Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles

Cities

Forced disambiguation should not be used, even for non-independent cities. Also, when disambiguation is necessary, it might be preferable to use the parenthetical method rather than the comma method, e.g. [[San Fernando City (La Union)]] because the name of the city does not include the name of the province. --Polaron | Talk 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know, because non-independent cities are part of the mother province, and independent cities do not need the <Cityname City, Province> or Cityname City (Province)> because they're not a part of any province. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a bit convinced from another discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)) that disambiguation should use parentheses, in almost all of the cases. I believe we should name the article after the name (media popular, not official [if it's too long] nor colloquial) of the article's subject. So the city of San Fernando's article should be named "San Fernando City" because that's what most newspapers do when they refer to the city. But since there are two San Fernando cities in the Philippines (and probably a several others in the world), then they should be disambiguated by a parenthetical term. Now, I don't quite like "(La Union)" or "(Pampanga)" as the disambiguating text because disambiguation should answer "what?" not "where?" or "when?", So the proper disambiguating term is "(La Union city)" or "(Pampangan city)". But it looks ugly next to "San Fernando City" so I'm still ambivalent. But, I guess, "San Fernando City, La Union" is still an acceptable convention for the meantime. --seav 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an ugly prospect. The current Town, Province/City, State convention is much better. --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the name already includes "City", the "what" is already answered and the "where" is the ambiguity. Adding the province in parentheses would be my preference. But, if the entire phrase, "San Fernando, Pampanga" for example, is in common usage, then the comma form of disambiguation is acceptable. --Polaron | Talk 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which brings me to what form is the most accepted. At the start of WWE broadcasts, it is stated at the top left corner "LIVE from Chicago, Illinois". At the PBA Draft, they followed the Place, Province convention except for "Manila". --Howard the Duck 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a location and a name. The title of the city article should be simply the name (disambiguated only if needed) with the location stated in the introductory paragraph. Using the comma form as a disambiguation gives the false impression that the province name is part of what the city calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But we have to follow what is the most popular name, but not what is correct. Finding out which is the more popular convention (<Municipality name, province name> vs. <Municipality name (province name)>. IMHO, we should have a standard for all municipalities and component cities, and all independent cities, except in special circumstances. --Howard the Duck 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Just because there's a "City" suffix doesn't mean that it's a city. What about Bonifacio Global City, Filinvest Corporate City, Star City, and Eastwood City? And let's suppose there's another Star City franchise in Cebu. Which then is more correct for disambiguation, "Star City (Pasay)" or "Star City (Pasay amusement park)"? --seav 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's we need to formulate policy on this. I'd say those w.c are component cities use the <Cityname> City, {provincename> or <Cityname City> (<Provincename>), while the independent cities use <Cityname> City or for dab purposes use <Cityname> City, <Regionname>.

I'd say we the Star Cities are in one page called Star City (amusement park). --Howard the Duck 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation term will depend on what the other objects the thing in question is being differentiated from. The answer to the Star City question would depend on what other objects called Star City are there? --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets make this a policy already!

Are you in favor of making this project page into a policy? --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. --Howard the Duck 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I support all proposals made as of [1]. Vote subject to change pending any future changes. --Chris S. 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support all proposals as of [2] --Edward Sandstig 23:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

Sorry, I don't have a vote. I reverted Andres Bonifacio to the version without diacritics because I assumed this was correct. Since he was born during Spanish times, I guess it should have(?).--Jondel 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the MOS should that, no diacritics unless it is widely used, or is preferred by the person himself, or for the letter "ñ". --Howard the Duck 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But how about the policy that names during Spanish times be written with diacritics. (This is about policy as a whole not only about Andres B.) Also perhaps the name of Jose Rizal should have diacritics whether there is a policy to remove it or not.--Jondel 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know that José in José Rizal is widely used, although not as much Jose Rizal BUT, several Rizalistas I've met endorse the "é" in "José". Also, in Mapùa Institute of Technology, the official website endorses the "ù" in "Mapùa". --Howard the Duck 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found this page while taking my time to study the guidelines. Anyway, here's my take on diacritics in Filipino names:

I've lived in the Philippines for my whole life, and I know for a fact that diacritics are rarely (if ever) used in writing. However, I am still in favor for placing diacritics for practical reasons, even if not many Filipinos do this.

First, not many foreigners --- I mean, non-Filipinos --- are familiar with Filipino pronunciation and accentuation. In the Tagalog language, for instance, it's possible for two words to have the same spelling but with entirely different accents (and, of course, they really mean two different things). Since the English Wikipedia is an international website, the diacritics may help identify the correct meaning intended, especially if the user is someone who is learning Philippine culture and the Filipino languages.

Because Filipinos know the language very well, accents are deemed superfluous in written communication. However, a beginner in, say, Tagalog, may come across with a word that has different accents (and meanings, too). Without the diacritics, this person may have difficulties determining which meaning was intended for the word. A person such as this is still new to the language, and still hasn't reached the mastery of the language which native Filipinos have; placing the diacritics will clarify any ambiguities and also help this person reach fluency to the point when this person will also learn how to live without the diacritics.

Second (corollary to the first point), the diacritics will help establish the correct accent pattern for each word. Since most words in Filipino may have more than three syllables, the diacritics help establish the correct rhythmic flow and speech patterns.

Using the Andres Bonifacio example, people who are not familiar with Filipino (actually, the name is Spanish) pronunciation may pronounce Andres as Ándres (same accent as in Andrew)instead of Andrés. The diacritics make this clear.

For the same reason, Mapúa (ma-póo-wah) University (a well-known university in the Philippines, by the way) is best spelled with the diacritic on the letter u. When I was younger, I often mispronounce it as Mápua (map-wah). The diacritic helped me learn the correct pronunciation.

Another example: the phrase "national anthem", when translated into Filipino, reads Pambansang Awit. To avoid any mispronunciations, it's advisable to spell the words with the diacritic (i.e., Pambansáng Awit...note that I spelled Áwit there without the diacritics, since in Filipino it's normal to accent the first syllable in a two-syllable word). Otherwise, a well-meaning foreigner who uses regular Spanish accentuation may accidentally mispronounce it as Pambánsang Awit or even Pámbánsang Awit.

I also have a personal example. My surname has three syllables, and most three-syllable words or names in the Philippines are accented on the second syllable (for example, bayáni [="hero"]). However, my surname's correct pronunciation places the accent on the last syllable (as in, kakanín [="rice delicacy"]). Most people mispronounce my surname, which is why my mother advised us (me and my siblings) to place the correct diacritic whenever we write our names on official forms.

The case for keeping (or discarding) the diacritic in a Spanish word or name that is normally spelled with the diacritic (for example, José and Corazón) is another matter, but for me it is also a valid point, in keeping with the Spanish legacy in the Philippines.

Hence, I am voting in favor of diacritics --- Tito Pao 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Afterthoughts:

Since opinion is varied on whether diacritics should be enforced in Philippine names(or not), it may be helpful to take a look at the issue in another light under two opposing perspectives:

1. In the classroom, diacritics are taught. It's in the elementary (usually, Grade V or Grade VI), high school and college curricula. Hence, it's also a question of whether we can apply what we have learned in school (which may sometimes not be the case). Most academic English-Filipino/Filipino-English dictionaries (not the cheap, pocketbook editions) print the words with diacritics. (As far as I can remember, diacritics are still in use in UP Diliman's newsletter (The Collegian).)

2. In actual usage, Filipinos rarely (if not "never") use diacritics in everyday language. No documentation is necessary for this, because it's all over the country (i.e. in the newspaper, on TV)

However, given the first statement, just because Filipinos rarely use it does not necessarily mean that Filipinos should not use it. You can think of diacritics as an option available to the Filipino language to those who want to make use of it. If someone elects to use diacritics, why should we discourage this person from doing so? Put the other way around, if I were a school teacher, why should I force other people to use something that they are free not to make use of? For me, taking one of these points of view does not respect the freedom of choice that we have in acceptable language usage. As far as I can remember, both the use and non-use of diacritics are still part of acceptable Tagalog usage.

In this light, I'm offering a proposal for a way around this concern:

1. First, redirects for words spelled with or without diacritics may be created. Preferably, the main article should have the diacritic, while the ones without would redirect to the main article. Hence, as an example, José Rizál should be the main article, and Jose Rizal the redirecting article.

2. Second, the name may be spelled in diacritics the first time it is mentioned in the article (in particular, in the title and in the first instance on the article proper).

3. Third (and for me the most important point), for subsequent mentions for the rest of the article, no one should discriminate against other contributors who use the diacritics (or who don't). Since both usages are acceptable, this should be left as a matter of taste.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. Do let me know how we can work this out. --- Tito Pao 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Yes in the classroom, diacritics are taught. But they are not taught to put those diacritical marks on the words themselves. It is used for pronounciation guide, to differentiata "lobo" (balloon) from "lobo" (wolf, see, I've forgetten already what marks to use, lol)
2. Wikipedia isn't about what is the most correct, but what is the most popular. Hence in the Philippine-related article, we use the American, not the British style of English, color not colour, apartment not flat, etc.
3. And to top it off, a vast majority of Filipinos from the Spanish period up to today haven't spoke fluent Spanish. All they know are the uno, dos, tres, the simple words, but they can;t construct complete sentences. That's why on Rizal's Noli Me Tangere, he asked for the creation of an Academy of the Spanish language, right?

So for me, the way to go around in this issue:

1. Use diacritical marks if the person himself used/uses/endorses it. (ex: The Mapua Tech website uses "Mapúa", so we should use that.)
2. An expert on a particular person says it is correct to use diacritical marks on that person (ex: Rizalistas said using diacritics is correct).

--Howard the Duck 08:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities, part 2

After much thought, the name "City" should be part of article name unless the city has the same name as a province (ex.: Cebu City and Cebu). In all other cases, we'd use <City>, <Province>, or if it's not a part of a province, plainly <City>. --Howard the Duck 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to adding this page to the "Wikipedia style guidelines" category?

There's been very little traffic on this page, but it has had the infobox at the top for a long time, and I don't see anything unreasonable (although I'm not from the Phillipines). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the naming convention for Philippine LGUs

There is an ongoing discussion about the naming convention for Philippine LGUs over at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Task force LGU#Naming conventions for cities (and other LGUs in general). --seav (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Philippine

"Philippine" is not just used with objects, but is also commonly used with people.

• Evidence: Here for example a book, published by The University of the Philippines Press, that refers to "Philippine women writers". Google Books matches for "Philippine writers" are plentiful, including in the Philippine Journal of Linguistics.
• For comparison, see references to Filipina writers, Filipino writers. It seems there is, or was, also a notable "Philippine Writers' League."

This being so, our usage guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Philippine-related_articles)#Adjective_form_of_the_Philippines, which says that "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects", is out of step with usage in published sources. I've been WP:BOLD and have updated the guidance accordingly. Is that okay? --JN466 06:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this. "Filipino" is the preferred adjective to refer to people. --seav (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

While it's numerically slightly more prevalent, Philippine is used as an adjective applied to people in thousands of reliable sources, including top-quality Philippine sources. Editors are free to follow usage in reliable sources. For example, Philippine workers, Philippine politicians, Philippine peasants, Philippine scientists, Philippine doctors, Philippine women. If tens of thousands of books employ this usage, including books written and printed in the Philippines, it is not up to us to say it is not acceptable; we do not define language usage, we follow it. Please accept it; alternatively, we can initiate an WP:RFC. --JN466 00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that rather than changing this back and forth while the discussion is ongoing, we leave it as it was before while this discussion is ongoing. This is helpful to avoid confusion as to what change is being proposed. Then, if there is consensus for the change, we can change it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also oppose changing the Manual of Style on this point. It's relatively clear that both adjectives can be used "correctly" to describe people. However, a manual of style is just that—a manual of style. It doesn't reflect all the possibilities of correct potential usage. A MOS simply adopts a "house style" that editors agree to follow throughout a project for purposes of consistency in editing. Thus, I think it's OK for this WP manual of style to set down the principles that it has regarding "Philippine" and "Filipino"—that "Philippine" is used with inanimate objects and "Filipino" is used with people. Having it say this doesn't mean that this convention is the only correct way of doing things, it just establishes a standard for a particular project (Wikipedia) and makes it easier and more predictable to find one's way around the various WP pages. If "Filipino" is generally the more preferred usage, there's nothing wrong with WP saying that for reasons of style it will use the more common form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage of the adjective "Philippine" – only for inanimate objects, or for people as well?

The present Manual of Style states that

• Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.

An editor has proposed changing the usage guidance for Philippine as follows:

• Philippine may be used with inanimate objects or people. Example, Philippine National Anthem, or Philippine writers.

The proposal is based on the fact that thousands of book sources, including Philippine scholarly sources, use "Philippine" in reference to people.

Examples given were:

• A reference to "Philippine women writers" in a book published by The University of the Philippines Press.
• Multiple references to "Philippine writers" in the Philippine Journal of Linguistics.
• Thousands of Google Books matches for phrases such as
  • Philippine women (about 10,800 matches in Google Books; vs. 20,700 for "Filipino women")
  • Philippine men (about 336 matches in Google Books; vs. 6,480 for "Filipino men")
  • Philippine writers (about 2,220 matches in Google Books)
  • Philippine workers (about 1,230 matches in Google Books)
  • Philippine politicians (about 558 matches in Google Books)
  • Philippine peasants (about 396 matches in Google Books)
  • Philippine scientists (about 284 matches in Google Books)
  • Philippine doctors (about 179 matches in Google Books) etc.

Opposition to this change has been based on the assertion that "Filipino" (which has a female version as well, "Filipina") is the preferred adjective to refer to people. Cf. for example

• 66 matches for "Filipina writers" in Google Books
• 4,850 matches for "Filipino writers" in Google Books
• 2,220 matches for "Philippine writers" in Google Books.

The question is, should the MOS mention that "Philippine" may be applied to both inanimate objects and people, or should the present wording, "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects", remain?

Thanks for your input. --JN466 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Support changing the MOS. Usage is clear: "Philippine" is commonly used in reference to people in reliable published sources. --JN466 04:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If you are going to proceed with boldly changing the MoS, you should have informed the rest of the community first (I only found out via the CfD). Anyway, while the adjective "Philippine" can refer to people, it does so more with mass nouns than with individual nouns. For example, a person can be a Filipino, but citizens of the Philippines are Philippine citizens. The lines between the use of Filipino and Philippine are very unclear, since it can go either way. But by and large, as far as I know, "Philippine" has been used with inanimate objects: writers as a mass noun is inanimate, whereas the singular noun "writer" is animate and would use Filipino over Philippine. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the abrupt intrusion. However, may I suggest that we consult source usage for this decision? So let's look at singulars:
  • There are 266 references to a "Philippine writer" (singular) in Google Books as well: [3].
  • There are over 700 books in Google Books referring to a "Philippine woman": [4].
  • Similarly, "Philippine author" has 146 Google Books matches, while "Filipino author" has 474 (a ratio of 1:3 approximately).
  • In Google Scholar, there are 41 matches for "Philippine author", versus 99 matches for "Filipino author".
  • Google Scholar has 26 references to a "Philippine politician", and 34 references to a "Filipino politician". 26 vs. 34.
  • Google Books has 374 references to a "Philippine politician" and 869 references to a "Filipino politician". That is a ratio of about 3 to 7.
  • Google Books has 17,600 references to the "Philippine president" vs. 2,090 references to the "Filipino president". This means "Philippine president" is over 8 times more common than "Filipino president". Is the Philippine president an inanimate object?
  • I am sorry, what I see are off-the-cuff assertions that are simply not informed by any survey of real-world English usage in published sources. That is a problem. --JN466 06:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What I think may be worth exploring is whether "Filipino" is the preferred term when referring to ethnicity, while "Philippine" is common when referring to nationality. This might explain why in reference to the Philippine president, where the adjective clearly refers to the nation, rather than ethnicity, "Philippine" is vastly more common than "Filipino", while on the other hand people overwhelmingly speak of the "Filipino community in Los Angeles" rather than the "Philippine community in Los Angeles". This distinction is probably closer to the mark than the "inanimate/animate" distinction. --JN466 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Good Ol'factory's comment in the previous section is spot on. This is a style issue and the proposed change as worded does not really improve things over the status quo. In fact, the proposed change may just confuse people since it would seem that they can simply arbitrarily choose between "Philippine" or "Filipino" as an adjective to refer to people. As your Google searches show, "Filipino" is still overwhelmingly used to refer for people over "Philippine" (with the occasional reversal such as "Philippine President"). If there will be a change to the MOS, I prefer it to be something like this for the first 2 bullets:
  • "Philippine" and "Filipino" are the two most common English adjectival form for the Philippines. While these two are usually interchangeable, "Philippine" is often used for inanimate objects and abstract items (e.g., "Philippine Senate", "Philippine mountains", and "Philippine national anthem"), while "Filipino" is often used for people (e.g., "Filipino actor" and "Filipino authors").
• Comment I say I go for using "Filipino" when referring to the person ("He is a Filipino poet," "He is a Filipino scientist"), while for all other things such as offices ("He is the Philippine president") and culture ("this is a dish in Philippine cuisine") use "Philippine". Note that while "He is a Filipino president" is not exactly wrong -- it can refer to a Filipino who is/was not a President of the Philippines, if that ever happens. An exception if "Filipino" is used as a proper noun. It's kinda like Serb and Serbian. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose You are pitting published books by foreign authors which use the adjectives trivially (i.e. the scholarly works you getting the assumption from aren't exactly talking about terminology or languages or even the Filipino culture itself) against the usage preferences of an entire nation that also speaks a version of English as one of its official languages. How would you like it if I insisted that Americans recognize 'United Statesian' as a valid adjective in their MOS simply because a lot of Spanish speakers refer to them as estadounidenses rather than americanos? Not good eh? :P

Being a native, I do know that Filipino is the strongly preferred term to describe people among Filipinos themselves. Other editors have already told you as much. It is actually the only acceptable adjective used by Filipinos when referring to themselves. The examples, Philippine doctor and Philippine writer, all sound awkward to me. They can still be correct of course, but only if they were referring to the professions rather than the people. You will never hear a Filipino say 'I am Philippine' and almost never 'I am a Philippine [something]'.

But yes, the president of the Philippines is usually referred to as The Philippine president, this is because the adjective describes the position, rather than the person. It's an abstract concept and thus depersonalized. It happens in some other similar words as well, like 'Philippine ambassador' (i.e. The ambassador who represents the Philippine government). If you are, however, referring to the person, you would say the 'Filipino ambassador' (i.e. The ambassador who is a Filipino). And of course, like Sky Harbor said, mass nouns, as Philippine, unlike Filipino and Filipina, is more obviously gender-neutral.

Instances of Philippine used in the context of describing a person/people is only usually encountered when non-Filipinos unfamiliar with the Philippines in general, attempt to find a word to describe a native of the Philippines. They will often make the incorrect assumption that since the country is named 'Philippines' its people would be Philippine. Take a look at your Google results again, and note that the overwhelming majority of the authors were non-Filipinos and can't exactly be called linguistic/cultural experts. The 1:3 proportion is also an illusion caused by unavoidable systemic bias because lot more non-Filipino academic works get mention in Google Books (something that happens in a lot of other non-Western concepts as well). Those are the results you are getting.

I also noticed that you are not Filipino. Since you made a very common mistake: "Philippine women (about 10,800 matches in Google Books; vs. 20,700 for "Filipino women")"

The term Filipino is not gender-neutral. Its usage guideline is similar to the English 'He'. That is: used for masculine and neuter (grammatical gender, should not be confused with natural gender), and plural non-gender specific forms of nouns, but never used when the gender is definitely female. In short, you should never say 'Filipino women' (that would be kinda like saying 'male women'), you either say 'Filipina women' (when making a distinction for female adults) or simply Filipinas. You can encounter 'Filipino woman' a lot, yes, but it is only grudgingly accepted as something someone unfamiliar of the actual terminology would say. Which only proves the point that Google search in this case, doesn't actually reflect actual usage. Try searching instead for Filipinas against Philippine women and you'd get 85,700 vs. 10,800 (make sure to do advanced search in English to filter out the Spanish term for the Philippines - Filipinas). The results are also actually more focused on Filipinas and/or written by Filipinas rather than mere mentions of them (e.g. Transnational Asia Pacific: gender, culture, and the public sphere By Shirley Lim, Pinay power: peminist critical theory : theorizing the Filipina/American ... By Melinda L. De Jesús, Filipinas in dialogue: Muslim-Christian women's response to contemporary challenges by Erlinda H. Bragado, Race, gender, and work: a multi-cultural economic history of women in the ... By Teresa L. Amott, Julie A. Matthaei, etc.)

While claiming otherwise would seemingly be OR given the disparity of the number of Philippine sources vs. foreign ones, why exactly would we espouse incorrect usage as well? Philippine is imposed terminology unused by locals. You can't exactly argue COI against them, heh, (was that the reason you didn't inform the wikiproject of this RfC?) and you should consider due and undue weight here. In the same way that Asians would prefer to be called 'Asians' rather than 'Orientals' despite having apparently the same rate of usage (Asians: 551,000 results vs. Orientals: 441,000 results). This MOS is for very specific areas of Wikipedia where national usage over international incidental usage are justifiable. And you can't argue that Filipino is "not English" either, because it is, albeit a dialect - Philippine English (Pilipino is the Filipino equivalent).

I'm very curious as to why you continue to pursue this though. It doesn't actually add anything of informational value as Seav (who forgot to sign his comment LOL) already said, it merely gives undue weight to a more uncommon/incorrect usage. While non-Filipinos can be excused for interchanging the two, the more correct convention is actually the one currently outlined in the MOS. If anything should be changed to reflect actual usage, it should be that Filipino can be used interchangeably with Philippine when referring to inanimate objects. Chalk it up to the vagaries of English, but please do recognize that the current MOS does reflect more widespread convention. Because one thing no one else has mentioned here is this: just because it is also used does not mean it is also correct--Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your research; I think now we are actually getting somewhere. The discussion first arose at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_7#Category:Filipina_poets, where another editor had created a category "Filipina poets" to house a DYK article (Ivy Alvarez) my wife had written the other day. We don't usually have separate categories for female and male authors according to nationality, and the category was proposed for deletion. I proposed "Philippine poets" as a gender-neutral category name, per existing categories like Category:Philippine spies, Category:Lists_of_Philippine_politicians. Because, as you rightly say, Ivy is not a "Filipino poet".

Now let me assure you that I have no desire to impose foreign English usage on articles written about Philippine matters. I am a strong supporter of the idea that WP articles about a country should be written in that country's English. I spent several weeks arguing that Ganges should be moved to Ganga, as all Indian editors commenting on that move request were in favour of it, the names of Indian government authorities and projects all use Ganga, and the ones who were opposed were all non-Indians (unfortunately, they were also in a majority). So I sympathise with you about matters of systemic bias.

However, the book I cited is by the University of the Philippines Press. It's the write-up on Ruth Jordana L Pison, PhD, an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman, the Philippines' premier institution of higher learning. It said she teaches courses on "Philippine women writers in English" at that university. She was also the deputy director of the UP press. The other source I cited was the Philippine Journal of Linguistics, which I assumed would feature Philippine authors. It refers 5 times to Philippine writers, and 3 times to Filipino writers. I also searched for other references to "Philippine writers" in University of the Philippines Press publications. I found what looked like 409 matches (if you actually click through them, you note that the listing stops at number 49, and that it includes many references to the Philippine Writers' League, the Philippine Writers' Series, or the Philippine Writers' Guild). So I did my best to make sure that what I was proposing would not be imposing an alien style on Philippine-related articles, but be something that is reflective of top-quality Philippine sources.

Then there is the matter of the Philippine president. He or she is clearly a person; and the way the MOS is written right now, editors would end up calling her or him the "Filipino president". We may simply need to differentiate a little more and explain to users that there are certain contexts, notably those related to the Philippine nation, and its prominent people – above all presidents, ambassadors and other office-holders – where "Philippine" is the preferred adjective for people. Otherwise we get editors referring to the Filipino president, which is very much a minority usage. If we agree that there are differences between local and foreign English usage, let's educate users on these, including on those types of foreign English usage that really grate with Filipinos and should be avoided in all articles that are predominantly on the Philippines, and in biographies of people who are mainly notable in the Philippines.

But we have to do better than we are doing at present; the inanimate/animate distinction simply does not cut it. So please let's look at how we can make it more accurate and useful.

Three afterthoughts:

1. To my linguistic sensibility, if a situation were to arise where a French woman should become a special envoy for the Philippine government, I would refer to her as the "Philippine special envoy", but not the "Filipina (or Filipino) special envoy", because even though she is the Philippine special envoy, she is still French, and not a Filipina.
2. Could someone explain to me how the Philippine Writers' League, Philippine Writers' Series, Philippine Writers Academy and Philippine Writers' Guild came to be called thus? I assumed they were formed by Filipinos, and if so, then this sets a good precedent for having gender-neutrally named categories such as "Philippine writers" in WP.
3. One of the books you linked to above, Pinay power: peminist critical theory: theorizing the Filipina/American experience, states that Filipinas in the diaspora tend to avoid the term "Filipina" because of its colonial associations, preferring to refer to themselves as "Filipino women", "Philippine women", "women of the Philippines" or "Pinay". I have no idea if that's true, but the author seems to have researched the matter, and it seemed interesting to note. --JN466 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for implying you were imposing heh. Coming from another argument I was a bit more leery of systemic bias than I should have been. Anyway, yes. I definitely agree. The distinction is not that of animate/inanimate. As for the rest:

• Yes, a French envoy representing the Philippine government would be correctly 'Philippine special envoy' and not 'Filipina special envoy'.
• As for those Philippine Writer's Guild and whatnot, the explanation is a bit easier - the 'Philippine' adjective modifies the 'Guild', not 'Writers'.
• Keyword is 'diaspora', heh. Probably expats influenced by western ideals of feminism and probably more than a bit resentful of the Spanish colonial rule. UP people are known to be a bit, erm... nationalistic heh. Filipino purists, so to say, striving to erase all traces of Spain in language and to 'nativize' it. To the point of replacing inherited terminology with more obscure purely native words unused for centuries/purely filipino neologisms. One of the more absurd examples of which is the replacement of silya ('chair' from Spanish silla) with salumpuwit (filipino neologism literally meaning 'to catch the buttocks', ugh). English, and to a greater degree - Philippine languages, have one advantage over Spanish and Spanish derived words that might appeal to feminism: their nouns are gender-neutral (in Philippine languages, the advantage is even greater - all our pronouns are gender neutral). But I'm assuming, heh, so take that with a grain of salt.

--Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I essentially support the status quo, as I explained in the section above. Rather than repeat what I said, I'll just summarily say that I think this is a style issue, and the current guideline to use "Filipino" for people" and "Philippine" for inanimate things and governmental positions, etc. seems appropriate to promote clarity and consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the MOS should disallow rhis usage, as it currently seems to do, or even discourage it. I see this usage inside and outside of WP, often in situations where a strong indication of the sense "of the Philippines" is intended. Some few examples:

• Kingdom of Tondo: "... numerous Philippine people have Chinese blood ..."
• Human zoo: "... indignities heaped upon the Philippine people ..."
• Schurman Commission: "... government under which the Philippine people may ..."
• Miguel Malvar: "Malvar was one of the last Philippine generals to surrender ...". Also note than in Malvar's time, the term Filipino was used to refer to a Spaniard who was born in the Philippines.
• Filipino American: "The majority of Philippine people ..."
• LGBT rights in Qatar: "... informed Philippine workers that gay workers were prohibited ..."
• Women in the Philippines: "Modern-day Philippine women ..."
• Spanish language in the Philippines: "In 1706, a convent school for Philippine women ..." Also, as noted previously, the term Filipino had a different meaning in those times than now.
• Filipino women writers: " The history of Filipino women writers is an account of how Philippine women became ..."
• Philippine Debut: "Philippine men receive their Debut, when they turn 21 years of age."
• Philippines national baseball team: "Philippine players walking off the field ..."
• Marlon Manalo: "In 2006, Manalo could have been one of the first Philippine players ..."
• Ramil Gallego: "Among the Philippine players, Gallego ..."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. My feeling too is that the real distinction is not between inanimate/animate, but between "representing the country" vs. "ethnicity". --JN466 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'd definitely agree to that. It's not a simple distinction between inanimate and animate that's for sure. I'd support that change.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That only actually proves it is archaic and should be discouraged as much as possible (cf. Oriental vs. Asian). While I agree that it is probably correctly used in Kingdom of Tondo, Schurman Commission, Miguel Malvar, and in Spanish language in the Philippines, in those instances 'natives/inhabitants of the Philippines' would have sufficed just as well (or indios to be more pedantic). Back then, Philippines referred more to the place rather than the people (cf. America, American, and American Indian).

The rest of those, I'd really rather change to Filipino as they are simply diverging from MOS and don't actually prove anything. Also note how 'Philippine players' were used because the teams were actually representing the country/people in the official sense (cf. Philippine president, Philippine ambassador). 'Philippine' in this case can actually be broken down into 'of the Filipinos' or 'of the Philippines' rather than being a direct synonym of 'Filipino'. You would, for example, correctly use 'Philippine player' even when referring to say... an Australian national playing for the Philippine team. So yes, while I agree that the usage of 'Philippine' is correct in those cases, I don't think that was what JN466 meant. When he said 'Philippine writers', I think he meant 'writers who are Filipino' rather than 'writers who live in the Philippines'.

'Philippine' implies origin/location/position rather than nationality/ethnicity. And when talking about people (like here on Wikipedia), you are more liable to mean nationality/ethnicity rather than origin, correct? 'Filipino' is the proper noun referring to national identity, while 'Philippine' is simply an adjective. 'Filipino' can stand on its own while and be a noun used as an adjective, 'Philippine' is only be an adjective and can not ever be a nominal adjective. Take these two examples:

"Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino boxer." > "Manny Pacquiao is a Filipino."Y

"Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine boxer." > "Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine."N

My main problem with adding it to MOS is that people will then have a justification to use it like outlined in the latter example. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that it would be wrong.

The distinction between Philippine and Filipino is also listed as one of the more notable examples in our own article on Demonym. The only other similar usage I can think of is the term used for natives of Los Angeles - Los Angeleno/Angeleño rather than Los Angelic/Los Angelene/Los Angelean. So yeah:

• Usage of 'Filipino' in Wikipedia overwhelmingly refers to national identity/ancestry and should thus remain 'Filipino' rather than 'Philippine'.
• While it is true that adjectives used as nouns can never be plural, its adoption as the name of the Philippines (originally correctly 'Philippine islands' from 'Las Islas Filipinas', cf. 'Faroe Islands' > 'Faroes') makes it a bit more confusing. Making it a viable alternative in the MOS can imply that sentences like "The Philippines went dancing last night." is correct when it isn't.
• 'Filipino' encompasses both meanings (as a noun and as an adjective), while 'Philippine' only applies as an adjective. i.e. Filipino can mean 'Filipino person' or 'of the Philippines', while 'Philippine' can only ever mean 'of the Philippines'. The current implementation is fine as it is.

P.S. National Geographic Society's Manual of Style also makes a distinction for Filipino/Filipina being used for people, relegating Philippine more correctly to the meaning 'of the Philippines'.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quickie: Obsidian Soul, when I spoke of Philippine writers, I did actually mean writers living in the Philippines, or born there, irrespective of their ethnicity. I would include foreigners in this who reside in the Philippines. Your example of an Australian playing for a Philippine team is analogous to the hypothetical example I gave of a French woman acting as a special envoy for the Philippine government: this is the distinction I am trying to get at.

And of course I fully agree that "Manny Pacquiao is a Philippine." is an impossibility. We should add that to the MOS: "Filipino"/"Filipina" are nouns that can be used to refer to a person, "Philippine" is not. --JN466 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, typing that up took a while, heh. So I didn't see your additions/clarifications until after I had already hit 'Save page'.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your efforts! --JN466 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I came to this conversation late, and it has been very enlightening. The clarification that the real distinction is not between inanimate/animate, but between "representing the country" vs. "ethnicity" shall I think be very useful in the future. I do believe the 'animate' vs 'inanimate' distinction exists, and has been asserted as a distinction because it's a distinction Filipinos (Philippine people) tend to make more consciously, although not universally, on top of the 'representing the country vs ethnicity' distinction. The 'representing the country vs ethnicity' is a very instinctive distinction I believe most Filipino language speakers have never really thought out loud. I could be wrong, though. - Alternativity (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I think there is agreement above that the present version doesn't quite hit the mark. Here's a proposal:

• Philippine is generally used with inanimate nouns. Examples: the Philippine National Anthem, the Philippine Senate.

  Philippine is also used as an adjective for people when it describes people representing the Philippine nation. Examples: the Philippine president, the Philippine ambassador, a Philippine politician, the Philippine goalkeeper.

  Note that Philippine cannot be used as an adjectival noun: The Philippine was talking to the Frenchman is not idiomatic English.

• Filipino is used as an adjective and adjectival noun to refer to male Philippine citizens or people with Philippine ancestry: a Filipino actor, He is [a] Filipino. It is also used for mixed-gender groups, or where the gender is unkown. Example: Many Filipinos believe ...

  Filipino may also be used with inanimate nouns, though it is more commonly applied to people. Examples: Filipino cuisine, Filipino art.

  Filipino is also the name of the national language. Examples: She speaks Filipino, Filipino-speakers.

• Filipina is used when referring to women, both as an adjective and as an adjectival noun. Examples: a Filipina poet, The company is run by a Filipina.

  Filipino women is an expression that is mainly used outside the Philippines and should be avoided in Philippine-related articles; in Philippine English, standard usage is Filipinas, Filipina women or, more rarely, Philippine women.

I'm probably not the best person to formulate this proposal, but I thought I'd write this down so you have a starting point for discussion. Now, is the above essentially correct? What needs to be fixed, added, or improved? --JN466 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• CommentLooks good to me, but perhaps more correct and incorrect examples for each usage? The second usage of Filipino should also be linked to Filipino language and perhaps moved at the end of the list.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added the link to Filipino language for the bold word Filipino in the second bullet point. (We could also place the link on "national language"; not sure what is better.) Further examples of correct and incorrect usage might be useful, in particular if they illustrate mistakes that people unfamiliar with Philippine English often make. Suggestions? --JN466 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added examples for use of Filipino to refer to the language, moved this entry to the end of the list, and have added examples for Filipino as an adjective (Filipino economy and Filipino workers). --JN466 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Should we say, Filipina, the feminine form of Filipino, is used when referring to women, rather than may be used, or does usage vary? In other words, can you say in Philippine English, "She is Filipino"? --JN466 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is a better proposal than the original one. One nitpick is that I would write "Philippine economy" instead of "Filipino economy". If you want an example of "Filipino" used with an abstract or inanimate object, then I would suggest "Filipino cuisine" or "Filipino art". --seav (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to Filipino cuisine, which does sound better. --JN466 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this proposal is pretty good, and I say this as someone who wasn't thrilled about the first one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --JN466 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just one thing I am not clear about: Can you say "she is Filipino", or would you say "she is Filipina" in Philippine English?
• If Filipino is never applied to women, then we should say "Filipina is (rather than may be) used when referring to women."
• Should we mention "Filipina women" as another correct option? Is it more common than "Philippine women"? --JN466 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My take on them:

• Yes. "She is Filipina." is the correct way to say it.
• Main problem is that westerners are less familiar with "Filipina", and often use "Filipino" for both male and female and has thus acquired a sort of acceptability elsewhere. But given that this is an MOS, I think it's justifiable that we explicitly tell them to use "Filipina" when referring to the female Filipinos (even in native languages, Pilipina and Pilipino are carefully differentiated). "Filipino" though, is used when referring to mixed gender plurals or when the gender is unknown.
• Heh. "Philippine women" raises my hackles for some reason. Mostly because I usually encounter that phrasing in anthropological works. Well meaning probably, but for me, it depersonalizes the subject. i.e. The tone of "Philippine women" reminds me somewhat of when scientists talk about "Philippine birds" or "Philippine mammals", etc. It distances the speaker from the subject, this was one of the reasons why I didn't quite like the idea of legitimizing 'Philippine' as an adjective to describe persons as well. I dunno. I can't quite pinpoint what I object to about it, :/ But yeah "Filipina women" or "Filipinas", at least for me, is vastly more preferable to "Philippine women". This applies even if it was referring to say, a beauty pageant contestant who represents the Philippines. "Philippine women" just sounds wrong. I dunno how the rest feel about it though, and it's probably just me.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal in line with your comments. Please check. --JN466 09:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: While "Filipino" is not that used to denote women, it is not entirely wrong. I'd favor removing that part in the MOS as "Filipino" has became gender-neutral. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of your comment, I've dropped a slightly tweaked form of the the proposal in now (I've written, "Filipinio is mainly used for males or mixed gender groups..."), because I think there is a consensus above that this proposal comes closer to what we want than what we had. We can still discuss and optimise it further though. I don't have a strong view on whether "Filipino women" for example should be listed as an undesired usage in Philippine-related articles; not being a native speaker, I have to leave that to you who have grown up with the language. I'll keep looking in though. Cheers, --JN466 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Filipino" would be used in English the same way it would be used in Spanish: the masculine form is used for a group composed of men or for mixed-gender groups, while "Filipina" is used for a group composed of women. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)