Talk:Philippines

Archives
/Archive 1 - before June 2005 /Archive 2 - June 2005–August 2005 /Archive 3 - August 2005–June 18, 2006

Template for otherlanguages

• /interlingua
• /summarized -Please leave this here. This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data.--Jondel 02:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Details are not worth it in initial versions.

austronesian vs formosan (moved html comment from article to Talk page)

It is probably more appropriate to discuss here rather than on the main article page.

---

IT IS FAR MORE SENSICAL TO SAY THEY ARE AUSTRONESIAN, AS THE AUSTRONESIAN FORMOSAN PEOPLES (AS ONE REFERED TO EARLIER) ARE FOR THE MAINPART GENETICALLY & LINGUISTICALLY VARIANT FROM THE AUSTRONESIAN PEOPLES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY INTERRELATED; AS THE MALAY, MICRONSIAN AND POLYNESIAN AUSTRONESIAN GROUPS ARE TO THE AUSTRONESIAN GROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINES), THE REASON WHY THE FORMOSAN GROUPS DIFFER ARE ALL DUE TO A MIXTURE OF SOCIO-CULTURAL SHIFTS IN TURN DUE TO VARIANT LIFESTYLE AND ENVIRONMENT (THE Y'AMI GROUP OF ORCHID ISLAND TAIWAN THOUGH ARE AN EXCEPTION, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY IVATAN IN ETHNICITY AND LANGUAGE). IN THIS VIEW: THE INHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE GENETICALLY UNIQUE IN RELATION TO THEIR OTHER AUSTRONESIAN NEIGHBOURS AND REALISTICALLY SHOULD BE REFERED TO AS "PHILIPPINE" (AS IS USED IN LANGUAGE SUBGROUPING ALREADY; CHECK OUT THE PHILIPPINE LANGUAGE SECTION), BUT SINCE NO TERM CURRENTLY EXISTS TO NAME THE AUSTRONESIAN GROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINES (DUE TO LAZINESS ON PART OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS, AS WAS THE "MALAY" CLAIM) THE INHABITANTS SHOULD BE THEN CLASSED AS SIMPLY AUSTRONESIAN. IT'S BETTER TO BE SAFE NOW WITH AN UMBRELLA-TERM THAN SORRY LATER WITH A SPECIFIED ERROR! :) PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.58.176 (talk • contribs) .

Look at the link on the bottom of the article: Capelli, Cristian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, et al. (2001). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68: 432–443 - the chart clearly shows that Formosans and Filipinos have the same genetic halpotype, which confirms that they have the same genetic material (as opposed with that of the Malays, which is entirely different from that of the Filipinos) -- User:Matthewprc 13:21 18 June 2006 (UTC+8)

Well, does not really matter because we Filipinos are so 'religious' so we are all created by God... duh. Unless you believe that we came from bamboos. In that case, the above discussion still does not matter.

Tagalog?

Tagalog is the national language of the Philippines , also with 7,000 different philipino languages. I am Alisa a true blooded philipino. I aknow the main language called the tagalog.--68.111.188.241 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Alisa

Alisa, according to the 1987 constitution the official name is Filipino. See the Filipino language article. We know it is "really" Tagalog but we have to use the oficial name. I have changed the wording in the infobox to clarify it.

(Polaron, I undid your revert to respond to Alisa). Jameswilson 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagalog is not the national language. Filipino is the national language. Filipino is not the same as the Tagalog dialect. However, the Filipino dialect is based on the Tagalog dialect with a significant mixture of English and Visayan and other dialects. And yes, I am a true-blooded Filipino who is trying to promote an original (non-western copycats) and hardworking Philippines. Marte A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.115.170 (talk • contribs)

The difference between Filipino & Tagalog has been the subject of debate for a long time. Philippine linguists whom I have conferred with (to avoid weasel terms - Rubino, Lobel, Reid, Zorc, etc.) agree that there are no differences between Tagalog & Filipino. Filipino is simply a dialect of Tagalog that was renamed to Filipino in 1987. What you have described of Filipino is also true for Tagalog. Tagalog, in its over hundreds of years of existence, has incorporated words from various Philippine languages (especially Kapampangan), Spanish, Chinese, and others. --Chris S. 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PHT

I read somewhere that the shortened form for "Philippine Standard Time" is PHT, since PST already corresponds to "Pacific Standard Time." --Howard the Duck 13:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PAGASA though still uses PST officially. You can even check their clock on the PAGASA website. I even read that PST can stand for Pacific Standard Time, Pakistan Standard Time or, in our case, Philippine Standard Time. --Sky Harbor 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, just rescind this hehehe --Howard the Duck 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Tagged the overlong "History" section with the weasel words tag. This passage in particular seems to be weasel worded:

Although there was substantial domestic opposition, especially by the American Anti-Imperialist League, the McKinley administration decided neither to return the Philippines to Spain, nor to allow Germany to annex the Philippines. Therefore, in addition to Guam and Puerto Rico, Spain was forced in the negotiations to hand over the Philippines to the U.S. in exchange for US$20,000,000.00, which the U.S. later claimed to be a "gift" from Spain. The first Philippine Republic rebelled against the U.S. occupation, which prevented its independence and refused to return the country's sovereignty back to the Filipinos. This resulted in the Philippine-American War (also known in contemporary U.S. government documents and popularly ever since by some Americans as the Philippine Insurrection) (1899–1913). --Jtalledo (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody (anon users) messed it up again? LOL. --Howard the Duck 08:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey JTALLEDO!, Instead of complaining tooo much about the weasel words in the Philippine Category!! Why don't u help us fix the sentences and grammar's, brathaaa ???you complain tooo much maaannn!!, from: La Raza, 9:13 pm, 13 July 2006.

I have an idea... why don't we just forget all about this squabbling and get some pancit canton and watch some Darna movies eh? And oh... yeah... forget the spanish and the americans... we have enough problems right now to bother about the problems in the past.

• Hi! Jtalledo, how are you! What is Darna? i'm not Filipinos. I' am from Guadalajara, Mexico. I took an interested in the Philippines recently because I have several Filipino friends here in Guadalajara. Philippines is a beautiful country, Excuse me for being rude in my last message! I though you were doing it, on purpose! Sorry! from: La Raza. 19:37 pm, 14 July 2006.

Jtalledo vandalism

Jtalledo is arbitrarily tagging Wikipedia entries with weasel tag without legitimate reasons. Jtalledo's "seems to be" excuse deserves the weasel tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amante de la Paz (talk • contribs) .

Hi there, please assume good faith and address this dispute with civility; his tagging of those passages do not fit the definition of vandalism. Rather than complaining, have a calm discussion with Jtalledo and possibly work with him on improving the weasel words in the article. Don't forget to cite your sources. I am reverting your edit for now. Thank you. --Chris S. 05:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalism to keep putting weasel tags on Wikipedia entries without stating any specific reason or citing sources which may provide some basis for discussion. Arbitrarily reverting edits is against Wikipedia neutral point view policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amante de la Paz (talk • contribs) .

Amante, I fail to see how this is vandalism. And knowing Jtalledo and his edits, he isn't a vandal. I mean, why would a vandal signal his intentions on a Talk page? In any case, I am going to reinstate the tag until Jtalledo comes and explains why and you two could come to an agreement. Please do not remove it until then - there is no rush. Also please be sure to keep the three revert rule in mind. --Chris S. 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amante and Chris. Actually, now that I think about it, the NPOV tag seems to be more appropriate here. Other than the passage I cited earlier, which has since been edited a bit, here's some statements of contention that haven't been cited:

• Since Spain and the U.S. ignored the Filipino representative, Felipe Agoncillo, during their negotiations in the Treaty of Paris,
• Roman Catholicism replaced most of the indigenous religions and embraced by the majority - the use of the word "embraced", "adopted" sounds more appropriate

And Amante, I changed your edit to the Religion section regarding the Muslim groups leading an "armed struggle" to "armed campaign", a compromise between the two previous phrases which sounds more neutral. Using the word "struggle" hints at bias. I'll make some edits to clean the History section up a little.

I know the "weasel word" phrase seems harsh, but that's the phrase some other users came up with for the guideline. Know that I meant no malice by using this phrase, I'm just trying to keep this article NPOV. Hope this clears things up. If there's any other questions, please ask them. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Certain that the concern of User:Jtalledo is fair. Not sure about the weasel words, but I am sure the History of PH section does have POV problems, specifically NatPOV (Nationalist Point of View)

Some of the lines that are problems include.

Bias (anticolonial and nationalist)

• ...Lapu-Lapu... who opposed foreign domination. (implying the Spanish)
• rebellions occurred from tribal groups throughout the archipelago against Spanish occupation
• Muslims of the southern islands of Mindanao continued their resistance and maintained their sovereignty
• The brief British occupation weakened Spain's grip on power and sparked rebellions and demands for independence.
• Enlightened by the Propaganda Movement to the injustices of the Spanish colonial government and the "frailocracy"

Reality check

• Lapu-Lapu opposed Humabon and his other Visayan neighbors, who coincidentally now had a powerful ally, who looked like the Portuguese. Magellan was offered armed men by the thousands by Humabon, which was declined by Magellan. The neighbors of Lapu-Lapu eventually killed the surviving Spanish after Magellan's defeat. To Lapu-Lapu, the rival datus were also foreigners.
• It was not against Spanish occupation alone, actually the rebellions were motivated economically.
• Questionable, even historians disagree when the sultanates really fell.
• British occupation only proves that the Spanish were being overtaken militarily by the other Europeans.
• The propaganda's agenda was to report to the Spanish mainland what was really going on in the colony.

--Noypi380 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

Ihawan? As in ihaw-ihaw sa kanto? --Howard the Duck 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in History

I changed "American imperialism" (a clear POV statement) to "the United States." Correct me if I am wrong. Rmsharpe 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Just curious, why is the country spelt with a ph but then the language with an f?Cameron Nedland 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the name Philippines was forced upon the country after the US invasion in 1898. Before that it was called Filipinas. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, sorry about the hole pseudo-liberation thing.Cameron Nedland 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Article outline

I guess we should follow WikiProject Countries. Which means we need to incorporate the Languages and Religions section to Demographics and link to appropriate subarticles. --Howard the Duck 03:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)