Talk:Philippines/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE HISTORY SECTION

I am currently reviewing the history section because there are attempts to reassess this article for a higher status while some matters are still in need of some serious attention.

1. Philippine Independence: The History section mentions and I quote, "the United States granted the Philippines its independence from colonial rule due to international pressure". Whoever placed that statement here used the CIA factbook as basis. I perused the cited source and NOWHERE does it mention that international pressure was one of the immediate and direct causes for the granting of independence. Indeed, this statement is dubious if not a clear case of misinformation. The granting of Philippine independence in 1946 was already set in motion 12 years prior by the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act which provided for self-government and eventual independence after a period of 10 years. Please see books by Zaide and other authorities, as well as the text of the Act here: Tydings-McDuffie Act.

Domestic conservative interests, or even partisan and self-interest by politicians during Quezon's time may also have been factors in the quest for independence, but then again any statement to that effect must be based upon a credible and well-recognized source or authority.

2.Colonization by Quezon of Mindanao: The same section states and I quote, "Manuel L. Quezon was elected as president in 1935, with the task of preparing the country for sovereignty. During his term numerous tasks regarding agrarian reform were initiated, including the colonization of Mindanao, an area considered as part of the hinterlands at the time." While Mindanao may have well been considered as part of the hinterlands during Quezon's time, the use of the word colonization is such a serious term considering that the issue is still a continuing and hotly debated topic (and is even the subject of a current armed conflict) and to use it, and make it appear like fact in an encyclopedia such as this, without citing a credible source, is not at all proper.

3. Coup attempts: on coup attempts the section states, "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while an unruly military began plotting coup attempts in the capital, Manila". I'm not really sure if the use of the word unruly is in line with this encyclopedia's neutrality (NPOV) policy. Perhaps the proper wording should be: "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while certain factions of the military began plotting coup attempts". The latter wording, to my mind is more in line with NPOV than the previous one. Thinkinggecko (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem capable and should probably consider making the edits yourself. I've been here a short time only but from what I can tell many who are capable and circumspect leave the actual edits to others who while bold may not appreciate the nuance as well as those who made the initial observations. Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be glad to make the necessary edits once an administrator unlocks this article for editing. Right now, access has been limited to the talk page. I understand some editors would like this article to be reassessed for the GA and FA status, I certainly would want to see a more thorough discussion on this talkpage to arrive at a consensus and avoid this article from being hijacked before any action is to be taken in granting any GA or FA status. I am (and I'm sure others are also) of the position that articles in an encyclopedia should be accurate, neutral, brief and concise without being incomplete nor overly-loaded, and well documented or referenced. Thinkinggecko (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Relationships

Philippines has good foreign relationships.The following countries are its major import partners.

1.U.S.A

2.Japan

3.South Korea

4.Taiwan

5.China

6.Vietnam

7.Palau

8.Netherlands

9.United Kingdom

10.Canada

The following countries are its major export partners.

1.U.S.A

2.China

3.United Kingdom

4.Netherlands

5.Palau

Lambanog's edits

Excised the following paragraph from the cuisine section and am storing it here in case someone objects:

Today, Philippine cuisine continues to evolve in techniques and styles of cooking dishes, in both traditional Filipino and modern cuisines. Fast food is also popular. American chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain has hailed Filipino pork cuisine and named the country at the top of his "Hierarchy of Pork".^[1]

Comments: Not cohesive. Not focused. Bourdain's endorsement in the article could be stronger. Lambanog (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous "factual overview" I replaced:

The Philippines (Filipino: Pilipinas [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world.^[2]^[3] The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.^[4] The capital city is Manila.

The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country, with an estimated population of about 92 million people.^[5]^[6] It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines.^[7] Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. In terms of religious affiliation a 2000 census shows Filipinos identifying themselves as follows: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1%.^[4]^[8]

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal).^[9] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.^[4] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.^[4] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

A former colony of Spain and the United States, the customs, methods, and ideas of both have influenced Filipino culture as have the practices of neighboring Asian countries. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world.^[10] Balancing the often conflicting demands of a burgeoning population in the light of poverty on the one hand and the sensible custodianship of natural resources and conservation of the environment on the other is one of the main challenges facing the nation.

Replaced with this more "expository overview":

The Philippines (Filipino: Pilipinas [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world.^[2]^[11] The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.^[4] The capital city is Manila.

With an estimated population of about 92 million people, the Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country.^[5]^[6] It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines.^[7] Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world.^[10]

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal).^[12] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.^[4] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.^[4] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

In ancient times the archipelago was populated by successive waves of Austronesian peoples who brought with them influences from Malay, Hindu, and Islamic cultures. Trade would also introduce some Chinese cultural influences. The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan would mark the beginning of an era of Spanish dominance. Christianity would become widespread and the Philippines would serve as the Asian hub of the Manila-Acapulco galleon fleet. After the short-lived Philippine revolution and Philippine-American War at the start of the 20th century, the United States replaced Spain as the dominant power which it remained, aside from a period of Japanese occupation, until the end of World War II when the Philippines gained independence. The United States bequeathed to the Philippines the English language and its democratic presidential system of government. Since independence the Philippines has had an often tumultuous experience with democracy, with popular "People Power" movements overthrowing a dictatorship in one instance but also underlining the institutional weaknesses of its constitutional republic in others.

Comments: Seems to be more in line with other country article overviews and I get the feeling fact listings are probably better placed in the relevant sections. Feel free to discuss.

Removed the following statements from the Economy section:

The economy was largely anchored on the Manila-Acapulco galleon during the Spanish period and bilateral trade with the United States during the American period. Pro-Filipino economic policies were first implemented during the tenure of Carlos P. Garcia with the "Filipino First" policy.

Today, there is a mixed economy.^[13]

In a bid to further strengthen the economy, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo pledged to turn the country into a developed country by 2020. As part of this goal, she instituted five economic "super regions" to concentrate on the economic strengths of various regions, as well as the implementation of tax reforms, continued privatization of state assets and the building-up of infrastructure in various areas of the nation.

The government aims to accelerate economy, and GDP growth by 2009.

Comments: Galleon trade should be in the history section. "Filipino First" policy's impact on economy is not made clear. Saying there is a mixed economy is saying the obvious. Virtually all modern economies can be described as mixed. The rest reads like something out of a press release and are actions largely expected of all governments. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "and have lead a Philippine-based company known as "Level Up! Games" to emerge in the Philippine industry" from the Media section.

Comments: Although I am personally aware of the existence of said company, notability has not been established especially in regards to relevance for this article. Citations for the sentence did not mention it. It comes off as promotional and has therefore been removed. Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following:

According to recent theories and their archaeogenetic evidence: in 50,0000 B.C.E before the end of the last Ice Age, the Philippine archipelago was part of a large continent called Sundaland. The landmass was populated by ancients speaking the primordial Austric language, the oldest known world language^[14] and a grand candidate for unified world mother-tongue or root-language due to the immensity and variety of descendant languages^[15]. These ancients, was said to have developed Urreligion and are the legendary root of human culture but their society was destroyed by a massive apocalyptic flood caused by the melting ice-caps and concurrent volcanic eruptions. The survivors, known as the Nusantao, fled their ruined homeland and spread across the world, eventually pollinating the ancient civilizations of Sumeria, China, Egypt, Indu and the Mayans: all of which have founding legends of a sunken homeland paradise which can be traced back to Sundaland.^[16]

Comments: Looks like a fringe theory. Lambanog (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following among others:

due to domestic conservative interests^[17] and an aggressive campaign by the Nacionalista Party^[18]

Comments: Wording conveyed wrong sense of timing and citation used was imprecise. [Note: Source cited looks like it may be a good reference in general just not used correctly in this case. There might be a way to incorporate it in other ways.] Lambanog (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Contemporary Period section below:

Contemporary Period

After the World War II, the Philippines faced the plague of political instability. Since 1946, remnants of the Hukbalahap communist rebel army continued to roam the rural regions, disgruntled after the government had rejected their contribution during World War II. Attempts at reconciliation were established by former President Ramón Magsaysay.

File:Edsa shrine.jpg

A statue of the Virgin Mary was built on the EDSA Shrine, after the People Power Revolution.

In 1962 Carlos P. Garcia was elected president. He was followed by Diosdado Macapagal, the 9th president of the Philippines and the first Philippine president with royal lineage tracing back to Rajah Lakandula. The 1960s was a period of economic growth for the Philippines, which developed into one of the wealthiest in Asia. Ferdinand Marcos then became president and barred from seeking a third term, he declared martial law on September 23, 1972.

File:Medal from the Order of Lakandula.jpg

A merit medal from the Order of Lakandula. The highest honor awarded by the Philippine Republic. The order was initiated by the Macapagal Presidential Family, descendants of the Tondo Dyansty's last king, Rajah Lakandula.

Using the crises of political conflicts, the tension of the Cold War, a rising Communist rebellion, an Islamic insurgency and with military support from the USA as justifications; he governed by decree (Oppression), along with his wife Imelda Marcos. After being exiled, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. (Marcos' chief rival) was assassinated at the Manila International Airport (also called the Ninoy Aquino International Airport) on August 21, 1983.

After the assasination, the People Power Revolution occurred. The people gathered and protested in EDSA, instigated by the Archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, who was opposed to the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. The People Power Revolution shocked the whole world by being the first non-violent revolution caught on camera.^[19] The video footage of Nuns and children stopping war tanks using only their bodies in fervent prayer sent a powerful political message of transcendence which reverberated across the globe.^[20] Consequently, this served as an inspiration for the spread of more non-violent revolutions across the world^[19] and freeing it from the grip of the Soviet Communists and American Imperialists when the peoples oppressed by the puppet-regimes supported by the two Cold War Superpowers followed suit and threw off their own dictators in similar non-violent revolutions. Eventually this caused the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe^[21] and the removal of US supported autocrats in Latin-America^[22]. The democratic movement eventually culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall.^[23]

After losing the subsequent election to Corazón Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino and the symbol of the People Power Revolution, who became the first female president of the Philippines and the first female president in Asia; Ferdinand Marcos, a CIA supported dictator ^[24] and his allies departed to Hawaii in exile aboard American military helicopters.^[25]

The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 were hampered by an IMF induced national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a Communist insurgency and an Islamic separatist organization. Nevertheless, US Military Bases in the Philippines (The largest ever built) were shutdown and converted to Freeport Zones. Furthermore, the economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, who was elected in 1992.^[13] However, the economic improvements were negated at the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997.

Due to his popularity among the poor and uneducated by being a movie actor, Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected president. The 2001 EDSA Revolution however, led to his downfall when he was found guilty of fraud and plunder.^[26]

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took leadership in 2001 following the controversial EDSA 2 revolution and the impeachment of the Estrada government. She is contextually; a democratically elected Queen by being a daughter of a former Head of State, Diosdado Macapagal and by being a long lost descendant of Rajah Lakandula the last reigning King of the Tondo Dynasty through Don Juan Macapagal, an ancestor.^[27] Her legitimacy is furthermore cemented by having gained power by orchestrating a revolution.^[28] The Macapagal branch of the Tondo Royal family, survived the persecution of the ages by changing their surname from "Lakandula" to "Macapagal". This makes the EDSA 2 revolution the only revolution in modern history, to have resurrected an ancient but lost royal dynasty.^[27]

The presidency of Arroyo was marred by a handful of political difficulties. Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while an unruly military began plotting coup attempts in the capital, Manila. Several natural disasters also posed a challenge along with political controversies popping-up here and there. Yet, despite the bleak situation, positive instances did occur. The economy continued to grow and stabilize, the strongest in over twenty years, despite a financial crisis,^[29] ^[29]^[30] while relations with neighboring countries continued to prosper. Two democratic elections were also held at this time.

In 2007, the World Bank has declared the Philippines a "Newly industrialized country"^[31] while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade.^[32] Their prophesies proved true during the onset of the Late-2000s recession when the whole world fell victim to the economic devastation wrought by Subprime Banking mess resulting in every industrialized country having a negative growth rate. Something which the Philippines defied by predicting a positive GDP growth rate during the 2009 fiscal year.^[33] However, Corazon C. Aquino, heroine of people power, died on August 2009. Immediately, plans are underway to declare her a saint.^[34]

Comments: A mess. If anyone wants this version instead of the much briefer one I've restored, discuss it here. Lambanog (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following:

This led to the rise of Philippine classical states.^[35]^[36]

Comments: Sentence doesn't seem necessary. One source is not easily accessible. The other source is now no longer available and link is broken. Lambanog (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from the international relations section:

with varying issues such as the Philippine-American War, the Bell Trade Act

Comments: The section should be about recent or present concerns. Those two issues are largely in the past. If they need to be brought up they belong in the history section or the underlying relevance to the current context needs to be worded differently.

Removed the following from the natural resources section:

while banyan trees or the balete

Comments: Incomplete sentence with unclear meaning regarding balete.

Removed watermelon and replaced it with pineapples and bananas as income earning crops in natural resources section. I've never heard of watermelons being an important export. A citation is probably required either way and I have added a tag.

Removed the following from sports and recreation section:

Basketball, boxing, billiards, soccer, horse racing, chess and ten-pin bowling are the most watched sports.^[37]

Comments: Repetitive and based on a poor source. Lambanog (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from sports and recreation section:

Horse racing and figure skating.

I'd feel more comfortable having a reliable source to point to for confirmation before including these. Lambanog (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed from international relations section the following citation:

<ref name=NYTimesBases>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/world/middleeast/09bases.html</ref>

Comments: Does not describe the sentence it was used for. Lambanog (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed from flora and fauna section the following source:

^[38]

Comments: Philippines mentioned only obliquely. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed from literature section:

Fernando María Guerrero is a noted poet. In more recent times, works such as Dekada '70 and Bayan Ko (My Country), have received national recognition for illustrating the martial law period of the 1970s and the pre-colonial period. Contemporary literature has mostly been focused on humor and everyday life, such as the works of Bob Ong.

Comments: I might be biased but I cannot remember hearing of them. Guerrero is nowhere near as recognized as Balagtas. Dekada '70 might be a Palanca winner but it was a co-winner and Lualhati Bautista the author is not a National Artist. The National Artists I included appear in school textbooks or are more visible and are Palanca winners too. If informal contemporary counterculture writing is to be mentioned I am more aware of Jessica Zafra and the Pugod Baboy comics than I am with Bob Ong.

Significantly changed:

Philippine cinema is also appreciated, but has faced competition from American and European films. Despite this, critically praised directors and actors remain active, including Mike de Leon, Lino Brocka, Judy Ann Santos, Vilma Santos and Nora Aunor (known for her role in Himala, one of the most acclaimed films in the nation).^[39]^[40]

Comments: Lino Brocka has been dead a long time and is no longer active. Rationale for mentioning Judy Ann Santos and Vilma Santos in particular not clear. Lambanog (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

For those who want to improve the article further it might help to look at other articles about other countries that have already attained featured article status. I see that Indonesia, India, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Peru, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Israel, Turkey, Cameroon, Chad, and maybe some others I missed share that distinction.

A quick perusal of a couple of them and some effort put into editing this article leads me to believe that the history section might be too long. The Demographic and Culture sections also appear somewhat bloated and the subject matter a bit forced to me. Strange as it seems I think there might also be too much content requiring citations. Citations make the editing process harder by including extra items that break the flow of reading while editing. My suggestion is to simplify the content trying to retain only the most essential and salient points and to try expressing them with maximum efficiency and cogency. Lambanog (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking over some of the references and noticed the formatting was inconsistent. One of the problems was that some citations used the {{citation}} template while others used the {{citepaper}} template. The former creates citations separated by commas, the latter separated by periods. I think the {{citepaper}} template gives cleaner citations. {{citepaper}} should replace all instances of {{citation}}. Lambanog (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Addicted04 has changed the image map from "Location Philippines ASEAN.svg" to "Philippines (orthographic projection).svg". Not sure it is appropriate for the Philippines but will leave it alone for now and just place the file names here for quick reference in case changing it back is desired. Lambanog (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Demographic section probably requires information on demographic breakdown by age.

I'm planning on possibly significant changes to the sections. I'm thinking of combining the mythology and literature section with something or removing it altogether. Combining communications with media might also make sense. Looking at other country articles that have attained feature status I notice infrastructure sections are seldom if ever present. If there are any suggestions or reactions or reservations to such actions go ahead and make them known. Lambanog (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the natural resources section: I think I've read somewhere that the Philippines is believed to have one of the largest untapped copper deposits in the world. Possible oil discoveries might also deserve to be mentioned. Carrageenan production might deserve mention as well although I'm not sure how large or significant it is. Lambanog (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be reassessed for "Feature Status"

Finally, after 3 years all the inadequacies to this article has been addressed since the original assessment. New sections have been added and info has been expanded and all the paragraphs needing citations have been referenced. Subsections which were originally lacking were added into and the structure has been condensed. I think the administrators should reassess our article fro Feature status. And hopefully they'll approve it. We deserve it, the Filipino people deserves it. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are still some glaring discrepancies, although with a few more edits maybe a review will get it up to good article status. Some things to note:

"1st millenium C.E." confused me. I thought it was referring to the year 0 C.E. before thinking over your comment jolted me into realizing you were talking about the year 1000 C.E. There is a gap from 1000 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E. so I misinterpreted. [Read it again, somehow skipped over the last paragraph of Early history referring to 300-700 C.E. In light of this my complaint is unreasonable. Prefer the wording "dawn of" the 1st millennium.]

Early history refers to "3 distinct kinds of peoples" yet going by the italics I see 4 namely Tribal Groups, Warrior-Societies, Petty Plutocracy and the Harbor Principalities of the Estuarine Civilizations. I think it should be rewritten and italics removed so it doesn't have the appearance of jargon.

Filipinos in italics in the Colonial period section I think may be warranted but still open to possible disagreement from someone else. Biak-na-Bato as a place name and proper noun I don't think should be italicized.

I haven't read some of the later sections but a very quick skim makes me think there may be other problems or ways to improve content and structure. Some of the phrases used are very banal and general. It's the difference between limp writing and engaging writing and those sections probably need more work if the parts I've been involved in rewriting are an accurate indication. Lambanog (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article speaks of "300-700 C.E. then, in a following section, speaks of "the early years of the 1st Millennium C.E." I infer that the later period referred to is the years following 1000 C.E. WP:MILLENNIUM says, "the second millennium was 1001–2000". It seems to me that the mention here should say "2nd", not "1st". (I've just edited that WP:MILLENNIUM section, but my edits there had to do with BCE dates). Perhaps it would be better to say "In the years following 1000 C.E., ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, your suggestions have been listened to, and the problems has been addressed I have rewrote sentence concerning the 1st millennium, I changed the number of societies from 3 to 4 the paragraph and removed the Italics in "Biak-na-bato" but I didn't removed the italics in Filipino because its peers were also in Italics. Please give more suggestions guys. So that we can better improve the article in-order to gain the featured status. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC) iohjuio0h9ph8itrf7ygioy985t97gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.83.196 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, I don't think it is in the best interests of the article to put up too much information regarding Erap and Gloria aside from the bare minimum, if even that. They are too contentious and draw too much edit warring. For an overview about the country, mentioning them is optional. Best to keep them at arms length and just link if necessary. Two other points:

The royal lineage of the Macapagals will probably require a citation and that piece of information probably doesn't belong in this article and is more appropriate for a more specific article.
Your phrasing suggests the plunder trial caused the 2001 EDSA Revolution and led to Estrada's downfall. That is inaccurate or at least confusing. The plunder trial came afterward and is different from the aborted impeachment trial. Someone unfamiliar with the events might not understand the difference.

As I have indicated before I think we've reached the point where less is more in some cases. The history section is large in comparison to other country articles and the other sections in my view are weak and could use some work. I think attention needs to be focused on them if this article is to be promoted. I need citations for the cuisine section for example, the Bayanihan dance troupe should be brought up in the culture section, and the economy section is uncritical among other things. To read the economy "improved" then later it "improved" again yet the country went from being one of the wealthiest in Asia to one that is now trying to catch up is risible. Something went wrong and it should be identified. From my point of view not enough Filipinos understand the concept of compounding growth and that's why they do not take a pathetic 3% growth rate year in and year out that barely registers above the population growth rate for the disaster that it is. If there is one educational tidbit of value that a Filipino reading this article should take away I would say that should be it. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tried but failed to identify the following reference which is currently "20. ^ Page 52, Societies in Prehispanic Philippines" and have tagged it as vague. Please provide further information details or it will be removed.

I have also noticed the inclusion of the following reference: ^ "Prehispanic Source Materials: for the study of Philippine History" (Published by New Day Publishers, Copyright 1984) Written by William Henry Scott, Page 67, Paragraph 3. Note that it doesn't follow common citation format. Please use the {{citepaper}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, or {{cite news}} templates as appropriate in the future to facilitate editing and improvement of the article. One of the major reasons the review process has highlighted as holding the article back from promotion is the inadequate reference section. Lambanog (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, your dedication to giving more details is commendable but I fear it is not going to necessarily result in a better article. Please seriously consider condensing your contributions to the essentials and refrain from adding more. Please refer to WP:SS and feature article criterion 4. Your contributions look more appropriate in subarticles. I'm concerned a future edit might require large cuts in the history section if this article is to see improvement. It would be a shame to see your work and effort go to waste. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, a good lede serves as a brief crisp overview and introduction to the main ideas in the rest of the article. I don't think a reference to the British belongs there. Aside from one very brief episode in the history section they don't appear anywhere else in the article. A unique British influence in Philippine history, culture, politics, or economics is negligible and hard to detect next to others. The Japanese have a clearer case for inclusion in terms of history having occupied the country longer than the British, having a longer history with the country, and having a significant Japanese community in Mindanao pre-WWII, and I still think their ~~are not significant enough to appear in the lede other than~~ inclusion as a trading partner and that portion on the economy is optional in my view. The inclusion of the British in the lede raises false expectations in the rest of the article and I think it is necessary to remove. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Criteria

For easy reference here is the featured article criteria that should serve as a guide for every edit aimed at improving this article:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

It is—

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Lambanog (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, how many poeple have died in the Philippines due to the H1N1 outbreak? Ocenar (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question is off topic but this says 30 deaths out of around 5212 infections recorded as of October 17 2009. Lambanog (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

we shouldnt pu't the goldman saches Next Eleven.

we shouldn't put the Goldman Sachs "Next Eleven" articles since its very old dated 2005. and it no longer facter in the Philippine stock market crash of 2007 which we still haven't recovered fully from and the credit crunch of 2008-2009. this is not something we should brag about in this article. we sould remove this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.214.62 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have such a source stating that the Philippines is no longer part of the Next Eleven? I mean that says that it is no longer part of the Next Eleven. Not info about a crash or the economic downturn. Speculating that the Philippines is no longer part of it because economic conditions is your personal analysis and original research. Unless you have a source that specifically says that the Philippines is no longer part of the Next Eleven. Then there is no valid reason for the removal. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is reason for a removal too. I kept it and added a reference only because it was there already and there was very little economic related information on hand. I was looking at it as more of a placeholder until more relevant information could be provided. To be truthful it sounds kind of tacky. Since we are talking about an entire country's economy, it should be considered a next to irrelevant distinction. Lambanog (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well according to Goldman Sachs (this has all the other info about the Next Eleven countries also), the Philippines is expected to be the 19th largest economy (nominal) by 2025 and the 17th largest economy by 2050 if the Philippines were to continue an average growth rate of 5.1%. The Next Eleven are countries with the highest potential to be some of the largest economies in the world. So the Next Eleven part does seem to be true. Frankly I think that this piece of information is significant because it shows that the economy is expected to improve and outperform many of the developed countries now like Canada and Italy for example.

According to the CIA, the growth rate for Arroyo's administration is around 5% which is around the expected average growth rate. 2008's growth rate was 3.8%. However, 2008 and 2009 probably 2010 are economically bad times. But the world economy is expected to improve. Goldman Sachs gave an average of 5.1% GDP growth over the time span of 40+ years. So factors like the economy growing by 7% and the economy growing by at a smaller rate of 3.8% are included. This is because economies tend have trends so there's a certain time when it goes up and it goes down. Basing on the info that yeah the economy is bad because of this time period is not enough to justify removal as 112.201.214.62 said because many of the Next Eleven countries are facing the same situations and many of the developed countries are also in economic recession. However this statement needs some changes:

while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade.Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"prestigious" is an unnecessary POV word.
Next Eleven is used out of context. There are more than eleven companies that will shape world trade. The Next Eleven are just countries that have the biggest potential to be some of the largest economies in the world.

How about something like this:

Goldman Sachs has listed the Philippines as part of the Next Eleven, forecasting that country will be amongst the largest economies in the world by 2050. (ref is the source I used above)

How does that sound? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My main concern with the entire bit is it starts to come off as a sales pitch. It also seems pilit. My own reaction to such things is generally negative. I greatly prefer the article stick to the current facts rather than speculate about the future. Lambanog (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the Next Eleven part was in two different sections:

Goldman Sachs includes the country in its list of the "Next Eleven" economies (copied from the article). This I don't have big problems with. How I perceived it is that Next Eleven is like the NIC's (Newly Industrialized Countries) which is a certain class or kind of economic group. This statement doesn't speculate. Current facts are good to have yes. But not everything in the article is fact like the population figures. They are current estimates, but not current facts. But we keep them to give people an idea. Anyways the other passage:

In 2007, the World Bank has declared the Philippines a "Newly industrialized country"[94] while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade.[95] Their prophesies proved true during the onset of the Late-2000s recession when the whole world fell victim to the economic devastation wrought by Subprime Banking mess resulting in every industrialized country having a negative growth rate. This whole passage here about the Next Eleven part I think needs to go. This was the passage I was previously talking about. The wording just seems so unencyclopedic and it's already mentioned in the Economics section. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at it I have to say that entire Contemporary period section is a mess. I've somehow managed to avoid looking at it previously since the article is so long. It should have been cleaned up a long time ago. Why is everyone so timid? Editing it can hardly make it any worse than it is currently. Lambanog (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirena

Perhaps some Philippine editors have interest in commenting on a large number of Philippine TV related articles nominated for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?

Since when did the Phillipines end the Cold War, free Eastern Europe, and end the US's presence in South America? Soxwon (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When it showed dictators could be deposed by mass popular action. Other precedents of course. Iranian Revolution and Baby Doc Duvalier's ouster in Haiti, but the 1986 People Power Revolution showed it could be done fairly peacefully and it sort of shamed the United States into not interfering so much in its allies' internal affairs by supporting dictators. In short order one saw dictators vanishing at a pretty quick rate, from Eastern Europe, South Korea, and Latin America. Just look at the timing. Lambanog (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's bordering on WP:OR. While I do think that it served as a sort of inspiration, I don't see the evidence for "shaming the United States" or that it was directly responsible for all of the other dictators being toppled one after another as was implied. Soxwon (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh you were asking editorially speaking, I was just giving you an explanation for a general query. If you are questioning if the subject belongs in the article, probably not in the form you took issue with, but it is certainly notable as a movement that may have emanated from the country and contributed to significant developments elsewhere. It was probably the first "color revolution". I haven't looked at the section thoroughly but it did contain references. If on examination they are up to par that may be sufficient to make WP:OR a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one reference really addressed the subject, the rest were synthesized (a list of dictators in South and central America for example) for the purpose of pushing a point. Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits

Gubernatoria, hello! Could you explain your recent edit? For example, the move of the picture of the Ifugao house to the culture section, would you mind if I brought it back up to the first history section? I also prefer the previous phrase "The name Philippines was derived from that of King Philip II of Spain" rather than the current "The name Philippines was derived from King Philip II of Spain". I prefer the former because the name was derived from King Philip II of Spain's name and it is Philip II's name that "that of" points to. The current phrasing gives me the mental picture of the name being derived somehow from his body or his person like some plant extract. Maybe that's being overly picky and maybe the current phrasing is proper anyway but I prefer the previous version. I await your comments on the matter. Thanks. Lambanog (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ifugao house is NOT prehistoric. The image was taken 2 years ago of an existing and relatively recently erected structure built in the traditional style. No-one knows how long that style has been traditional, since the weather in the Cordilleras prevents timber from lasting long enough to be assessed archeologically. In "Tuklas Sining: Essays on the Philippine Arts" published in 1991 by the Cultural Center of the Philippines, about 12 pages are devoted to traditional style wooden or bamboo houses. Different styles of houses throughout the Cordilleras are discussed and images are presented. Notably (p14) the comment is made "It is not known when and how Cordillera houses developed into their present form. What is clear, however, is that these house forms developed in isolation and were untouched by Western influence, for the Spanish colonisers did not succeed in bringing the region and its people under their rule." It is also quite clear that no historian or archeologist could reasonably support the labelling of that house photographed in 2007 as being "Prehistoric". Therefore the image does not belong in the pre-history section, which is why I moved it to the cultural section. I invite you to return it to the cultural section. Gubernatoria (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not the one to restore the picture of the Ifugao house to its current location in the history section. I believe Wtmitchell was the one who restored it. I'm not crazy about the picture and if it were to be removed I would not object. Lambanog (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History of Colonial Period AGAIN

A few months back I requested that the consensus paragraph on the Colonial Period was reinserted and respected [1]. The paragraph is the result of a long and productive debate in which many editors participated [2]. This was reverted, but again substantial changes have been made without the proper discussion on the Talk Page. The result is an excessively long section, plus a number of arguable, if not biased statements. Again, I request that the original consensus paragraph is respected:

Spanish rule brought political unification to an archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar^[41]. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid. During that time new crops and livestock were introduced, and trade flourished. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco travelled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese pirates, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish ^[42].

If anybody wants to include additional information, or revise the contents of the section, please discuss them here.

JCRB (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello JCRB. I've only started editing recently so was unaware of much of the earlier discussion. I haven't read the archive. It does seem there are some who should know better though but yet are making dramatic edits despite the views of others. If you make your views known it will help clarify and make a consensus more obvious. I like that your version of the colonial period is shorter. You could just edit it the way you want instead of protesting here. If not maybe you could group all your preferred section versions in a subpage which can be referenced from this main talk page. Regarding the above paragraph the reference to code of law whether Nick Joaquin wrote it or not strikes me as open to question. Does he go into detail on that point? New Spain should be referred to more completely as the Viceroyalty of New Spain. I presume we're using American English so "traveled" would be the appropriate spelling. Do the Americans get any mention in this section in your preferred version? Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lambanog. I did not change the text directly, as I wanted to clarify my position first. A much more concise version of the Colonial Period was there earlier, and now has been eliminated. In fact, not only the Colonial period, but the entire History Section was shorter and more concise. This took a lot of researching and debating, and needs to be respected by editors. I will reinsert the original version of the History section, and if editors wish to make changes to that, I would ask that they discuss them here. Regarding your question on Code of Law, I think Nick Joaquin's point is that a written set of laws such as a civil code did not exist in the Philippines before the Spanish period. Certain rules and customs were followed in indigenous communities, but they were not written down or registered in a formal way. Regarding New Spain, I don't mind either using the term "Viceroyalty" or not, as long it is linked to the relevant article. On spelling, I am happy with either British or American English. Regarding the American period in the History section, yes, I think it definitely should be mentioned. In the previous consensus version there are a few sentences dedicated to it. JCRB (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

About the controvertial but NOBLE edits to the History Section

1st of all I say, I am sorry for breaking consensus by vastly improving the history subsection. It was mainly by my efforts which lead to total editing of the history subsection. Though I am humbled by your efforts at concesus building, I feel my editions were called for. I mean, what's wrong with a long history subsection? In my totally and familingly patriotic and scientific assesment of it. Philippine history demands every last shred of coverage it shiningly and naturally is entitled to. The old subsection was plainly detached and unegaging. It lacked the logical flow of a long exposition and also lacked the soul of masterfully made epic narration. Though it is commendable it it's shortness and the dryness of it's mere recitation of mumbled facts.

But still, no other history on this entire planet is more epic than Philippine History yet we have articles in wikipedia such as the History of Germany (Click the Link) which is far longer than our own, yet they get away with it!!!! Whereas ours which is obviously more dignified and royally dramatic than theirs only get a shred of their sheen. It's Injustice I tell you! Moreso when it's our own countrymen undersestimating our own heritage. Sorry for the oration but im only defending the righteousness of my version, though it doesn't make yours any less correct. I just feel it right to mention the soul and substance of us a story, of us as people: of the sacrifices of Gabriella Silang, the tragedy of Magat Salamat's execution, the virility of British General William Drapier and the hand of the CIA in the Marcos dictatorship. These are HUMAN STORIES. These tug at the heart more and stimulate people to think. This course of action my new corpus for history section, in my humble is far more noble than just formally explaining concise and rote recitation of facts.

I ask forgiveness but I aslo ask for support. And as you oibseved I never broke one iota of info from the original concesus, I just expanded it, to give it body, systematized it to give it a mind and peoticized it to give it a soul. Forgive me but I passionately ask you: Please accept this. Thank You.

Truly Yours. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before I believe the history section to be too long and it needs to be trimmed significantly. In that I will agree with JCRB. However, I do agree with you too that some additional details made the section better. I do not agree that human stories are what make it better though, those require too much detail for the purposes of this overview article. My problem with JCRB's paragraph is that it is heavy on the Spanish point of view and doesn't exactly link to many other articles making it inefficient. A greater proportion of the paragraph should treat with specifically Philippine related subjects. As it is, the proposed paragraph is a little generic. A couple of sentences could apply to other Spanish territories of the time just as well and many of the ideas are expressed simply with the term "Spanish colonizers".

I think this Philippines article serves as a portal article of sorts and if well written should cover and link to all major topics one would associate with the Philippines whether the reader is a foreigner or Filipino. I consider a hyperlink to Jose Rizal, the Katipunan, Andres Bonificio, Emilio Aguinaldo and Philippine Independence to be essential. Links to the hacienda system, Gabriela Silang, Gomburza, La Solidaridad, La Liga Filipina, Marcelo H. del Pilar, etc. might not be as necessary but should be worked in if at all possible. This principle of covering a lot of major ground with an economy of words is what I am going by. Going by what I know of Philippine history as taught in schools in the Philippines there is a heavier weighting placed on the Spanish period than the pre-Spanish period. My recommendation would be to attempt to halve the pre-Spanish section and utilize any space saved there for maintaining the Spanish era section. Lambanog (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, that you restored the Contemporary period section to the old version. I would like to point out though that it contains a major historical inaccuracy. Please read the sequence of events of the People Power Revolution. Marcos was the initially proclaimed winner of the snap elections. It came before the People Power Revolution not afterward. Because of these errors the Contemporary period section MUST be changed. I will revert to the version that was there previously. If you still wish to keep this current version restore it but change it to be accurate or place a banner showing the section is undergoing major rewriting and that the factual accuracy is under dispute. Lambanog (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lambanog that the history section was too long. This is why we have sub-article, History of the Philippines so that the history section won't be so long. Not only was it too long, but there was also some language problems/NPOV problems. There's also way too many pictures from the old revision. I support the change.

Gintong, please assume good faith. Your edit summaries here and here are not assuming good faith and can be considered personal attacks which you may be blocked for. All that's being done is trying to help and improve the article, not to vandalize it. Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean you should act the way your acting. Please stay civil and remain calm. Everyone here is trying to improve the article, not hurt it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Respect the Consensus Version

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, although I appreciate your wish to improve and expand the History section, you need to respect the contributions of other editors, specially when a consensus was reached. Moreover, the length of the History section is excessive. That belongs in History of the Philippines, not in the main article. Also, this is not the place to be patriotic. Wikipedia is about neutrality WP:NPOV and verifiability WP:V. First, some of the statements contained in the pre-Hispanic section are doubtful, and the sources quoted are questionable. Historians like William Henry Scott have proved that Maragtas [3] was not an actual document from centuries ago, but legends that were collected and in some cases made up by Pedro Monteclaro. Second, the wording of some sentences in the Colonial Era section could be described as biased, for example: "and Juan de Salcedo's ransacking of the Chinese warlord Limahong's pirate kingdom in Pangasinan." Limahong was a Chinese pirate who raided coastal towns in the Philippines and southern China. To describe him as a "warlord" is strange. As for Salcedo's campaign against the pirate, it is inappropriate to call it "ransacking". It was simply a military campaign or punitive action. For your information, when Limahong was defeated, the Chinese government congratulated the Spanish authorities in Manila. Other examples of possible lack of neutrality are: "the Aztec and Mayan mercenaries López de Legazpi brought with him" or "The Spanish attempted to bring political unification to the Philippine archipelago via the conquest of the various states". Spanish rule achieved political unification with small exceptions, not just "attempted" it. There were no organized "states" in 15th century Philippines, only small chiefdoms or sultanates. I could go on. The point is that this version is too long, has doubtful statements, and carries possible elements of bias. For all of the above I will revert it to the previous consensus article. I would ask that all editors kindly respect this. If you wish to make additions or changes to the consensus version, you are welcome to discuss them here. JCRB (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you silly or something? A Sultanate is a state is a state no matter how small. By your twisted logic, it means Saudi Arabia and Brunei could not be organized states because theyre the Sultanates. Also the political entities existing in the Philippines were not chiefdoms. Have you ever read Chao Jung Ka? or the Brunei records? They all aclaim that they conquered kingdoms and principalities never "chiefdoms". And even new excavated artifacts such as the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and Butuan Silver Paleograph prove that they were kingdoms, they were not mere cheifdoms as what you imagine them to be. How dare you reduce the lords and kings of the past, your own ancestors into mere chieftains? Yours is an outdated mindset made by concensus decided 2 years ago...

Also I am apt in decribing his as a warlorld. If you look at a dictionary definition of the word "warlord" it said that a warlord is a person of authority using violence and the force of arms to maintian his/her hold on power. And Salcedo did ransack his kingdom. He burned it to the ground. Just read Nick Joaqin's Books and youll see. Although your points are valid by their own right I think I will just stick with my principle that the expansive section is better. You can edit all you want in the larger version. I won't care just as long as you retain it in the expanded form because there are so many other MORE expanded articles than this one in wikipedia and they don't give a care about it heck they even give them stars. I just want justice, that's all. Especially for our own article. Again what's wrong with a longs one?

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus, continuing to do revert for your own POV is unacceptable behavior. You've only shown us that this is what you want for your own personal feelings, not factoring in what the community is looking towards. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My Reply:

WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED A CONSENSUS LAST TIME, also, I feel I am wronged and I'm just being emotional because I felt hurt cause I have the very interests of the community at heart moreso than what you say so. What tugs at my heartstrings more is that I thought this expansion "issue" was settled by a concesus two months ago.

The "issue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#Reverted_a_possible_vandalism

Were resolved and a new concensus achieved. In my talk page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw#Resolving_dispute_to_Philippines Were 23prootie, labanog, JL 09 and me agreed that we settle the disputes with gentlemanly and scientific decorum. The new expanded exposition, the current edition (which JCRB and you are saying is wrong) is the result of our splendid little agreement.

However, this new concensus was brazenly challanged by 2 minority conservatives who would rather like to portray our ancestors running around half-naked as tribals belonginng to savage chiefdoms or insignificant sultanates rather than the royally classy individuals that they were, as proven by the cache of gold funrnitures in the "Surigao Treasures" and the "Tarsillas" of Maguindanao and Sulu. rather dislke a longer and more wholesome prose.

The main issue here is not the info itself because as you would all obviously know, The info in the new improved version (which JCRB & his motley band of inssurectionists wants to revert) has more sources and references than the old one. But rather the issue is the legnth which they fear is too wide and the article is too info-laden. Which I say is, though a valid complaint is an uncalled for fear because tons more country articles in wikipedia has an even longer history-subsection than ours. Yet they have been given a "featrued" status precisely because of that!!!

Evidences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#History (Jesus, just observe it! This article has 8 divisions in the history sub-sections with 800+ words but theyre still featured status!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#History (If you thought Germany was bad you should see Russia. 7 divisions in the history-subsection with 900 words all-in-all)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#History ( Now, Spain just takes the cake. 9 subdivisions and almost a thousand words)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia#History (Malaysia too, is sooo damn info-laden)

There are sooo many more from where that came from... (Have you seen the American and Mexican history sections?) but i'll stop there. And the version that i'm proposing is only an even condensed version compared to the behemoth those other nation-articles spewed forth from their bowels. Our edition only had 4 subsections in the history subsection despite the huge quantity of awesomness and info of Philippine History (From the Incipient Period to the Macapagal Era) presents, yet we are flatly rejected for our noble sacrifice and endless hours staying up late to help this article. That's why I feel hurt. But not for me alone, but for my comrades whose works were stomped on by minority conservatives who feel that we should diminish our achievements into bite-sized little morsels. Though I do understand them and I consider their complaints valid...

I feel it is a greater good to truly express our furstrations as a group (with me as representative of course) and oppose their attempts at reverting to an ~~outdated~~ old consensus.

Charmed and truly yours.

-Comrade: Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am in the understanding that you also agree with my thesis and I will now promplty revert this article to our shining and splendid little edition. *gentlemen's handshake.

I'd really like to know where the evidence is that anyone else agrees with you here. Discuss particular points on this page, don't just edit war on the main article -- especially when you're edit warring errors, such as duplicate sections, into the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been making a fair number of edits to this article as well I'd like to point out a couple of things then state my current stand.

A quick word count by my word processor of the history section for Germany, a Featured Article, after I cut and pasted it into its own document shows the following:

3072 words

16,631 characters (no spaces)

19,621 characters (with spaces)

57 paragraphs

284 lines

In comparison when I cut and pasted the last version I edited and restored of the Philippines history section which has significant contributions from Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and a significantly rewritten and more accurate Contemporary period section written by myself it came out like this:

3076 words

16,986 characters (no spaces)

20,021 characters (with spaces)

40 paragraphs

278 lines

My conclusion is that while the Philippines history section is long and pushing the boundaries, its length can still be justified. It is clear, however, that it is near the limit, that adding any extraneous items should be avoided, and that work should be put into trimming out unnecessary details and using more cogent language.

That said, while I think JCRB's preferred version is laudable in its aim to be pithy, it could be more thorough. I also think that possibly due to subtle systemic bias, that version does not supply enough of a Filipino perspective in terms of subject matter. I prefer the later versions of the Colonial era section Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and I contributed to and the Contemporary period section I rewrote. So my preferred working version for now would be the last one I restored: the revision as of 13:45, 26 November 2009. This is despite what I believe to be Gintong Liwanag ng Araw's propensity to include questionable and excessive details into the article. Gintong Liwanag ng Araw I hope you refrain from doing that. I recognize that whatever version is eventually supported by consensus that it will still need more work. 1 edit. — Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is to keep articles from going over 100kb. This article is currently over 100kb. We need to also factor in that loading times might be too excessive for some people. I mean for me, it was getting really hard to keep straight and read the history section because it was so long (not to mention that the amount of pictures were getting to the point that they are distracting). Gintong's version nearly doubled the size of the article (partly due to making multiple copies of some section). Why can't we just expand the History sub-article since there are concerns that the history is lacking? This is what sub-articles are for. The sub-article is an FA, so we can also get some ideas on what to include and remove. While the current section about history in the main article is a lacking bit, it doesn't need to be in such detail.

If we take a look at some other featured country articles such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Japan, countries who also have a rich history, don't have a long history subsection. But these articles try to keep readers interested and is at good length while still keeping the most important topics on there. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This article serves to be the summary of all viewpoints mentioned into another sub-article. For example, we have the article Filipino cuisine. That article supposed to be expanded very much. Since Filipino cuisine covers Philippine food culture, then all things that about Filipino food must be found in that article. On the same hand, we have the article History of the Philippines. Being long does not mean that it passes featured article or good article status. Since we have the article History of the Philippines, then all edits about the history must go there. I agree with JCRB, this article must have the summaries of the main article that is mentioned here. What is the use of History of the Philippines if everyone can found all information here? Philippines is expected to show what is the profile of the country. In extensive encyclopedias, you cannot find a country and its history a similar article.

As I said, doubling the article size does not guarantee if the article was good written. I watched Gintong's edits since I encountered him during the edit war in this article, which, I believe his edits were not reliable if ever. He had Confederation of Madya-as copy-pasted, huge copy-pasted from an external copyrighted source which he admitted it User_talk:JL_09/October_2009#Help_me_paraphrase_the_.22Confederation_of_Madya-as.21. I don't know if these has been copied to a book or whatever printed material because it's hard to verify it. About edit warring, remember, Lambanog and Gintong, this article is watched by so many fellow editors because this article has been protected many times simply because of edit war. For JCRB's resolution that many of this article's section has been discussed by many editors, I guess, respecting consensus done in the past would be better, since this has always been a sensitive issue.

If you don't agree with the revisions here, then it is better to ask for a consensus here in the talk page. I believe it wouldn't be hard to call for somebody to discuss here since this is watched by almost many people.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted 100kb is a rule of thumb I would note the following featured country articles: Germany is in the neighborhood of 129 kb, Canada is around 133kb and Israel is at 144kb. Most country articles are at or around 100kb. I'd prefer to dispense with some photos rather than important text. My suggestions for slimming the article would be to remove the Mt. Apo photo, combine the mythology and literature section with something else, the same with the education section, maybe cut the infrastructure section that doesn't seem to do much, and cut out the not so good references since references also take up considerable space. In my opinion the History sections is closer to where it should be now but might benefit from some expansion. The Economy section is shallow and needs work too. Lambanog (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine I agree, ive taken into consideration your PoVs and I agree that I have made errors in defending wrong information I put up and which I am rightly castigated for and you have every right to edit. But I am glad that you all agree that having a long history subsection is justifiable. Therefore I implore the people at hand to accept the long subsection with 4 divisions but you can trim and edit it to your heart's content. I just want the format retained that's all, if ever Labanog and I made any wrong doings in it just edit the info but don't erase the whole thing. Another issue here is also about my propensity to be overly passionate with my words. Ill try to stop that. And also, I thank and praise my fellow editors who has defended our hard work and labor.

Now, shall we have a new consensus?

Resovled that: A long history subsection is justifiable and any error(s) in it deserves to be corrected just as long as the new expanded format is maintained in-order to give interpretative justice to a country with a overly epic history.

Yours Truly -gintong liwanag ng araw 58.71.29.98 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Now all I ask is that.

You're acting too hasty and only considering viewpoints from Lambanog. He/she said it might benefit from an expansion, it and it's closer to where it is now along with other suggestions of trimming. This does not say, yes let's revert. JL 09 said that longer does not mean better and if you haven't noticed, he doesn't trust the reliability of your edits. This does not mean, let's revert to my version then. I said that your revision was too long and there were problems with language/POV. This does not mean I support this reversion and there is consensus. JCRB by his/her edits supports a much shorter section. There is no consensus reached. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Politeness

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philippines/Archive 11 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.

Article policies

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

First I would ask Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw not to make ad hominem statements. Calling editors "silly" or "insurrectionists" is unacceptable in this Talk Page. Please discuss issues in a polite and constructive manner. Second, the consensus version was debated and agreed by many editors, not just myself. That's why it is a consensus, and that's why it deserves respect, even if many of those editors are not currently active. Changes can be made if they are properly discussed and agreed here. I am happy to discuss pre-Hispanic kingdoms, or pirate Limahong, or Juan Salcedo. But all information must be verfiable and balanced. The extended version was not only too long and detailed, it carried elements of POV and bias which are contrary to the objectives of an encyclopedia. JCRB (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag's reply:

Ok, observed. You can verify the information by just checking the reference. If it doesn't suit you or I made an error your welcomed to edit it. Im not trying to break concensus im just preserving the new one. I'm just defending our right to have a huge article.

That's all. You can trim the article whatever you want just as long as the format is respected. Thank You. 58.71.29.98 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PoV bias me? How? Our theses was supported by scholarly premises and cited with appropriate texts. Whereas it was more expository than the former one was. Now if you think it's biased your just welcomed to compare the citation between our new work and the old work you defend. Your work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328253797. And our new work. Our new body-of-work contained 188 sources and references vis-a-vis your edition which only contained 155. The basic rule in scholarship my friend is the rule of the info-support. The more the corpus is supported by various and diverse sources the more apt it is. So therefore by the sheer weight of our scholarly labor on our edition, we gain legitimacy. Im sorry but thats something you should accept.

Thank You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag ng Araw, please assume good faith. By continuing to speak the way you're doing right now, it may be a ground for blocking. Thanks.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong you're really pushing it. Like what I said on ANI, you have gained no consensus. From a review from SarekOfVulcan, he/she states that there are issues regarding you stating that there is a clear problem with you claiming consensus. Taken from ANI thread. This situation is no different. There is no consensus gained and any editor will agree by the discussion so far from the talk. Please stop reverting to your preferred version. It is clear that you're misunderstanding what the consensus is. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to revert it anymore it's quite frustrating to know that doing what you think is good is considered good-for-nothing. Instead ill just work hard at doing a concensus and appealing to your common sense and your sense of justice. What truly pisses me off is that; weve been expanding the history subsection for two freaking months now and nobody damn complained in the whole legnth of time about it, in fact the silence is a direct nod to letting us expand the work. Yet all of a sudden without any prior warning or even a discussion about it JCRB reverts the whole thing to an odler concensus. Efficetivly erasing 2 months of weat and labor, I was having a dang hard time then to juggle my semstral exams and expanding of this work but I didn't mind because I love to sacrifice for the common good. We were working on the assumption that the silence of the two months meant approval from the community at large. It would have been well and good if we were stopped right there and then but we weren't and now the history subsection has been expanded greatly to include the latest scientific breakthroughs and scholarly discoveries. Furthermore it was streamlined to form a coherent prose and lots of info though it was a bit excessive, which you have all rights to trim or whatever, im not impending your freedom to edit or whatever. Seriously our work for the past 2 months had more sources and made more common sense than the old consensus.

OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769 (Our version had complete dates and actually put the names of the important peoples establishing local states, CITED SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES & talked about crucial matters not discussed in the old version such as stating crucial: codexes, manuscripts or ancient incriptions; the militray campaigns by the Brunei sulatanate against the Kingdoms of tondo and Maynila, the all important surigao treasures, the destruction of Pirate-Lord Limahong, the mass murder of the prehispanic Philippine royalties in the Tondo Conspiracy and the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus) Overall our edition was more comprehensive and contained a lot of more sense. With 188 sources and a lot more streamlined format which is correct since featured articles tih this expanded format such as Germany and Canada even has a more expansive subsection than ours. Also, I have never denied anyone's right to edit freely, you can trim our work or whatever you want just as long as you PAY RESPECTS TO TWO MONTHS OF SWEAT, BLOOD AND FAILED SEMESTRAL EXAMINATIONS.

Now just compare the old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328584614

TO OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769

And judge by common sense which of the two is more appealing.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Thank You.

New Consensus Now Achieved

Considering the course of our discussions I am now in the understanding that a new concensus has been achieved. I will now revert the edition to Labanog's most recent version of it. Thank You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No consensus was achieved. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elockid. You know fully well that concensus has been achieved because of the lack of repartee from the opposing party. "The man with the last word on the matter is deemed right."

Hence, I implore you to just use your subtle-sense and agree to the logic of our passionate quests for the expanded edition of the section. You have witnessed our delibetations in the matter and I trust that deep inside your heart you know we are right. But if you insist more on the formalities of things rather than the substance of it. I fervently wish you could trascend that... But, thanks for arbitrating anyway.

Truly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest contacting the RFC team and the arbitration.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The only person who somewhat agrees with you is Lambanog and even Lambanog does not fully agree with you:

As I've stated before I believe the history section to be too long and it needs to be trimmed significantly. In that I will agree with JCRB. However, I do agree with you too that some additional details made the section better. I do not agree that human stories are what make it better though, those require too much detail for the purposes of this overview article. My problem with JCRB's paragraph is that it is heavy on the Spanish point of view and doesn't exactly link to many other articles making it inefficient. A greater proportion of the paragraph should treat with specifically Philippine related subjects. As it is, the proposed paragraph is a little generic. A couple of sentences could apply to other Spanish territories of the time just as well and many of the ideas are expressed simply with the term "Spanish colonizers".

Where in this does Lambanog say we should reinstate to my version? He/she said that he/she only agrees with you that some not all details where needed. Furthermore from what I can tell is that Lambanog is in the middle, supporting both JCRB and I and yourself. This is not a consensus. You already know that JCRB and I oppose such a long section and I already explained to you the problems with your edits. Yeah and this:

Granted 100kb is a rule of thumb I would note the following featured country articles: Germany is in the neighborhood of 129 kb, Canada is around 133kb and Israel is at 144kb. Most country articles are at or around 100kb. I'd prefer to dispense with some photos rather than important text. My suggestions for slimming the article would be to remove the Mt. Apo photo, combine the mythology and literature section with something else, the same with the education section, maybe cut the infrastructure section that doesn't seem to do much, and cut out the not so good references since references also take up considerable space. In my opinion the History sections is closer to where it should be now but might benefit from some expansion. The Economy section is shallow and needs work too. Lambanog (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did Lambanog state that we should revert back to your work and the second to last sentence seems to contradict that Lambanog absolutely agrees with you as well as the first statement above. I don't know how you can get that consensus was reached out of any of this. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to revert it anymore it's quite frustrating to know that doing what you think is good is considered good-for-nothing. Instead ill just work hard at doing a concensus and appealing to your common sense and your sense of justice. What truly pisses me off is that; weve been expanding the history subsection for two freaking months now and nobody damn complained in the whole legnth of time about it, in fact the silence is a direct nod to letting us expand the work. Yet all of a sudden without any prior warning or even a discussion about it JCRB reverts the whole thing to an odler concensus. Efficetivly erasing 2 months of weat and labor, I was having a dang hard time then to juggle my semstral exams and expanding of this work but I didn't mind because I love to sacrifice for the common good. We were working on the assumption that the silence of the two months meant approval from the community at large. It would have been well and good if we were stopped right there and then but we weren't and now the history subsection has been expanded greatly to include the latest scientific breakthroughs and scholarly discoveries. Furthermore it was streamlined to form a coherent prose and lots of info though it was a bit excessive, which you have all rights to trim or whatever, im not impending your freedom to edit or whatever. Seriously our work for the past 2 months had more sources and made more common sense than the old consensus.

OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769 (Our version had complete dates and actually put the names of the important peoples establishing local states, CITED SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES & talked about crucial matters not discussed in the old version such as stating crucial: codexes, manuscripts or ancient incriptions; the militray campaigns by the Brunei sulatanate against the Kingdoms of tondo and Maynila, the all important surigao treasures, the destruction of Pirate-Lord Limahong, the mass murder of the prehispanic Philippine royalties in the Tondo Conspiracy and the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus) Overall our edition was more comprehensive and contained a lot of more sense. With 188 sources and a lot more streamlined format which is correct since featured articles tih this expanded format such as Germany and Canada even has a more expansive subsection than ours. Also, I have never denied anyone's right to edit freely, you can trim our work or whatever you want just as long as you PAY RESPECTS TO TWO MONTHS OF SWEAT, BLOOD AND FAILED SEMESTRAL EXAMINATIONS which you all agred too by keeping silent and buidling on the expansion this past two months. Aslo dont play coy it wasn;t only us 3 who were expanding, others such as Gubanortoria and Boracay Bill also built and expanded on our work. This was a case of a silent concensus built upon a period of two months vis-a-vis an older concesus.

Now just compare the old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328584614

TO OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769

And judge by common sense which of the two is more appealing.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Thank You.

Please understand that there is an article named History of the Philippines, which all of your edits must be and deserves to be found. This article sorts summary of the history of the Philippines, not all of the Philippine history.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your language. What about these edits by Gubernatoria where they cited your edits as vandalism?

The edits by Gubernatoria over the last two months weren't even expansion. I don't find deleting whitespace expansion at all. It's actually the opposite:

This edit doesn't even pertain to the history section. It's in the lead of the article:

Edit 4

Finally this last edit by Gubernatoria over the past two months have been

Edit 5

Which is to remove fiction from the section that you call "we edited".

Now about Wtmitchell/Boracay Bill. These edits are not expansion to the history section and most of these edits are not even in the history section:

Edit 1 Reverting unexplained removal
Edit 2 Not in the history section
Edit 3 Here Wtmitchell is actually reverting your addition
Edit 4 Not in the history section
Edit 5 Not in the history section
Edit 6 Fixing tenses is not expansion
Edit 7 Not in the history section
Edit 8 This one was a revert but the edit summary doesn't match since he's reverting an edit made to the external links section.

You want to add anyone else who you say expanded on the history section? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When will you stop making baseless ad-hominem atacks against my character? Since you show humongous bias because you only attack errors in our work but never bother to review the errors of the old concensus? (Such as their lack of sources to support thesis & the inherent non-Filipino PoV it has? Furthermore JCRB doesn't even have a User Page yet why do you continue to support him/her?

Why oh why do you cause me so much heartache? Have you noticed the Gubanatoria didn't revert the whole thing. Only shaved off errors and according to the rules of concensus then, she agrees with the format but not the content. Likewise Labanog, I and JL continue to edit it without changing the format at all for the past 2 months. Trimmed erased or whatever but never reverted! If this was clearly against concensus how come people let this sort of editing pass-by for 2 whole months, it's like passivley agreeing!

Im not defending our content at all, neither am I saying im holier-than-thou, im just defending our format. Which is a labor of love.

Even though you guys hurt me for only doing this ONLY NOW (You should have done it earlier to save me months of sarifice and heart-ache which I will find an emotional need to justify since I invested so much in these) Im willing to forigve you if you just listen to reason.

Thank You

P.S.: And I'm willing to compromise even though I know in my heart that what I did was righteous. Since you would not stop trying to oppose democracy. We should all begin to work with a more expansive and righteous section than the old concensus but also less info-laden and detailed than the new one. Strike the golden mean, so to speak so that at least I can salvage some shred of decency from my 2 months of labors.

I'm suggesting we keep the subheaders: "Early History, Classical Epoch, Colonial Era and Contemporary Period" but trim down it's content. But it must contain important topics ignored in the old concensus such as the British Occupation, the Tondo Conspiracy, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and the Japanese occupation and the Gabriela Silang Rebellion.

Truly and Heartfully Yours.

Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you add the subtitles. I think they're quite helpful in navigating a long article. But like I said before and what other editors have been suggesting, you're welcome to add your editions to the sub-article History of the Philippines since this article is supposed to go on a higher breath of coverage on the history of the Philippines, the History section of the article does not need to cover every aspect of Philippine history. Also, why did you copy my sig? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No Consensus

"I corrected gramatical errors. If someone reverts this, then he is really stupid and I curse him with all my being. Nothing is as inexcusable as bad grammar in an international encyclopedia ", is the comment made by Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw to justify this edit [[4]] of his. I consider that comment to be destructive. No-one should call down any sort of curse on another person, whether known or unknown, in Wikipedia.

On 30 November 2009 Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw made the statement under New Consensus Now Achieved, that his edits were superior because the previous version did not mention "the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus). " The only genocide committed about that time which is historically verifiable, was by the Spanish against those tribes which resisted attempted Spanish domination, and after the reversion of Philippine rule from the British back to the Spanish, by the Spanish against the Chinese in Manila because they had overwhelmingly supported the British in preference to the Spanish. These events have been ignored in previous histories of the Philippines because those versions were still dependent on pro-Spanish accounts which often relied solely on Spanish propaganda. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw is invited to substantiate his assertion that there was genocide by the British, or retract his assertion and apologise for perpetuating propaganda.

Needless to say, I do not agree with his assertion that there is consensus over his many edits. Furthermore, I agree that re-writing should be in the specific History of the Philippines article with proper citations for all potentially contentious material, before a summarised version of the new consensus article can be inserted into the Philippines article.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw might also like to learn how to use his own personal sandbox where he can make changes and save them and continue to polish those changes for weeks or months if needed, and where no-one else can interfere with his editing, before copying the final text from his sandbox to the relevant discussion page for peer review. That is a scholarly approach, and one which is likely to avoid an enormous amount of friction and a great deal of ill-will. Personally I have found the sandbox method very useful for writing new articles and for major re-writes, and commend it to other interested wikipedia contributors as well. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest considering Will Beback's comment down below, under the RFC section.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that re-writing should be in the specific History of the Philippines article with proper citations for all potentially contentious material, before a summarised version of the new consensus article can be inserted into the Philippines article. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment. The British Occupation I think is not significant enough to be put on the main article, maybe in the subarticle, but not the main article. It wasn't very long and there weren't any big or long lasting consequences I can think off that resulted from the occupation. It's so insignificant that other encyclopedias didn't write about it such as Britannica. Some of the other topics that Gintong mentioned such as the Gabriela Silang Rebellion fit in the same category as the British occupation. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. JCRB (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It shows the Spanish occupation was not continuous and not without opposition. Also the Spanish opened their previously closed trade policy because of the British conquest. Further, the Chinese were expelled for decades from the Spanish Philippines because of their support of the British during the British occupation of Manila. Just because the Britannica has not yet caught up with more recent scholarship on this event doesn't mean the event is irrelevant. I am not a lover of British imperialism, but do think a balanced approach is better than censoring out an episode because of some editors' distaste for Britain or British colonialism. Some content should remain in this article, especially with a referral to the main article. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gubernatoria. I disagreed with the inclusion of the British occupation in the lead section but believe it should be mentioned in the history section. Since Gabriela Silang's revolt coincided with the British occupation, a brief sentence or two mentioning them to at least give a hyperlink to a more specific article should be workable. Lambanog (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ASEAN map

The infobox text clearly describes the former image of Philippines within ASEAN but we already changed the image to the orthographic projection of Philippines on the globe without ASEAN highlighted. I am trying to remedy this contradiction.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Does anyone else think that these bits of information belong in the lead?

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 166.9 billion (nominal).[15] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.[3] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.[3] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

This is not significant piece of info. It doesn't help summarize what the article is about which is one the purposes of the lead. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That should go in the Economy section. JCRB (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have any input/thoughts? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed that section in the lead at a time when the lead seemed rather lacking as was remarked in a previous general assessment. I have since added to the lead and consider the paragraph's inclusion in the lead now to be optional. The economy is of major enough importance to have mention in the lead and many references would follow such a format but I do notice that a more expository style seems to be the standard approach on other featured country articles here on Wikipedia which sometimes mention the economy in relation to other aspects such as education, health, or demographics in a lead paragraph. I would not object if the information was moved to the economy section which could use a great deal more facts and figures and expanded a little to give better context. Lambanog (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the economy is of major importance. But I don't think mentioning what the exports or trading partners is really needed in the lead. More significant topics I would mention are maybe the country's economic growth rate, it's a bit outdated but I heard somewhere that the growth rate was compared to India, the country is one of the main places for outsourcing, remittances, or that it is an NIC, etc. Are these acceptable suggestions? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's going to be removed from the lead I prefer it be removed entirely or as a secondary alternative supplemented. Replacing it with the other information referred to is going to lead to repetition. While the lead is supposed to summarize, I think repetition of certain terms there and in the economy section would look unattractive. Growth rate like net income or earnings for companies is a flashier number than GDP but it is more prone to fluctuation. Including growth rate in addition to GDP is fine but it is not a replacement for GDP. In short if it is going to be changed, I prefer it is removed entirely from the lead and worked into the economy section. Lambanog (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yearly growth is what I was mentioning, not quarter growth. This is so that we don't have to deal with fluctuations all the time. lso, I was talking about the growth rate for the economy (PPP or Nominal), not companies. The GDP figure is already listed in the infobox, and in some aspects, the infobox serves as part of the lead. So even by keeping the figure with the growth rate would still lead into being repetitive because we have the same figure mentioned twice especially in the same parts of the article (lead). The 47th largest economy in the world doesn't strike me as interesting. This was the point I was trying to get at with the GDP. But we can all agree that we can move this bit of information to the economy section? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment for Philippines

There is some sort of issues here: several section regarding the Philippines. Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and others expanded the article significantly, but JCRB, Elockid and the others said that consensus must be followed, and that revisions before Gintong's edits were done by consensus. WP:CONS said that if editors removed a user's insertion, then it shows clear disagreement. in order to push the insertion, there must be a consensus so that all of the community agree. In this case, no consensus has been reached yet, but Gintong keeps on adding his revisions/reverting edits back to his edits, citing a "consensus" (which in fact, there is no really a consensus) that he ultimately supports.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor - This article is quite long and if people wish to cover the history in more detail it should be moved to History of the Philippines. For the general principle, see WP:SUMMARY. Will Beback talk 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there was an existing consensus on the reverted history section with (subsections). The current section that addresses the history of the Philippines is inferior to that version angd many topics are not thoroughly addressed. Besides, the current version has a biased on colonial and contemporary (note: Western) topics. ---23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.9.201 (talk)

Off topic. 23prootie is currently blocked for using multiple account. Does this signify block evasion?--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If he/she edits while being blocked, then it does. That last IP used by 23prootie (the one above) was blocked for block evasion. 23prootie is also de facto banned so he/she is not allowed edit until he/she appeals their block to ArbCom. So in fact he/she is block and ban evading. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New Changes to History Section

I would encourage all editors to discuss changes in the History Section here. Long discussions have taken place over the history of the Philippines due to its complexity and varying points of view, but a consensus was reached. There is still room for improvement and the debate must continue, but this must be in an orderly manner, with neutrality and verifiability, and respecting the current version as a starting point. I appreciate the comprehension of all editors. JCRB (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing the phrase "such as the code of law, printing and the calendar". It was removed by another editor before me and I prefer it not be included as well. I do not see a special reason to single out these elements of Western civilization for mention. The Philippines didn't become a noted publishing center for example. One could as easily choose the hacienda system, guns, and tomatoes as Spanish contributions. You say it is part of a consensus paragraph. I looked at a previous page you linked to to support your claim and I didn't see people actively supporting the paragraph as much as making comments on other things or no comment. What you do seem to have support for is keeping the overall article size relatively compact. That is a separate issue. On this matter you now have at least two editors who have actively opposed this phrase. Unless other editors wish to make their thoughts known, I will be removing the said phrase. Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude "code of law, printing and the calendar". These were elements introduced by Europeans in the 16th century and the information is relevant and appropriate. If you read Nick Joaquin you will see that other Western advances were brought to the Philippines including: the plow, the wheel, shipbuilding, urban planning, stone architecture, the concept of municipality, the railroad, and others. However, only code of law, printing and the calendar were considerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnged prominent. Please respect this. You said earlier you were not familiar with the previous discussion and consensus. Please read it here [5]. JCRB (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic here is that if we add Western contributions to the history and culture then we might as well add Indian, Malay, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and indigenous ones as well. The history section is not intended to support a singular worldview. If you continue to push for the inclusion of those topics then you must also be prepared to accept the inclusion of other topics that is outside of your liking.--124.104.34.236 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a heads up. This is most likely banned user 23prootie who is using the IP above. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is whether the history section is balanced or not and right now it appears to be tilted towards a Western or contemporary view. It is unfortunate that some try to mislead the discussion by adding trivial and unimportant topics. Also, JCRB's reasoning that consensus had been reached and is tilted towards their view is illogical. Consensus is yet to be reached or has been reached but is against JCRB's views (article history from October to early November).--124.104.34.236 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

JCRB, you are still the only editor I see so far actively supporting the inclusion of the phrase even after looking through the archive page that you refer to. Code of law has political implications making it open to NPOV concerns and begs for a particular definition regardless. Printing I wouldn't quibble with except that printing has little special relevance to the Philippines and is something any European nation could have brought with the same effect. The use of the calendar may have been promoted by Spanish institutions but it could conceivably have come via Islamic or Chinese traders. Due to the foregoing I oppose their inclusion. Unless Elockid, Howard the Duck, or someone else wants to chime in and make their position clearer I'll presume they don't have one on this matter. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Law codes, printing, and calendars, were in use in parts of the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The Spanish brought the Gregorian Calendar, western European printing, and Roman-based law. That correction was made months ago, but some overly-enthusiastic editor has since reverted it back to the inaccurate Spanish propaganda. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please find consensus here before changing things you don't like. Law codes, printing, and the Gregorian calendar did not exist prior to the arrival of the Spanish according to writer Nick Joaquin (see his book "Culture & History"). If you disagree find a reliable source that disproves it. A code of law is a written set of laws or regulations, and that is important in the history of civilizations. I don't see the POV in that. Other elements of western civilization introduced were: the plow, the wheel, the clock, the municipality, shipbuilding, urban planning, and stone architecture. There is no need to list them all, but a few are certainly worth mentioning. JCRB (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other editors have had the opportunity to weigh in on this issue and I don't see anyone else actively supporting the inclusion of the phrase while two others have expressed opposition. You may not see the POV issue but others do. The absence of the disputed phrase has been accepted for more than a couple of months. It can already be said to hold consensus. You are making efforts to revert the article to a previous version from months back despite contributions of multiple editors in the intervening time and the lack of clear support from other editors on this matter. Spanish contributions in terms of unifying the Philippines islands into a single political entity, Christianity, and universal education are already given specific mention aside from the catchall "introduced elements of Western civilization". In the culture section Spanish influence in Filipino architecture, naming, and cuisine is also stated. If more Spanish specific influences deserve mention then something like the hacienda system I feel should be given priority. It is a distinct influence in the Spanish-Filipino context and continues to have a lasting impact. You claimed previously the article needed to be shortened and pushed a previous edit for that purpose. Here is an instance where removing a disputed phrase will go towards shortening the article. Lambanog (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lambanog, I don't understand your opposition to mentioning a few elements of western civilization introduced in the colonial period. Maybe it is you that has the POV issue against Spain and the colonial past. I beleive it was you who mentioned "Spanish propaganda" at some point. Let me remind you that information must be verifiable and neutral. No other editors have opposed the inclusion of this sentence, which as I said, gained consensus some time ago. The exclusion of "code of law, printing and the Gregorian calendar" does not have consensus. Please be constructive and do not erase it again. Also, someone has added examples of vegetables and fruits introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century: I do not see the need for that, but I do not oppose it either because it enriches the history section. JCRB (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Gubernatoria is the one who called it "Spanish propaganda" 4 paragraphs up just before your earlier reply, not me. Another user with IP address 124.104.34.236 has voiced clear objection as well. You claim consensus from a few months back, yet I cannot identify any other editors who have actively supported the inclusion of the phrase and versions of the article without it have existed continuously for more than a couple of months. Please enumerate the editors that support you in this to make clear the consensus you speak of. Otherwise consensus would seem to be against its inclusion and I will continue to remove the disputed phrase. The use of sourced material is ultimately up to the discretion of the majority of editors. Going by your current logic arguing for the phrase's inclusion because it can be sourced to Mr. Joaquin, all the material recently removed at your insistence that can be properly sourced should stay despite editor objections based on length. Speaking of the Joaquin reference, since you seem to be actively referring to it I presume you added it. It does not seem accessible online and the citation lacks some information. A more detailed citation of the reference would be appreciated. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a book on Powerbooks Glorietta about Precolonial and Spanish history of the Philippines. I haven't bought it and I forgot the title but I've read snippets (ha ha) and it says that H. Otley Beyer described the Ifugao calendar "as the most perfect". So if anything, "calender" should be removed. Dunno about printing and code of law, although there was an acocunt by Legazpi himself that the people followed something. –Howard the Duck 02:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... See these search results, particularly this. "The Ifugao, for example, were said to possess the world's most perfect calendar (See Beyer, Otley, "Ifugaos using world's most perfect calender." Philippine Free Press, 26 July 1924.) There is much evidence that the Filipino knew...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That blog probably copied every book that has a chapter of that issue. With that said, it's probably wise to remove "Gregorian calendar" from the text; the Gregorian calendar was created/fixed up primarily for Christian holidays so it wouldn't be use for indigenous Filipinos who were not Christians, although they still used calendars. –Howard the Duck 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

People are fiddling with the history section constantly in an apparent attempt to distort history and facts. Information must be verifiable and neutral. I would kindly ask the editors to respect the version of the history section which gained consensus earlier. Lambanog, you are right, it was Gubernatoria that mentioned "Spanish propaganda", not you (my apologies). The editors who participated in the previous consensus were: Howard the Duck, Aladdin Zane, Boracay Bill and myself. Howard the Duck, you were part of the editor team that discussed the paragraph on the colonial period which achieved consensus some time ago. It started about here [6] and ended here [7]. All editors agreed to this. There is no reason why this should be changed unless new verifiable information is brought forward. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced during Spanish rule, and there is not much point arguing about that. You yourself agreed to that piece of information a while ago, as well as the "code of law" and "printing". These are facts. As for "political unification", there is no question that colonial rule achieved this. Before 1565 the country was divided into hundreds of political units, be it chiefdoms, kin groups or sultantes. Again, I would ask that issues are discussed HERE before changes are randomly made on the article. JCRB (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with the previous contributor, but the Spanish did not pacify the Sultanate of Sulu or the Gran Cordillera of Luzon, or other highland areas, such as most mountainous areas of Palawan. Therefore the Spanish never unified the whole of the archipelago. It was not until well into the American period that political unification could be said to have been achieved for the whole archipelago, shaky though that unification still is. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

JCRB, Howard the Duck and Boracay Bill now known as Wtmitchell are still active participants. Howard the Duck has also expressed some reservations regarding the Gregorian calendar while Bill hasn't commented. Even in the original discussions I did not see explicit support for the changes that you are pushing and that are now under contention. Lambanog (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re the Gregorian calendar, this would probably be the best source, but it is not previewable online. this source says that Pope Gregory XIII proclaimed on October 4, 1582 that it would be followed and that catholic countries (including Spain) adopted it immediately. Legazpi had arrived in the Philippines in 1565, 17 years prior to Pope Gregory's proclamation of the calendar. The Spanish in the Philippines would no doubt have adopted it in areas which they controlled as soon as they learned of its adoption by the Spanish government. This source says that the Philippines inherited the Gregorian calendar from Spain. This source says that the coming of Spain brought the Gregorian calendar to the Philippines (though, to pick a nit, since the calendar was proclaimed some years after the coming of Spain, the coming of Spain didn't bring it). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the factual accuracy of whether the Spanish brought the Gregorian calendar to the Philippines is in dispute as much as its relevance or notability in the context of the article and NPOV concerns. The following are some names and topics that aren't even mentioned in the article: Lapu-Lapu, the hacienda system, agrarian reform, abuses committed by Spain and the Roman Catholic Church and its friars, Apolinario Mabini, Gregorio del Pilar, George Dewey, Battle of Manila Bay, Macario Sakay, William Howard Taft, Francis Burton Harrison, Douglas MacArthur, Manuel Quezon [arguably deserves more than a picture reference], Sergio Osmena, Jose Laurel, Tomoyuki Yamashita, Claro M. Recto, Manuel Roxas, many of the WWII engagements in the Philippines, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, etc. Lambanog (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided the above comment in reaction to mention above that I hadn't commented re the gregorian calendar. I see that the current article version doesn't mention that at all, so discussion of it here seems to be moot. Re this discussion in general, I favor closer adherence to Wikipedia:Summary style#Basic technique. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no dispute that the Spanish brought the Gregorian calendar to the Philippines; the thing is if it is important enough, or better yet, what does it imply? The Thirteen Colonies adopted the Gregorian Calender pretty late and provided chaos with birthdates with the Old Style/New Style designations, but (I haven't checked), the U.S. article doesn't explicitly state this fact. As I've said, the Gregorian calendar then is of use only for Christian (particularly Roman Catholic) countries, the early Filipinos would have no use for the Gregorian calendar.

Now on the question if there were calendars used in the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish, as what was searched upon the internet, the Ifugao people apparently had one. If this was the case, is it worth mentioning this fact too? Or we should keep it off? Or remove calendars altogether?

The code of law is pretty hazy, but since the Code of Kalantiyaw was ruled as a hoax, and, if, the Mandala system had been used in the Philippines, it could've been considered as a "code of law" but not "quite" in the Western sense of the word.

We don't have to rely on just one source; if a source doesn't agree with the others, we can add it too provided it is well accepted by others. –Howard the Duck 07:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it was agreed in the previous consensus, I am happy to remove the Gregorian calendar. I think it is useful to know that the calendar has been used in the Philippines since the 16th century (much earlier than in other Asian countries). Up to you. Instead, I have included the plow and the wheel, which are other important advances brought during colonial rule. JCRB (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Copies of three versions of the disputed paragraph:

(1) Spanish rule brought political unification to the archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the Gregorian calendar.^[43] The Philippines was governed as a territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid after the Mexican War of Independence. The Manila galleons linking Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year between the 16th and 19th century. Trade introduced foods such as corn, tomatoes, potatoes, chili peppers, and pineapples from the Americas.^[44] Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the lowland inhabitants to Christianity and founded schools, a university, and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced education, establishing free public schooling in Spanish.^[45]

(2) Spanish rule unsuccessfully attempted to achieve the political unification of the whole archipelago of previously independent kingdoms and communities. Unification of the Philippines was not achieved until the twentieth century. ^[46] The Spanish introduced elements of western civilization such as the western European code of law,^[47] western printing ^[48] and the Gregorian calendar ^[49], and also smallpox, venereal disease, leprosy, wars of aggression with firearms, deforestation, tribute, alienation of land, forced migration, tribute taxes, Spanish trade monopolies, and other similar things.^[50]. The Philippines was governed as a territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid after the Mexican War of Independence. The Manila galleons linking Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year between the 16th and 19th century. Spanish trade introduced foods such as corn, tomatoes, potatoes, chili peppers, and pineapples from the Americas.^[44] Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the lowland inhabitants to Christianity and founded some schools, a university, and a few hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced free public schooling in Spanish ^[51] for those who were selected to attend.

(3) Spanish rule contributed significantly to bringing political unity to the archipelago.^{[citation needed]} From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as a territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, before it was administered directly from Madrid after the Mexican War of Independence. The Manila galleons linking Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year between the 16th and 19th century. Trade introduced foods such as corn, tomatoes, potatoes, chili peppers, and pineapples from the Americas.^[44] Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the lowland inhabitants to Christianity and founded schools, a university, and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced free public schooling in Spanish for those selected to attend.^[52]

Editors are invited to make their preference known or to suggest improvements. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No! The Philippines Is Not In Recession

THE PHILIPPINES’ breaching of its deficit cap this year should not be a major concern if the shortfall is narrowed as the economy picks up in 2010, ratings firm Standard & Poor’s (S&P) said.

There are still few economic indicators that the Philippines will not be in recession. One of these few indicators are:

1 Filipino expats remittances
2 Real estate growth
3 Expenditures of Politicians on its coming Presidential Elections
4 Infrastures construction in full swing
5 Major real estate developers still launching more and more development to cater international market demands

S&P has assigned a "BB-" for the Philippines’ long-term foreign credit, a "BB+" for its local currency rating and "B" for short-term ratings. A "BB" rating is two notches below investment grade. It means an issuer of debt is seen as less vulnerable in the near-term but faces uncertainties. A "B" rating, a notch lower, points to increased vulnerabilities.

Life is always full of uncertainties anyway. Unlike the western countries which have been badly affected by economic crunch, the Philippines is still blessed to have something to be thankful about.

Don Magsino MBA Managing Director Ayala Prestige Ltd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmagsino (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this message was put here. Can you explain the reason? In any event an overview encyclopedic article should not be treated as a news report. Talk of whether a country is currently in recession or not unless of special note doesn't really belong in my opinion. 120.28.190.76 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It states the fact, so inclusion of content that the country is in recession is not an off-topic debate. I am glad that these things are reviewed by third parties.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Health in the Philippines

I propose to merge this article with Health in the Philippines. Health in the Philippines is not large, but relevant. Sarcelles (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard practice it seems is for the health care of countries to have their own separate article. There has also been talk that this current article is getting too big as it is and that more material should be placed in subarticles. For these reasons I oppose the merge proposal and believe the separate article on health is fully appropriate. 120.28.190.76 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No way for merger, the standard here in Wikipedia is the health section of a particular country should have their own article. Therefore, I oppose the merge proposal.Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the "Health in ek ek" article but adding a health subsection in the demographics section.--124.104.35.224 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is now a Health summary in the Philippines article referring to Health in the Philippines as the main article. The main article needs substantial expansion and updating. I suggest the merger proposal flag now be removed from both articles. Gubernatoria (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the "History" section

That section does not mention the nearly-ten-year presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a previous version did. I believe that version should be restored.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History section/Request for comment

I am seeking a request for comment regarding the "History" section of "Philippines" regarding two conflicting versions both claiming "consensus": a [lengthy version] advocated by Lambanog, 23prootie, & Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and a [short and limited] one advocated by Elockid, JL 09 and JCRB. This discussion is primarily about the length of that section not the content and no discussions about neutrality or verifiability are currently present. I would like to note that here are no restrictions regarding the length of that section as seen in the "History" section of the "United States" article. Also the GA review did not find any controversy regarding the lengthy version of that section. A request for arbitration had been requested that has been rejected.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an issue separate from my actual request, I am advocating for the lengthy version since it gives more comprehensive information about the history of the country.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lambanog's comments on [November 27].--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For Reference

From the "History" section of the "United States" article.

Click [show] to view list

From the "History" section of the "United States" article.

History

Native Americans and European settlers

The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, are most http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&action=edit&section=29commonly believed to have migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago.^[53] Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox.^[54]

In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies.^[55] Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island.

In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. Many new immigrants, especially to the South, were indentured servants—some two-thirds of all Virginia immigrants between 1630 and 1680.^[56] By the turn of the century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. All legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonial population grew rapidly. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain; nearly one in five Americans were black slaves.^[57] Though subject to British taxation, the American colonials had no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain.

Independence and expansion

Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington. Proclaiming that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789.

After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.

Attitudes toward slavery were shifting; a clause in the Constitution protected the African slave trade only until 1808. The Northern states abolished slavery between 1780 and 1804, leaving the slave states of the South as defenders of the "peculiar institution." The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, made evangelicalism a force behind various social reform movements, including abolitionism.

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism. A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845. The concept of Manifest Destiny was popularized during this time.^[58] The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest. The U.S. victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest. The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 further spurred western migration. New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures.

Civil War and industrialization

Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments, as well as violent conflicts over the spread of slavery into new states. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the largely antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in 1860. Before he took office, seven slave states declared their secession—which the federal government maintained was illegal—and formed the Confederate States of America. With the Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, the American Civil War began and four more slave states joined the Confederacy. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in the Confederacy to be free. Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves,^[59] made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power.^[60]

After the war, the assassination of Lincoln radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves. The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe hastened the country's industrialization. The wave of immigration, lasting until 1929, provided labor and transformed American culture. National infrastructure development spurred economic growth. The 1867 Alaska purchase from Russia completed the country's mainland expansion. The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 was the last major armed conflict of the Indian Wars. In 1893, the indigenous monarchy of the Pacific Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in a coup led by American residents; the United States annexed the archipelago in 1898. Victory in the Spanish–American War the same year demonstrated that the United States was a world power and led to the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.^[61] The Philippines gained independence a half-century later; Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories.

World War I, Great Depression, and World War II

At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the United States remained neutral. Most Americans sympathized with the British and French, although many opposed intervention.^[62] In 1917, the United States joined the Allies, turning the tide against the Central Powers. After the war, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations. The country pursued a policy of unilateralism, verging on isolationism.^[63] In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, a range of policies increasing government intervention in the economy. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration.

The United States, effectively neutral during World War II's early stages after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, began supplying materiel to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Participation in the war spurred capital investment and industrial capacity. Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war.^[64] Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war.^[65] The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war.^[66]

Cold War and protest politics

The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for power after World War II during the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States promoted liberal democracy and capitalism, while the Soviet Union promoted communism and a centrally planned economy. Both supported dictatorships and engaged in proxy wars. American troops fought Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950–53. The House Un-American Activities Committee pursued a series of investigations into suspected leftist subversion, while Senator Joseph McCarthy became the figurehead of anticommunist sentiment.

The 1961 Soviet launch of the first manned spaceflight prompted President John F. Kennedy's call for the United States to be first to land "a man on the moon," achieved in 1969. Kennedy also faced a tense nuclear showdown with Soviet forces in Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States experienced sustained economic expansion. A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination. Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, expanded a proxy war in Southeast Asia into the unsuccessful Vietnam War. A widespread countercultural movement grew, fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and others led a new wave of feminism that sought political, social, and economic equality for women.

As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford. The Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s was marked by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War.

Contemporary era

Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War. The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration and the dot-com bubble.^[67] A civil lawsuit and sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office. The 2000 presidential election, one of the closest in American history, was resolved by a U.S. Supreme Court decision—George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, became president.

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. In response, the Bush administration launched a "War on Terrorism". In late 2001, U.S. forces led an invasion of Afghanistan, removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. Taliban insurgents continue to fight a guerrilla war. In 2002, the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds.^[68] Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans. On November 4, 2008, amid a global economic recession, Barack Obama was elected president. He is the first African American to hold the office.

Comments from involved users (not part of the Request for Comment nomination)

Would you please stop removing {{spa}} tags? It is considered as talk page refactoring. It was posted here before you did out-of-this-article edits. This wasn't a hijack, you tend to be in an edit warring behaviourism. Remember that you're posting and reposting talk comments which is really bad.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the contemporary section of History of the Philippines article which discussed Gloria Arroyo's presidency. To have a more comprehensive description about the so-called reign of Arroyo, then a separate article is a must, like Presidency of Barack Obama (I guess everything Obama had, is already in Wikipedia) article. As what people here agreed to (and an extracted comment from earlier RFC), this article should only covered substantial things about Philippines' history. If we are going to lengthen the history section, then, what shall we do to this main article? It is very plausible to see things in this article that is not on that article, to see information that is not on the mainspace but is in here. Furthermore,

Analyzing WP:LENGTH, the article will tend to increase size exceeding 32 KB. Though it is okay to your browsers to open pages like that, think that you are not the only one who is looking Wikipedia. Think of all the people that will have the difficulty to view it.

In lieu with the previous notion, long articles may be subjected for splitting, and thus efforts will all be reverted into much simpler yet comprehensive details.

Furthermore, if Gintong and Lambanog pushes the article into GA or possibly FA status, then being long is not the basis of being GA or FA.

Finally, the main reasoning here is that there will be discrepancies on the information beforehand found in this article in the mainspace. And copying it again to the other one makes it not good, and duplicates every single word.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have liked a 'separate opinion' from an 'uninvolved editor' so I'll repost this again and please avoid commenting. This is not a debate meant for you.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing {{spa}} tags? It is considered as talk page refactoring. It was posted here before you did out-of-this-article edits.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed a signature. It is not necessary and was placed there to discredit me. I know your tactics. Please avoid doing them.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am against that you repost and repost this again. I am posting my comments regarding my analysis on the article. You are making this talk page very long and difficult to access.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not debate. Wait for an uninvolved editor to make their comments then make your own, Thank you!--124.104.35.184 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[Refactoring Note: I've cleaned this page up from messy multiple postings of the exact same info. Here is a diff: [8]. This is what the page looked like before refactoring: [9]. Check the talk page history if more details needs to be examined. I think I retained all pertinent info and only removed redundant material but I may have missed something or removed something I shouldn't have. Apologies if I did.] 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

lower case/upper case

Is there any reason why some of the regions listed in the Administrative Divisions section are in upper case? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The regions listed in upper case are neologistic portmanteaus of the provinces that they consist of. For example the CALABARZON region comprises CAvite, LAguna, BAtangas, Rizal, and QueZON provinces. MIMAROPA and SOCCSKSARGEN are similarly named. Lambanog (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag ng Araw's Edits

Gintong Liwanag ng Araw I have to make certain comments on your edits.

The Boxer Codex description you added is unsupported by anything I can see and is unnecessary. What exactly does it add?
Animism isn't a formal religion and is not capitalized. Pirate Warlord is not a proper title and is not capitalized.
Sultan Bolkiah's "missionary zeal" is unsupported. Seems to suggest he was a very religiously oriented leader. It needs support.
Sultan Azim ud-Din I from what scant information is readily available didn't raise a revolt against Spain but was simply freed by the British.
You are introducing biased sounding language (e.g. "exterminating", "Revolutionista"). It weakens the article.

I will fix some of the grammatical errors, tag some of the concerns, and give you the opportunity to support some of the assertions (please use strong published reliable sources) but will remove them eventually if they are not fixed. Lambanog (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on 1. and 2., the Boxer Codex represents the transition between the classical and colonial eras, both should be given an equal amount of focus. Animism (the term) should be capitalized since is an umbrella term for several beliefs/practices, both organized and unorganized. I suggest using the term Philippine Mythology/Philippine traditional beliefs to add more neutrality.--124.104.35.224 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify I'm not against the picture from the Boxer Codex but am expressing concern with the modified description. I can see no reference to "gold thread" in the Boxer Codex article. Even if there was, what's the significance? It seems pilit. On the second point, I agree animism is a general term that covers a wide range of beliefs and practices and that is precisely the reason it should be in small caps. It is not a formal system of belief or a proper noun or based on a a proper noun. Monotheism, pantheism, and deism I think should also be in small caps if they do not start a sentence. Philippine mythology is actually largely influenced by Hinduism so that may not be accurate. Regardless, I note earlier sourced versions of that section do not include animism or Taoism in their descriptions. I have therefore removed reference to both from the sentence. Lambanog (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ginto Liwanag ng Araw you have made several additional edits and I'd like to give my views on some of them and hear your reaction.

G: In ancient times the archipelago was initially populated by Negritos supplanted by successive waves of Austronesian peoples who established rival Malay, Indianized, and Islamic kingdoms [...] There was a brief British occupation in the 18th century.

It's the lead section so pithy language is called for. I have no problems with Negritos being mentioned but in describing the Malays, "rival kingdoms" is all that is necessary although I would note whether to call them "kingdoms" is debatable so I actually would prefer not mentioning that at all. Enumeration is unwarranted in my view since it is repeated later. For the reasons mentioned previously I don't think the British need to be mentioned.

Ok You don't need to call them rival kingdoms but you can call them rival states but I have to push through with Negritos because they really need to be mentioned cause they are our aboriginal group. Also the British damn need to be mentioned in Zulueta, Francisco M. and Abriel M. Nebres' "Philippine History and Government Through the Years. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, Inc., 2003" They mentioned that as a direct consequence of the British occupation of Manila, the Spanish government eventually allowed the general opening of Philippine ports to world trade in order to compete with the widespread mercanatalist policies of the British empire. So in shrt the British occupation was a watershed moment which needs it's proper due.

G: rich and saw the rise of family run business houses, such as the prestigious 313 year old Ayala Company.^[69]

Jarring to see this in the history section. Ayala companies are mentioned later in the article. "Ayala Company" is not the official name nor did it exist 313 years ago. Description of "prestigious" in the context given makes no sense and is without basis and could be seen as promotional. Reference given is not cited properly and does not support the statement in the article.

Ok, I admit my description of Ayala is non-sensical but the inclusion of the growth of family-corporations whould be included because this era is where they were founded and are really important in our modern times. FYI San Miguel Beer, the Lopez Company, Banko de Oro and the Royal Philippine Company were established in this time.

G: but the subsequent trade monopolies and the encomienda system eventually impoverished the masses and concentrated wealth on the new principalia elite; borne from the union of the subjugated aristocracy and the Spanish military hierarchy.

Provocative statement with no citation.

Sorry those are true statements which I forgot to use citations but here they are! "Casal, Fr. Gabriel S., et al. Kasaysayan, The story of the Filipino Peopl. Volume II, Asia Publishing Company Limited, 1998."

G: This was fueled by the disgust of of the Sangley class over unfair taxation, the abuse of forced labor in the polo y servicio, illustrado frustration over the withholding of the rights to democracy by dissolving Philippine representation in the Spanish Cortes and discrimination against Philippine born Spaniards (Criollos) by the peninsulares.

With a citation this could probably stand in my view.

And here are my citations "Corpuz, Onofre D. Saga and Triumph (The Filipino Revolution against Spain). Manila: The Philippine Centennial Commission 1999."

G: Genocidal war tactics^[70] and diplomatic embargoes employed by the Americans against the already war weary Philippine forces hastily crippled the nascent 1st Republic.

Provocative statement that probably would best require consensus.

How could this be freaking "provocative"? The New York Journal itself (An American company mind you) that published this material which meant that its coming from the American side of the bias.

G: colonization, warring, exterminating, surged, oppression

Using charged and emotional language.

You can change: "colonization" to settling, warring to rival, exterminating to neautralizing, surged to rising and opression into punishment.

G: and Sepoy mercenaries [...] and his makeshift army of Malay militia and Chinese auxilaries

Unnecessary detail. The fascination with sepoy mercenaries is a bit mystifying.

No its not an uncessary detail because the races of the mercenaries used reveals the geopolitical order of the war.

G: by Hashemite prince, Hashem Syed Abu Bakr

If a citation can be found I wouldn't oppose.

Heres your citation: Scott, William Henry. Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1992.

G: citation: "Cultural Landmarks and Their Interactions with Economic Factors in the Second Millennium in the Philippines" Written by Benito Legarda Jr. (Published by Kinaadman, Volume XXIII Year 2001) [...] {{Harvnb|Scott|1992|p=42}}

Sources are not accessible online and the sources have been used for various statements that were corrupted by later insertions. Could you give a direct quote to affirm their contents? If not another source would be preferable. I also note you are using the {{tl:citation}} and {{harv}} templates when all other citations in this article have been converted to and use those following the {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, or similar format.

Other lines G: after bitter propaganda wars between the democratically elected Philippine senate and the American controlled Philippine Commission, the nation was granted Semi-autonomous [...] eventually climaxing in the destruction of the ancient castle-city of Intramuros. This obliterated most of the nation's irreplaceable cultural and architectural artifacts [...] but it was still chained into the debt bondage due to unequal treaties with the United States.

Im not pulling that info out of my but. 2 books proclaim this: 1)Leuterio, Florida C. Philippine History and Government,/A Centennial Editorial. Manila: St. Augustine Publications, Inc. 1997. 2) Zulueta, Francisco M. and Abriel M. Nebres. Philippine History and Government Through the Years. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, Inc., 2003

Display similar concerns as stated in the above. I might have missed a couple of things but I think you get the idea. Because of all the above I am going to revert the edits. With some discussion, clarification, and clear citations perhaps I can support the inclusion of some of these or you can convince others to. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I put my edits into your paragraph hopefully it will explain this and that you would reconsider my version of the article cause I dont invent this. Im merely a humble copier.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply: My main concern is that you wish to include significant changes that alter the overall tone and focus of the history section. I note the history section accounts for the majority of the disputes. I also note that additions to it add to the size of the article and that has previously prompted a large reversion to a shorter version. After these additions, do you plan on adding more and giving yet more detail? When will it stop? Other editors have consistently stated a wish for brevity and have pointed to WP:SUMMARY. Are you willing to signify a commitment to that guideline? I can understand the wish for a very detailed and complete article but my own priority is hopefully raising this article to GA status. The two goals are in conflict as you will see if you read the GA criteria. Loads of additional details are unnecessary and actually detrimental especially if the info is minor and citations are poor or formatted inconsistently. If you don't think so please take a look at the history section of the FA on India to see what is considered a good enough history section for a FA. Also realize the bar for what an FA should be has been raised since.

I do not wish to interfere in the work of another editor so I as I have said I will refrain from reverting simply for the sake of reverting good faith attempts at continuously improving the article but I am in the process of continuously improving the article as well so will be pushing the version I am working on to the top with each edit aimed at improvement. As I see it separate versions for separate visions of what this article should look like being developed concurrently may provide a way for editors to not step on each others toes too much since that way each editor is largely responsible for how their vision of the article is realized, but ultimately consensus will decide what stays there. I have stated what I see are some of the inherent difficulties in your approach but if you can produce a great looking article maybe you can bring consensus to accept it. Lambanog (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Biota and Natural Resources

The term "Biota" is confusing and too scientific. I suggest more commonly used terms such as "Flora and fauna", "Plant and animal life", or maybe "Biodiversity". Even "Natural Resources" or "Natural Life" might be better.--124.104.45.106 (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was previously "Natural resources" and I changed it to include biota because the majority of the section was about plants and wildlife. I was copying precedent set in some featured country articles. "Flora and fauna and natural resources" seems a little extended and just "Flora and fauna" might cause one to overlook the part about mining. Still if the current heading isn't that appealing I have no problem with seeing it reverted back to simply "Natural resources". Lambanog (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have since made alterations separating some of the geological natural resources and placing them in the geography section. Lambanog (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

From what I can tell this article is not being actively reassessed as of right now. I will therefore remove the banner and nominate the page Talk:Philippines/GA2 for deletion. Lambanog (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article is nowhere near GA standard yet. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not near Featured Article standards but it might be approaching GA standards. A couple of rewrites and fixes or removals of tags and it might yet get there within a month if edit warring doesn't come up again. I took a quick glance at some of the GA country articles and I'm not terribly impressed with them. I'm curious which sections do you consider the weakest? Lambanog (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm up in the highlands and using internet cafes. I'll look more closely when I get back to Manila in February, if you haven't fixed it all by then..... Gubernatoria (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Literature

Until de WWII the very best of the Filipino literature was written in spanish, many hispanofilipino authors were born in the first half of the century: Jesus Balmorí, Adelina Gurrea Monasterio, Enrique Fernandez Lumba, Evangelina Guerrero, all of them won the Zobel price, the oldest literary prize in the Islands, for their works in spanish language. Since WWII the production of spanish works declided rapidly, due to the huge casualties of spanish speakers during WWII at Intramuros, but there are still live several authors like Edmundo Farolán and Guillermo Gómez Rivera for instace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.21.3 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction requested for Gubernatoria's revert on SRTS

I see he reverted Lambanog's contribution about the SRTS based on how it's supposedly 'gov propaganda'. I wouldn't usually mind it as I'm not a fan of the current administration either, but he added a line that is simply inaccurate:

The three services are totally separate and none share common stations.

The whole point of the SRTS project is to create links between these stations. In fact, three of them are already in service out of a total of seven, as shown here. I suggest the passage is reverted back to Lambanog's edit. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi . Just another comment . if you looking at the total area of the Philippines it has an error . im not sure how to fix it but if someone can please take note and correct it

The three services are totally separate and none share common stations is correct. Take Cubao for example. There are two separate stations above two separate roads. To move from one station to another you have to walk along various walkways and through a large shopping mall. None of the stations are common, although the national government is attempting to provide much needed covered walkways between some of them. Walkways do not make the services inter-related. That is just government hype. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the garbled area display. It was due to an undocumented quirk of the {{infobox country}} template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be constructive and discuss changes to the History Section Here

Please stop the edit war in the History Section and discuss your suggestions HERE. As explained over five times, the following paragraph on the colonial period GAINED CONSENSUS some time ago:

Spanish rule brought political unification to the archipelago that later become the Philippines and introduced elements of western civilization such as the plow, the wheel, the code of law, and printing.^[71]. From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as a territory of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, before it was administered directly from Madrid after the Mexican War of Independence. The Manila galleons linking Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year between the 16th and 19th century. Trade introduced foods such as corn, tomatoes, potatoes, chili peppers, and pineapples from the Americas.^[44] Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity and founded schools, universities, and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced free public schooling in Spanish.^[72]

Some editors made the point that the Gregorian calendar is not worth mentioning. I disagree because the Philippines was one of the first Asian countries to adopt it. However, I have accepted removing it to move forward, and instead mentioning other elements of western civilization such as the plow and the wheel. Here is the full list of colonial contributions in case other editors prefer mentioning them(see "Culture and History" by Joaquin) ^[73] :

The Wheel
The Plow
The Road and Bridge
New Crops like Corn, Tobacco, Camote, Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Beans, Achuete, Onion, Potato, Guava, Papaya, Pineapple, Avocado, Squash, Lettuce, Cucumber, Cabbage, Sincamas, Sigadills and Mani, etc., etc.
New Livestok like the Horse, the Cow, the Sheep, the Turkey, the Goose, etc., and of the Carabao as draft animal
The Fabrica, or Factory
Paper and Printing
The Roman Alphabet
The Calendar and Clock
The Map and the Charting of Philippine Shape
The Arts and Painting and Architecture
The Guisado
The Church, and the Bell

Does anybody have a problem with including any of these elements in the context of Philippine history? As for "political" or "territorial unification", Spanish rule made it possible. The archipelago was previously divided into tens of chiefdoms, ethnic states and sultanates. It was not until colonial rule that Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao became united. The entire concept of "Philippine nation", as well as "Filipino identity" came about during this time.

Finally, the sentence "missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity and founded schools, universities, and hospitals" is being constantly changed and distorted with "lowland inhabitants" instead of plain "inhabitants", and "a university" instead of "universities". Missionaries did convert most of the inhabitants of the Philippines to Christianity. The term "most" means "the majority", so there is no need to specify the "lowland inhabitants". By the late 19th century over 85% of Filipinos were Christians, so the sentence "converted most inhabitants" is perfectly valid. Regarding universites, there are at least three that were founded by the religious orders: Santo Tomas (Manila), San Carlos (Cebu) and Ateneo de Manila. Therfore the word should be in plural: universities. I hope this is the beginning of a constructive and reasonable exchange of opinions on the History section JCRB (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes protested per previous discussions above. Convince everyone why any or all those contributions should be credited to the Spanish and even if so why it deserves to be mentioned. IIRC the Roman alphabet is Indo-European in origin like base 10 numbering systems. Why not credit India? The plows the Spanish introduced if indeed they did introduce plows were likely Chinese plows. And why mention those contributions more important than the refrigeration, automobiles, and semiconductors the Americans could probably claim to have helped introduce into this country? Do those need to be enumerated too? Why? By the way as I understand it San Carlos and Ateneo de Manila were not universities during Spanish times which is why UST still has a strong claim to being the oldest. The Moros and highland tribal groups were still operating largely outside Spanish jurisdiction. Please try looking things up.

It's not as if the Spanish were a terribly good influence either. Even ignoring all the abuses under Spanish rule that occurred for Spain's enrichment, Spanish machismo and self-aggrandizing inflating of ego can be seen too. It has been noted that Spanish influenced countries have done rather poorly in the 20th century. It's been speculated that Spanish culture is a bad influence. Latin America and Spain itself have been laggards. The unequal distribution of land and patronage politics are largely legacies of the Spanish as is the ridiculously shallow public discourse one sees (e.g. let's pray and hope people become more moral). This article does not go into any sort of detail on those points. If there is any space those items deserve priority. Lambanog (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to split up the history section to make it more navigatible.--Micro101 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors have expressed displeasure with unchecked article growth. See discussion above and WP:SUMMARY. Basically it is felt the article is too big. Subheadings encourage such growth. Perhaps you should consider working on the subarticle History of the Philippines. Lambanog (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lambanog you are being very unreasonable. All the contributions listed above were introduced by the Spanish and the reference has been provided. Your anti-Spanish bias is so great it does not let you see clearly. I strongly recommend you loose that ideological prejudice before making any more contributions here. Your comments are an example of historical propaganda and brainwashing typical of the Black Legend. You should open your eyes to verifiable information and specially neutral versions of Philippine history which go beyond the "abuses of the friars" and the "evil Spanish opressors" and the "Spaniards kept the Filipinos ignorant" and all that rubbish. It's about time all those distortions and exaggerations were corrected. They were created during the American administration of the islands in the 1st half of the 20th century. Fortunately, a long time has gone by and many authors have seen right through this historical propaganda and have provided much more accurate and sensible accounts of Philippine history. I am more than happy to enlighten you with some historical facts which you probably ignore (like the contributions above) and help you loose those misconceptions. For example, your comment about Spain's "enrichment" is completely wrong. The Philippines was an economic burden for the Spanish Treasury until the last part of colonial rule. Silver was sent every year from New Spain to support the archipelago economically for over two and a half centuries. However, this is not the place to have a historical debate. We can discuss this in your talk page if you have one. As for the article, only verifiable and neutral information applies. JCRB (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many facts backed up by sources that can be included but have been omitted. You yourself are the reason a lot of other information about Malays before the arrival of the Spanish and Chinese influences was removed and now you are pushing for more items regarding the Spanish. Your claims of ideological prejudice therefore ring rather hollow. You fail to show why what you wish to include deserves priority over other facts. Perhaps there isn't an anti-Spanish bias on the part of others so much as a pro-Spanish bias on yours. This article is very reasonable towards the Spanish. Where in this article is the criticism towards the Spanish? Aside from mentioning some indigenous revolts and Rizal's death and a general sense of lack of reform in passing there is very little specific said in that regard. I do not see the phrases ""abuses of the friars", "evil Spanish oppressors", or "Spaniards kept the Filipinos ignorant" that you bring up anywhere in this article. Indeed credit for education is given to the Spanish when the Americans could reasonably be argued to have done more. The culture sections of this article have Spanish influences mentioned all over it. The featured article on Indonesia a country of comparable history is hardly as generous to the Dutch. Dutch appears around 15 times in that article. In comparison Spanish appears over 20 times in this article and Spain appears over 10 times. As for whether the Spanish treasury was running a deficit in the Philippines I would note the government only represents a portion of the totality of Spain. As can be seen from the current situation in the United States it is very possible for a rich country's government to run up enormous debt that still benefits other segments of that society, in the case of the United States the finance sector. In conclusion I will point out a simple fact: this article is about the Philippines not the Spanish. If you wish to discuss Spain and its munificence the article Spanish Empire would appear to be more appropriate. Lambanog (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My objective is neutrality, but your bias is so huge it does not let you see. Evidence is put in front of your eyes and you still deny it. You start an ideological debate about the "evil Spaniards" and their "bad influence" and how many times "Spanish" comes up in the article, and you think that's enough to convince anybody. Not much more I can say. I will look for mediation to resolve this. JCRB (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that JCRB is using fringe sources to back up his claims. As much as the author himself is reputable, Nick Joaquin's "Culture and History" can hardly be considered an academic resource for Philippine history -- you won't find another history professor caught dead citing passages from that book for their papers. It's merely a collection of personal essays with barely any proof to backup claims within the book itself. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to JCRB from what I've seen, even if the Joaquin book is largely a subjective account that does not try to be a particularly objective, most of what he wants to include can be verified by other sources as well although sometimes with additional qualifications. My main issue is that it's largely irrelevant. I don't see any of the additional things he wishes to associate with Spanish influence as particularly notable in a Filipino-Spanish context. The Chinese, British, or Americans could have done the same and there would be little difference. Turning this article into a listing of what others have brought is also defining the subject in terms of external factors. There is a limit to how much that can be done before the article becomes more about the external influences than it is about the Philippines itself. I have also been engaged with JCRB in a disagreement with the Filipino cuisine article where the problems with this become pretty obvious. Because the Spanish have left their names on so many Filipino dishes, people are misled into believing that the Spanish and Filipino dishes bearing the same name are the same or that it was the Spanish that introduced the dishes to the Philippines which in many cases is false. It has also been observed that Filipinos in the United States are often mistaken for Mexicans because of their frequently Spanish sounding names. Since this article is supposed to educate the reader about the Philippines and Filipinos, stressing the differences rather than the similarities from popular but inaccurate preconceived notions when warranted makes sense. Lambanog (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the claims in the Joaquin book can be verified by other sources. If that's the case, then we should see these other sources. As far as I can tell most of his additions are backed up by that book, and following its dubious status in the academe I'm not keen on seeing all those attributions to the Spanish. Although I guess your point on how the additions are mostly irrelevant for the article also stands, and could be reserved for an article better suited for that exact subject. Just my two cents on the issue. --112.203.95.233 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated. They help determine where consensus lies. This article supposedly has 600+ watchers but sometimes it feels there are only 5 people editing and taking an interest in it. Lambanog (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lapu-Lapu City Legislative District

The City of Lapu-Lapu in the province of Cebu has been created as a new separate legislative district starting 2010. It was approved to facilitate services to its constituents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psvillasoto2006 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposing an edit to the history subsection

I'm proposing a more full version of the history subsection with this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=334885531

In it I cited the root causes of the Philippine revolution such as the Polo service, unfair taxation and racial prejudice against the Philippine born Spaniards. I also mentioned the crucial treaties between Miguel de Legazpi and Rajah Tupas and Datu Sikatuna. I also mentioned Juan Niño de Tabora conqueror of the Brunei Sultanate. Also mentioned are the monopolies and the prestigious family owned businesses such as Ayala (the same family-corporation that built the oldest Stock Market in SEA & the patron of the Zobel awards) Mentioned is the formation of the principalia from the marriage of the Spanish military to local aristocracy. I Discussed genocidal tactics committed by Americans (And provided proofs of course) and the destruction of the castle-city of Intramuros by the Japanese. All in all its still the same info and text no information twisting occurred. I just expanded the facts, cited sources and gave fluidity to the prose by enumerating the causes and effects.

Can this be approved already? I'm hoping we can at least improve the article by removing missing citation tags by supplying it with citations before year 2010 arrives.

Truly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You know Gintong Liwanag ng Araw, I admire the effort you exert in trying to bring a different yet perfectly legitimate perspective to balance out the older more conventional focus. I wish I could reconcile to an extent what you are doing with what is already available. Unfortunately I think there may be too many differences and you are introducing too many awkward items that it is difficult and simply too much work to integrate properly. I fear any such attempt will eventually be reversed like it was last time and the effort wasted. I tell you what though, and I guess this can apply to JCRB too, why don't we all simply work on the vision of the article we want if they are substantially different and simply keep improving that independently? Let's not interfere with each other's work and leave the reversions to neutral parties. Of course if all that is being done is copying the improvements of another and then tacking on one's favorite line that is contrary to the wishes of the significant contributor then that can be reverted. Also if no real improvement is being made but only superficial activity to get it placed on top that can be reverted as well. Under this arrangement the version that is most recently improved or the one selected by a third party will be the one on top. If the version is not being continuously improved or is not supported by third parties it will not stay in that position. Is this proposal satisfactory? I'm concerned it might conflict somewhat with WP:Ownership, but that can be addressed when the problem arises. Of course some other editors might take issue and one must be willing to accept the consequences of that. Lambanog (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Lambanog, I am glad you have lowered your tone and returned to a more constructive attitude. The ideological comments you made earlier are really out of order here. If everybody agrees we can build a new consensus starting from the previous consensus which other editors and myself worked on for a long time [10]. Please do not revert this again. Here are my comments:

The consensus version which I support is not "conventional" or "old-fashioned" at all. On the contrary, it resulted from discussing new information which the article completely ignored about the colonial period, making it too simple and short. The original version simply mentioned "300 years of Spanish rule in which Christianity was introduced and the Spanish fought indigenous revolts". That's it. My point, and that of other editors, was that this is an oversimplification of three centuries of Philippine history. In 300 years many prominent if not decisive events took place in the country which are crucial in explaining the growth, development and transformation of the Philippines. For example: 1) political unification and the creation of the concept of "Philippine" Nation, 2) introduction of western tools such as plow and wheel (which were fundamental for large-scale agriculture and the growth of cities) and western concepts such as: calendar, clock, printing, and the code of law, all unknown to the indigenous population prior to that, 3) infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and ports, 4) New crops (corn, tobacco, camote, coffee, tea, cocoa, beans, onion, etc) and new livestock (horse, cow, sheep etc) 5) Growth of trade, specially international trade through the Manila Galleons and other trade routes, 6) Education, not only public primary education (in 1863) but an important academic tradition with universities starting in 1595 (San Carlos in Cebu and Santo Tomas in Manila were the first in Asia). This made possible the rise of the Ilustrado class and therefore the 1896 revolution and independence, 7) Other institutions such as hospitals, churches, factories etc. All of the above are basic in forming the Philippine nation we know today. According to Filipino writer Nick Joaquin these elements are:

"...the greatest in our history because they have been affecting us since the 16th century and will continue to affect this nation as long as there are Filipinos."

(Nick Joaquin, in "Culture and History")

Nick Joaquin is not a "fringe" historian at all. According to some professors he is one of the greatest Filipino writers in English of all times. His book "Culture and History" is a breakthrough in describing the history of the Philippines in a more neutral and constructive way. Many English-language history texts ignore the important contributions introduced in the colonial period, and simply run past this period describing it as "terrible" and portraying Spaniards as "evil oppressors". Although there are many examples of oppression and abuses during the Spanish period, historical propaganda exaggerates events, omits information and makes distorted interpretations. Such accounts are typical of the anti-Spanish Black Legend which survives in the Philippines up to this day. However, modern historians and writers such as Mr. Joaquin have succeeded in challenging such biased versions of history created by the US administration in the early 20th century as a means of propaganda for benevolent assimilation. Authors like Mr. Joaquin have produced much richer and accurate descriptions of Filipino history and they are respected for this.

There are many examples of misconceptions and distortions in Filipino history, but for your information I will mention two here: 1) We tend to think that the Americans brought public education to the Philippines in 1903. However, this notion is wrong. Back in 1863 Queen Isabella of Spain decreed the establishment of a free and public education system in the Philippines, by which all pueblos and cities built two schools, one for boys and one for girls. 2) Another misconception created by 20th century propaganda, is that the US brought democracy to the Philippines. This is also wrong. The First Philippine Republic of 1899 already established a democratic system in the country, including a constitution.

I am open to new information that increases the quality and depth of the article, but it must be neutral and verifiable. For example, I like the information suggested by Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw because it provides interesting information about the country's history, but some of it should be sourced. Changes should also be discussed here and agreed. Edit warring must be avoided at all costs. Let's start from here and adopt a more positive and constructive approach. JCRB (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

JCRB, I believe my tone throughout has been consistent, I've simply been stating things as I see it. Look I'm a live and let live kind of guy. You say you have consensus and cite that archive page from October 2007. This can be readily determined. Bring up a version from October 2007 that you think reflects consensus and people can simply choose which version to work on. As you can tell from the article's history log I've been active in working on a particular version of the article and have been continuously updating it so I'll probably be bumping that up to the top a lot. If you can live with that and my wish not to modify it to include your preferred wording, I will pledge not to revert your preferred consensus version from October 2007 simply for the sake of reverting it nor will I modify it unless for cases of clear vandalism if you also agree to reciprocate in kind and not modify the version I am working on. Let the best version with sustained interest stay on top. Of course this is only a courtesy gentleman's agreement between us that I propose—Wikipedia guidelines and policies that may be raised by others take precedence over this—but it's a compromise I can offer. Lambanog (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow I'm glad that were managing to transcend our past conflicts and I thank you guys especially you Labanog for recognizing my labors while being on guard for errors at the same time and I just want to say sorry for any past inconveniences I made especially to JCRB and Gubernatoria that may have hurt them but JCRB I have to tell you that Lambanog's proposal is more common sense since it would be better for the article quality that we shouldn't be purist with a consensus made 3 years ago & I think Gubernatoria would like that too so that her edits can also be recognized. I think we should just build on it and improve it a lot and revert it only if there is vandalism or irreconcilable differences but if the modifications are only minor then we shouldn't need to revert every new modification just because its not as pure as the original Oct 2007 consensus and JCRB I thank you for making me recognize the inconsistencies in my version I promise that i'll cite even more sources and make it even more Neutral for you. Hopefully we can finish this before new year's time. Anymore suggestions for the change?

Ill be posting the edited article here soon. Regards Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lambanog, I appreciate your proposal for a gentleman's agreement on editing the article. However, I do not understand the terms. I cannot simply accept your "wish not to include my preferred wording". I am interested in the quality of the History section, specially the paragraph on the colonial period because this is what some editors and myself worked on extensively some time ago. I respect your edits to other parts of the article and I am more tham willing to discuss this 4th paragraph, but I cannot simply pledge to forget about it. Editors keep reverting it without justification and parts of it are inaccurate. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, I appreciate your message. But if no solid arguments have been produced up to now, there is no reason to change the October 2007 consensus version, even if it is 2 years old. If people are willing to start from there, we can reach a compromise. JCRB (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in history, then perhaps your contributions might be more appreciated in the History of the Philippines article. The downside is since that article is FA-class, they may have stricter standards when it comes to adding new material, but if your contributions can withstand criticism there then it will strengthen the validity of your edits here. Are you up to the challenge? --112.203.95.233 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"other names"

I'd be curious as to which "other names" the archipelago was known by prior to the Spanish. The main article doesn't clarify anything. kwami (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. So many other things to fix I missed this. I'm tempted to remove it outright from the version I'm working on but maybe someone out there knows something we don't so I'll leave it there awhile. Lambanog (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Page 10 of this book says that marginal early historical writings did not allude to pre-Spanish Philippines except Ptolome in his Tables. It says that Ptolome believed that there were three islands called Maniolas whose people built ships using wooden pegs. It speaks of a Father Collin who, it says, was the first historian who believed that the Philippines was the Maniolas referred to by Ptolome. Footnote 15 on page 10 says, "Claudio Ptolomeo was Greek astronomer and geographer who flourished in the second century A.D. His tables show some islands called Maniolas or Barusas, which were believed to be the Philippines by some authors like F. Collin and Mercator. Other authors insisted them to be Liquios or Luzon." Pages 10-17 say, "Manila, an area of stagnant water and marshy land, was a tongue-shaped peninsula. The Tagalogs gave it its name. In like manner, the port of Cavite was called Cavit because the land had the shape of a hook. Malate was called such because of salt found in the land. Father Collin could not be mistaken because he was a tagalog minister in manila. Santa Ines considered the etymology of Fernandez (Father Fernandez Navarette) to be more antique because it had an etymological Tagalog diction which were "May" and "Nila" and referred to by others at "May" and "Dila"." (there is more there)

Hoaxes

MC> Halili lists certain hoaxes or stories sometimes presented as history of dubious historical accuracy. Included are the Maragtas, Code of Kalantiaw, Confederation of Madyaas, and Princess Urduja. Lambanog (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that insulting. the Kalantiaw "myth" is in fact based on oral tradition of the Visayans. Otley Beyer says so although implies that the early 20th century book was a work of fiction based on 16th century written materials documenting the tales.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The assumption that Maragtas, the Code of Kalantiaw, and the Confederation of Madyaas as hoaxes are racist and an insult to the culture of the Aklanons, which are obviously singled out among the various ethnic groups of the Philippines and among the Visayans.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This source [11] states that the book written at the dawn of the 20th century was based on legends. The legends were not not elaborated and were not challenged so while the book might be recent, the legends might be true.

Also the relative focus given to the story during the 20th century is quite historical see [[12]].--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the the source, you will see that claims about them have been discredited or been made suspect. The source claims the arguments underwent peer review by noted and recognized experts including Agoncillo, Zaide, de la Costa, etc. and are more recent than Otley Beyer. The Monteclaro book is challenged and certain discrepancies pointed out that call into question the authenticity of the legends. Please read the arguments presented. Considering the doubts raised these items cannot be included in a history section of an encyclopedic entry without significantly lowering the standards of the article. Lambanog (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, read the Code of Kalantiaw article and check out the sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

- Hey, only the Code of Kalantiaw was "proven" as a host. The Confedaration of Madyaas were still considered as "history" since the hoax ek ek only revolved around Kalantiao so it must be listed.--ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ᜆ᜖ (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott, William Henry (1992), "Kalantiaw: The Code That Never Was", Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino and Other Essays in Philippine History, New Day Publishers, ISBN 9789711005245 {{citation}}: Text "pages159-170" ignored (help) focuses on Kalantiaw alone. However, Scott, William Henry (1984), "5. The Contributions of Jose E. Marco to Philippine Histiography", Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History, New Day Publishers, pp. 104–135, ISBN 9789711002268 covers wider ground than Kalantiaw alone. The Conclusion section on p.134 reads:

The Jose E. Marco contributions to Philippine historiography examined in this study—viz., the Povedano 1572 map, and the Povenado 1572, 1577, 1578, and 1579, Morquecho 1830, and Pavón 1838-1839 manuscripts—appear to be delibrate fabrications with no historic validity. There is therefore no present evidence that any Filipino ruler by the name of Kalantiaw ever existed or that the Kalantiaw penal code is any older than 1914.

As I understand it, Scott's work refutes everything contributed by Marco and everything based on those contributions. I don't know enough about early Philippine history myself to comment with authority. I note that Carpio; et al., My Country and My People, Rex Bookstore, Inc., p. 36, ISBN 9789712322549 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help), for one, speaks of a Confedaration of Madyaas, however I also note that on the very next page it says, "The early Filipinos observed laws. In the Sumakwel code, laziness was punishable by slavery. In the Kalintaw code, insult, arson, scarilege, and sorcery were punishable by death, slavery or fines.", legitimizing Kalantiaw, so I doubt its trustworthiness. The WP article on Confederation of Madya-as attributes its history to local oral legends and the book entitled Maragtas. (Scott 1984:91–103) speaks to Maragtas, summarized on p.103 as follows:

The Margitas is an original work by Pedro A. Monteclaro published in mixed Hiligayan and Kin-iraya in Iloilo in 1907 which claims to be nothing more than that. It was based on written and oral sources then available, and contains three sorts of subject matter—folk customs still being practiced or remembered by old folks, the description of an idealized political confederation whose existence there is reasonable grounds to doubt and for which there is no evidence, and a legend recorded in 1858 of a migration of Bornean settlers, some of whom are still remembered as folk heroes, pagan dieties, or progenitors of part of the present population of Panay. There is no reason to doubt that this legend preserves the memory of some actual event, but it is not possible to date the event itself or to decide which of its details are historic facts and which are embellishments of generations of oral transmission.

A footnote says,

Since these conclusions were published in 1968, several authors have referred to the Maragtas as a "fake." I would therefore like to state clearly that, since the book appears to be a local history written by an amateur historian and claims to be nothing else, I know of no reason why its author should be accused of fraud

While Scott did not consider the Margtas to be a fake, he also did not consider it a reliable history. That seems to call into question historical assertions based on it, including assertions about a Confedaration of Madyaas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other sources that suggest the existence of "states" there, like the Hinilawod epic so, unreliable as it is, the "Maragtas" (not "Margtas") and "Madyaas" epics may end up to be true. Besides, archeological evidence across the archipelago has proven the existence of sophisticated cultures so I find it very anomalous that such cultures were not found anywhere in Panay.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed

A citation is needed for the line "Negritos, such as the Aeta and the Ati, are considered the original aboriginal inhabitants of the islands and are estimated to number around 300,000 people (0.3%)" specifically the population figure. I'll probably remove it if a source cannot be found. Lambanog (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I dug around a bit and the best I could come up with was this, which speaks of a mention of "300,000 families" by the NCIP. The NCIP website at http://ncip.gov.ph/ appears to be currently nonfunctional. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well following your lead I was able to find this page which linked to a few good sources. Also saw a paper from the ADB. Didn't look at most of them, but none of the ones I did look at were willing to give a number for the Negritos alone and were pretty vague when estimates were given. I will therefore be removing the population estimate. If anyone sees this and can provide a reliable source feel free to restore. Lambanog (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements and issues for possible review.

The Economy section contains this statement:

The Asian Financial Crisis affected the economy, resulting in a lingering decline of the value of the peso and falls in the stock market, although the extent to which it was affected was not as severe as that of some of its Asian neighbors. This was largely due to the fiscal conservatism of the government, partly as a result of decades of monitoring and fiscal supervision from the International Monetary Fund, in comparison to the massive spending of its neighbors on the rapid acceleration of economic growth.

It then gives as its source:

Gargan, Edward A. (December 11, 1997). "Last Laugh for the Philippines; Onetime Joke Economy Avoids Much of Asia's Turmoil". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-25.

From what I can remember this statement would be correct in 1997; however, by 2001 I wouldn't be too sure if it was still essentially accurate. Lambanog (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognised regional languages

Currently, the infobox lists Recognised regional languages as Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Ilokano, Kapampangan, Kinaray-a, Maguindanao, Maranao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Tausug, Waray-Waray.

However, it cites a supporting source which says, "Eight (8) major dialects spoken by majority of the Filipinos: Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon or Ilonggo, Bicolano, Waray, Pampango, and Pangasinense."

Either the infobox should be brought into conformance with the cited supporting source, or the discrepancies should be explained.

{{Infobox country}} is contributing some confusion here, drendering a parameter named regional _languages with the heading, Recognised regional languages, begging the question, "Recognized by what authority?". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is autonomous, hence the name, and have the capacity to have regional languages of its own (Tausug, Maguindanao, and Maranao).--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

cites to the http://www.gov.ph website

It looks like the http://www.gov.ph website has been redone, and most or all the refs pointing to cites of web pages on that site (this article has a lot of those) now are either dead links or broken cites which no longer point to sources which support the assertions they're ref'd to support. This article (and probably a number of other Philippines-related articles) needs cleanup regarding assertions supported by cites of web pages on that site. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

^ Anthony Bourdain (2009-02-16). "Hierarchy of Pork". Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations. Travel Channel. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
^ ^a ^b Philippines : General Information, Government of the Philippines
^ CIA World Factbook: Coastline
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Cite error: The named reference CIAfactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b 2000 Census-based Population Projection, National Statistics Office, Republic of the Philippines, 2006, retrieved 2008-04-17
^ ^a ^b "Philippines". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
^ ^a ^b Yvette Collymore (2003). "Rapid Population Growth, Crowded Cities Present Challenges in the Philippines". Population Reference Bureau. An estimated 10 percent of the country's population, or nearly 8 million people, are overseas Filipino workers distributed in 182 countries, according to POPCOM. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ "2000 Census: ADDITIONAL THREE PERSONS PER MINUTE". National Statistics Office. Archived from the original on 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2008-01-09.
^ The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines
^ ^a ^b Biodiversity Theme Report
^ CIA World Factbook: Coastline
^ The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines
^ ^a ^b Gargan, Edward A. (December 11, 1997). "Last Laugh for the Philippines; Onetime Joke Economy Avoids Much of Asia's Turmoil". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-25.
^ Hayes, La Vaughn H. 2000. The Austric Denti-alveolar Sibilants. Mother Tongue V:1-12.
^ Reid, Lawrence A. 2005. The current status of Austric: A review and evaluation of the lexical and morphosyntactic evidence. In The peopling of East Asia: putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics, ed. by Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas. London: Routledge Curzon.
^ "Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found" By Professor Arysio Nunes dos Santos
^ The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia, Volume 2, Part 1. "Conservative Economic American Interests Lobby for Philippine Independence."
^ The Nacionalista Party of the Philippines Official Website
^ ^a ^b Zunes, Stephen; et al. (1999). Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective. Blackwell Publishing. p. 129. ISBN 1577180763. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help). Cite error: The named reference "NSM" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ No peaceful People Power without Cory (Published by Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 21, 2009) Written by Rigoberto D. Tiglao
^ retrieved on August 1, 2009.
^ US: Support for Latin American Dictators (Published by Stanford University)
^ People Power and the Fall of the Berlin Wall (Published by Times Higher Education on November 5 2009)
^ U.S. Support for Philippine Dictatorship: Threat to Peace and Security in Asia by Schirmer, Daniel Boone (University of California Press, 10-01-1973)
^ Aquino, Corazon (1996-10-11). Corazon Aquino Speaks to Fulbrighters (Speech). Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2008-04-15.
^ Estrada guilty of plunder; Perjury Rap dropped (Published by Agence France-Presse, INQUIRER.net on 09:09:00 09/12/2007) written by Tetch Torres
^ ^a ^b "The Houses of Lakandula, Matanda, and Soliman (1571-1898): Genealogy and Group Identity". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 18. 1990.
^ The Story Behind the 2nd People Power Revolution (Published by Tripod 2002)
^ ^a ^b CIA World Factbook, Philippines, Retrieved 23 November 2008
^ "Economy grew 7.3% in 2007, fastest in 31 years". Philippine Daily Inquirer. January 1, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
^ World Bank Declares that the Philippines is a newly industrialized nation
^ IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009. GDP-PPP figures of selected NIC countries for 2007 and 2008.
^ "The Philippines is the only country growing in the midst of the financial crisis." Written by Fidel Valdez Ramos, Former President, Republic of the Philippines
^ People Power's Philippine Saint: Corazon Aquino (Published by Time Magazine) Written By DIANA WALKER
^ The Philippines and India - Dhirendra Nath Roy, Manila 1929 and India and The World - By Buddha Prakash p. 119-120.
^ Artifacts of Hindu-Buddhist origin in the Philippines
^ Yankees abroad: Sports in the Philippines. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
^ "China is black hole of Asia's deforestation". (2006-03-24). Asia News. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
^ Asia Pacific Screen Awards. (2008-11-12). Asia Pacific Screen Awards Winners Announced. eNews (Australia). Retrieved 2009-12-20.
^ Ubalde, Mark Joseph. (2008-11-12). Himala is CNN best film of all time in Asia-Pacific. GMA News. November 12, 2008.
^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference JoaquinPhilBecoming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
^ History of the Philippines
^ the Islamic code of law was already present in southern parts of what is now called the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish
^ Chinese wood block printing was already in evidence prior to the advent of the Spanish
^ Chinese lunar calendars were in use in trade centres in the Philippines prior to the first arrival of the Spanish, and also local calendars are said to have been in existence prior to the sixteenth century
^ Dominican friar Father Francisco Antolin, in his long study of the Igorots, published in 1789 and translated into English in William Henry Scott Of Igorots and Independence ISBN 971-91342-0-8 p26-29
^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
^ "Peopling of Americas". Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. 2004. Retrieved 2007-06-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Meltzer, D.J. (1992). "How Columbus Sickened the New World: Why Were Native Americans So Vulnerable to the Diseases European Settlers Brought With Them?". New Scientist: 38.
^ Butler, James Davie (1896). "British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies". American Historical Review 2. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2007-06-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Russell, David Lee (2005). The American Revolution in the Southern Colonies. Jefferson, N.C., and London: McFarland, p. 12. ISBN 0786407832.
^ Blackburn, Robin (1998). The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800. London and New York: Verso, p. 460. ISBN 1859841953.
^ Morrison, Michael A. (1999). Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 13–21. ISBN 0807847968.
^ "1860 Census" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-06-10. Page 7 lists a total slave population of 3,953,760.
^ De Rosa, Marshall L. (1997). The Politics of Dissolution: The Quest for a National Identity and the American Civil War. Edison, NJ: Transaction, p. 266. ISBN 1560003499.
^ Gates, John M. (August 1984). "War-Related Deaths in the Philippines". Pacific Historical Review. College of Wooster. Retrieved 2007-09-27.
^ Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty (1991). The Reader's Companion to American History. New York: Houghton Mifflin, p. 576. ISBN 0395513723.
^ McDuffie, Jerome, Gary Wayne Piggrem, and Steven E. Woodworth (2005). U.S. History Super Review. Piscataway, NJ: Research & Education Association, p. 418. ISBN 0738600709.
^ Kennedy, Paul (1989). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage, p. 358. ISBN 0670728197 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
^ "The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941–October 1945". U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Historian. 2005. Retrieved 2007-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Pacific War Research Society (2006). Japan's Longest Day. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 4770028873.
^ Voyce, Bill (2006-08-21). "Why the Expansion of the 1990s Lasted So Long". Iowa Workforce Information Network. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
^ "Many Europeans Oppose War in Iraq". USA Today. 2003-02-14. Retrieved 2008-09-01.Springford, John (2003). "'Old' and 'New' Europeans United: Public Attitudes Towards the Iraq War and US Foreign Policy" (PDF). Centre for European Reform. Retrieved 2008-09-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ http://www.ayalafoundation.org/
^ General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. Boot 2003, p. 125
^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
^ Dolan, Ronald E. (Ed.). (1991). "Education". Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. Retrieved 2009-12-20 from Country Studies US Web site.
^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila

[1] Anthony Bourdain (2009-02-16). "Hierarchy of Pork". Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations. Travel Channel. Retrieved 2009-02-17.

[GeneralInfo-2] Philippines : General Information, Government of the Philippines

[3] CIA World Factbook: Coastline

[CIAfactbook-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Cite error: The named reference CIAfactbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[population-5] 2000 Census-based Population Projection, National Statistics Office, Republic of the Philippines, 2006, retrieved 2008-04-17

[IMF2006-6] "Philippines". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

[PRB2003-7] Yvette Collymore (2003). "Rapid Population Growth, Crowded Cities Present Challenges in the Philippines". Population Reference Bureau. An estimated 10 percent of the country's population, or nearly 8 million people, are overseas Filipino workers distributed in 182 countries, according to POPCOM. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[2006census-8] "2000 Census: ADDITIONAL THREE PERSONS PER MINUTE". National Statistics Office. Archived from the original on 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2008-01-09.

[9] The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines

[AUSGOP-10] Biodiversity Theme Report

[11] CIA World Factbook: Coastline

[12] The IMF estimate of the total GDP (nominal) of the Philippines

[lastlaugh-13] Gargan, Edward A. (December 11, 1997). "Last Laugh for the Philippines; Onetime Joke Economy Avoids Much of Asia's Turmoil". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-25.

[14] Hayes, La Vaughn H. 2000. The Austric Denti-alveolar Sibilants. Mother Tongue V:1-12.

[15] Reid, Lawrence A. 2005. The current status of Austric: A review and evaluation of the lexical and morphosyntactic evidence. In The peopling of East Asia: putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics, ed. by Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas. London: Routledge Curzon.

[16] "Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found" By Professor Arysio Nunes dos Santos

[17] The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia, Volume 2, Part 1. "Conservative Economic American Interests Lobby for Philippine Independence."

[18] The Nacionalista Party of the Philippines Official Website

[NSM-19] Zunes, Stephen; et al. (1999). Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective. Blackwell Publishing. p. 129. ISBN 1577180763. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help). Cite error: The named reference "NSM" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[20] No peaceful People Power without Cory (Published by Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 21, 2009) Written by Rigoberto D. Tiglao

[21] retrieved on August 1, 2009.

[22] US: Support for Latin American Dictators (Published by Stanford University)

[23] People Power and the Fall of the Berlin Wall (Published by Times Higher Education on November 5 2009)

[24] U.S. Support for Philippine Dictatorship: Threat to Peace and Security in Asia by Schirmer, Daniel Boone (University of California Press, 10-01-1973)

[fb-25] Aquino, Corazon (1996-10-11). Corazon Aquino Speaks to Fulbrighters (Speech). Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2008-04-15.

[26] Estrada guilty of plunder; Perjury Rap dropped (Published by Agence France-Presse, INQUIRER.net on 09:09:00 09/12/2007) written by Tetch Torres

[Lakandula,_Matanda_1898-27] "The Houses of Lakandula, Matanda, and Soliman (1571-1898): Genealogy and Group Identity". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 18. 1990.

[28] The Story Behind the 2nd People Power Revolution (Published by Tripod 2002)

[CIAfactbookPhilEcon-29] CIA World Factbook, Philippines, Retrieved 23 November 2008

[30] "Economy grew 7.3% in 2007, fastest in 31 years". Philippine Daily Inquirer. January 1, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18.

[31] World Bank Declares that the Philippines is a newly industrialized nation

[32] IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009. GDP-PPP figures of selected NIC countries for 2007 and 2008.

[33] "The Philippines is the only country growing in the midst of the financial crisis." Written by Fidel Valdez Ramos, Former President, Republic of the Philippines

[34] People Power's Philippine Saint: Corazon Aquino (Published by Time Magazine) Written By DIANA WALKER

[35] The Philippines and India - Dhirendra Nath Roy, Manila 1929 and India and The World - By Buddha Prakash p. 119-120.

[36] Artifacts of Hindu-Buddhist origin in the Philippines

[philsports-37] Yankees abroad: Sports in the Philippines. Retrieved January 22, 2009.

[38] "China is black hole of Asia's deforestation". (2006-03-24). Asia News. Retrieved 2009-12-20.

[39] Asia Pacific Screen Awards. (2008-11-12). Asia Pacific Screen Awards Winners Announced. eNews (Australia). Retrieved 2009-12-20.

[40] Ubalde, Mark Joseph. (2008-11-12). Himala is CNN best film of all time in Asia-Pacific. GMA News. November 12, 2008.

[41] Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila

[42] US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines

[43] Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila

[JoaquinPhilBecoming-44] Cite error: The named reference JoaquinPhilBecoming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[45] US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines

[46] History of the Philippines

[47] the Islamic code of law was already present in southern parts of what is now called the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish

[48] Chinese wood block printing was already in evidence prior to the advent of the Spanish

[49] Chinese lunar calendars were in use in trade centres in the Philippines prior to the first arrival of the Spanish, and also local calendars are said to have been in existence prior to the sixteenth century

[50] Dominican friar Father Francisco Antolin, in his long study of the Igorots, published in 1789 and translated into English in William Henry Scott Of Igorots and Independence ISBN 971-91342-0-8 p26-29

[51] US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines

[52] US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines

[53] "Peopling of Americas". Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. 2004. Retrieved 2007-06-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[54] Meltzer, D.J. (1992). "How Columbus Sickened the New World: Why Were Native Americans So Vulnerable to the Diseases European Settlers Brought With Them?". New Scientist: 38.

[55] Butler, James Davie (1896). "British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies". American Historical Review 2. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2007-06-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[56] Russell, David Lee (2005). The American Revolution in the Southern Colonies. Jefferson, N.C., and London: McFarland, p. 12. ISBN 0786407832.

[57] Blackburn, Robin (1998). The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800. London and New York: Verso, p. 460. ISBN 1859841953.

[58] Morrison, Michael A. (1999). Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 13–21. ISBN 0807847968.

[59] "1860 Census" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-06-10. Page 7 lists a total slave population of 3,953,760.

[60] De Rosa, Marshall L. (1997). The Politics of Dissolution: The Quest for a National Identity and the American Civil War. Edison, NJ: Transaction, p. 266. ISBN 1560003499.

[61] Gates, John M. (August 1984). "War-Related Deaths in the Philippines". Pacific Historical Review. College of Wooster. Retrieved 2007-09-27.

[62] Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty (1991). The Reader's Companion to American History. New York: Houghton Mifflin, p. 576. ISBN 0395513723.

[63] McDuffie, Jerome, Gary Wayne Piggrem, and Steven E. Woodworth (2005). U.S. History Super Review. Piscataway, NJ: Research & Education Association, p. 418. ISBN 0738600709.

[64] Kennedy, Paul (1989). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage, p. 358. ISBN 0670728197 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

[65] "The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941–October 1945". U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Historian. 2005. Retrieved 2007-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[66] Pacific War Research Society (2006). Japan's Longest Day. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 4770028873.

[67] Voyce, Bill (2006-08-21). "Why the Expansion of the 1990s Lasted So Long". Iowa Workforce Information Network. Retrieved 2007-08-16.

[68] "Many Europeans Oppose War in Iraq". USA Today. 2003-02-14. Retrieved 2008-09-01.Springford, John (2003). "'Old' and 'New' Europeans United: Public Attitudes Towards the Iraq War and US Foreign Policy" (PDF). Centre for European Reform. Retrieved 2008-09-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[69] ttp://www.ayalafoundation.org/

[70] General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. Boot 2003, p. 125

[71] Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila

[72] Dolan, Ronald E. (Ed.). (1991). "Education". Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. Retrieved 2009-12-20 from Country Studies US Web site.

[73] Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]