TL page. Basically, what I said is that the said site used a direct quotation, and there's nothing we or WP can do about it (since basically, WP has nothing to do with the said website). I also suggested that the best course of action is to contact the said porn site's owner, admin or moderator. Feel free to add any other ideas. --- Tito Pao 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

other info in the project page

hey, I just visited the other regional notice boards out of curiosity and found out that they have some interesting sections in their project pages. I suggest that we add to expand, to destub, to cleanup etc. sections rather than just requested media alone on the project page. I think that would guide Filipino wikipedians to the articles that need help. However the added info might bulk up the project page. Sub-pages might solve this problem. Anyways I leave the decision to the veterans here.--Lenticel 08:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of Cheche Lazaro ?

Cheche Lazaro is a Filipino broadcast journalist, but how notable is she? Have the members of the Phillipines Portal heard of her? I am considering a deletion if notability cannot be shown. -- Guroadrunner 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer would be yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssss. --Howard the Duck 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Philippines, Cheche Lazaro would be somewhat the Christiane Amanpour or the Barbara Walters of the Philippines, 'cept that she's also teaching at the University of the Philippines; this is significant because some of the familiar names in the Philippine news media (esp. news reporters) were her students --- Tito Pao 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

She's just the GREATEST Filipina journalist in the whole world. Well, one of the greatest (together with Loren and Mareng Winnie). Anyway, LUV her! --23prootie 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Phil. Blog Awards - Limited tickets to be raffled off

Sorry I had to create a new topic for this one, since the original discussion is getting longer. Anyway...for those who are interested to watch the Phil. Blog Awards, it looks like there will be limited seats for the event. The good news is, the organizers will be raffling off giving away 100 seats for the event. Joining is easy, but you'll need to have a blog to get started. Please visit this page for more information. NOTE: As of this date, 28 people have signed up, so that means there are only 72 tickets left!!! Just to be sure, I'll be signing up as well. --- Tito Pao 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update So apparently, there were less than 28...someone made a double posting and so it means that it's not meant to be a double entry. --- Tito Pao 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I could sign up with my blog, but I can't go. Can another Pinoy/Pinay wiki use my e ticket, do u know? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

San Juan City?

Really? --Howard the Duck 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)