Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Manila Waldorf School is up for AfD

For your infor, Manila Waldorf School has been nominated for AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manila Waldorf School for the discussion. --Vsion 23:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Quezon

I just finished removing the accented "ó" in Quezon. I also did this on the Spanish & German wikipedia articles for Quezon City and Manuel L. Quezon. There is no ó in Quezon, folks. The stress is on the first syllable, and plus I think Quezon is a Chinese name. Besides, quesón means "big cheese." ;-) --Chris S. 19:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Demographics, Ethnographics, etc

We have Demographics of the Philippines, Demographics of the Philippines by other sources and now we have Ethnic Groups of the Philippines, I'm planning to add TWO HUNDRED more articles about demographics and ethnographics. Is it blasphemous or against anybody's religion if we merge them all? Or merge them under Demographics of the Philippines, in one and Filipino people in the other. (or we can just keep on increasing ethnic and demographic articls ad infinitum)--Jondel 10:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Support a merge under Demographics of the Philippines, in one and Filipino people in the other. Ancheta Wis 11:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Filipino people should be separate from Demographics of the Philippines. One refers to an ethnic group while one refers to the other country. This is how other countries and ethnic groups are done; like there is Demographics if Italy and Italian people, Czech people and Demographics of the Czech Republic, Latino and the various demographic articles for Latin American countries. But yes, please merge or VfD Demographics of the Philippines by other sources. There is also the question of the categories that needs to be fixed there's Filipino groups, People of the Philippines, and now Ethnic Groups of the Philippines (which has non-Wiki style caps). --Chris S. 12:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree. I guess I was too elliptical in my support vote. That means 3 for the proposal so far Ancheta Wis 21:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Racist Definition of Filipino

The article Ethnic Groups of the Philippines defines Filipino based on race, i.e., Filipinos are Formosans/Malays/Austronesians/Papuans or whatever you want to call the bulk of the ancestors of Filipinos. The rest are Chinese, Spanish, Indians, etc., who happen to live in the Philippines.

I do not think Filipino should be defined by race for 2 reasons:

1) This seems to be the personal opinion of the writer, thus POV. I don't think Filipino is generally defined by race. 2) Even if it were, race is ambiguous, and thus wouldn't be a good diffentiator, and thus wouldn't make a good definition. The concept of race itself is questionable. Will we measure our Filipinoness by the % of Malays among our ancestors?

I'm not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. Could we vote to NOT define Filipino in terms of race? --Nino Gonzales 07:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not just call it Asian race? Asians as in Hispanic or Latinos. "The Filipino belongs to the Asian race." --Saluyot 10:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think race is something to be avoided. I am taking an anthropolgy class right now and I have learned both in and outside of it, that anthropologists reject the term race. There is more information at the race article. Thus, scientifically there is no such thing as a Malay race, which, even if there were would still be wrong anyway given the current migration theory (from Southern China via Taiwan, rather than from Malaysia that is backed up by a body of archaeological, linguistic, and anthropological evidence.
To get around this, anthropologists refer to ethnic groups. So you can say that a certain percentage of Filipinos belong to the one of many ethnolinguistic groups of the Philippines (Tagalog, Cebuano, Igorot, Karay-a, etc.) rathern than saying that so-and-so percent are "Malays." And that a certain percentage are are respectively Spanish, Chinese, etc.
It is ok to say what the country's ethnic make-up is. There is nothing inherently racist about it since this is the kind of information is usually NPOV. As a guide, I suggest taking a look at the articles for other countries as to get an idea on what might be worth mentioning. --Chris S. 13:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, discussion on ethnic make-up is good. Equating Filipino to a race or certain ethnolinguistic groups... bad. You'd end up with absurd statements like "Filipinos account for 75% and form the bulk of the population." I never realized that 1/4 of the people in the Philippines aren't Filipinos. OK, just ranting... I spent a lot of time removing racist statements in the Demographics article, and here it is again...--Nino Gonzales 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the first header clearly states the following percentages as 'Ancestry Percentages' and not 'race percentages'. And also, that's why the article is named 'Ethnic Groups of the Philippines' and not as 'Races of the Philippines. There are only four words spelled 'race' that are present in the article (which are really, by the way, wrong in some aspects). I can't just figure out why many of us Filipinos claim being the melting pot of Asia or have part Foreign (whether it be Spanish, European, Chinese, Arab, etc) ancestry and then when an article like this comes, they say it's too racist.

The article is racist not because it talks about ancestry, ethnicity or race. It is racist because it defines Filipino in terms of race. It equates the Malay race to Filipino. This is accurate if applied to specific ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines. The Tagalogs, the Bisaya, the Illocanos are part of the Malay race (or if you ask Chris Sundita, decendants of Austronesians). Could we say Englishmen are Caucasians? Diba we say x% of Englishmen are Caucasians. Benjamin Zephaniah is black and he's considered as English as Prince Charles. --Nino Gonzales 09:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is us, Filipinos, who claim to be part of the Malay 'race'. The DK Reference Factbook (2005 edition) even says that the Filipinos comprise a measly 50% of the country's total population. For info's sake, the National Statistics Office does not include ethnicity in its surveys. Hence, any population proportion may be acceptable, because it's simply subjective in the sense that there is no authority whether Filipinos really comprise 50% of the population or 98%. It is how Filipinos (incl. Mestizos, FIlipino CHinese, FIlipino Arabians, FIlipino Negritos, etc.) define themselves. And also, there are many Filipinos who have a white or pale skin. Do you really think that they are pure Austronesians/Malays/whetever? Of course there has been extensive commerce betwene the Filipinos and the Xinese, that presently, it is estimated that up to 50% of all FIlipinos may have Chinese blood. I think it is not included in the article, because anyone who puts an info like that gets branded as a 'racist' by other fellow Wikipedians. Actually, it is not racism, it just represents the right of other ethnicites to get recognized. It is ike denying the FIlipinos who are of Spanish, VIetnamese, Malaysian, or of Any descent to have representation in the country's tabulation of ethnicity. The article is merely parsimonious- simple yet comprehensive. In my opinion there is only one fault- the author failed to give more information about the Igorots, Highland Tribes, Manobos, Lumads, Gaddangs, and Badjaos. But I think if the article defined 'Badjaos' as Malaysians, which theoretically, is true (Badjaos are natives of Semporna, Sabah before their ancestors got into the seafaring lifestyle)), there would be another branding as 'racist'. I think having an open mind would lead to to accept that there are really significant minorities residing in our country who have contributed much to ous culture and have lived in ur country to share our hopes and aspirations. I would commend on Christopher Sundita, for he really has an open-mind, and is matur enough to accept that reality. (P.S. The Ivatans language and physiognomy would closely show that they are more closer to the Formosans than to us mainstream FIlipinos, but they are still FIlipinos. Labeling them as Formosans just defined their ancestry- which in fact, is in Formosa/Taiwan.) --User:An A and Yellow Kewibe 13:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


I just can't stop thinking that this page has become rediculous. I could start a page today saying, "Ethnic people of Japan" and say, there are British Japanese, American Japanese, Portugese Japanese, Brazillian Japanese etc. Now does that make sense? It is true that Philippines was part of the Spanish Empire and there have been some (not many) Spanish immigrants. Also, there have been documents that Chinese and Arabs have been in the Philippines as well. However, this article is including Italians (no colonial connection), Jews (perhaps with Spanish but this is too little to even consider) and other Europeans. Filipinos are Malay people (no matter how some bitterly deny this, this is the fact). I have many Filipino friends (intellectuals) who do say that Philippines is a country mostly consisting Malays. It is a Malay language and look Malay. Other than my close Filipino friends (intellectual), almost all Filipinos I have met have claimed some sort of Spanish ancestry and clearly they do not even look like they do. My Filipino Friends call it "Colonial Mentality".

I don't want this document to be vandalized by Filipino fanatics who truly believe that "all" Filipinos are mix etc.

However, we must not forget about the Mestizos as well. There are Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and American Mestizos who are mostly in the elite family. But we should delete many other ethnic people because their numbers are insiginificant.

My propsal is to include:

Malay: 95% Chinese: 2% Mestizo:2% Others (expatriat, Negritos, East Indians):1%

Make it simple and acurate.

What do you guys think?

Cheers!

Yes, ur right, but in actual population proportion during the Spanish Era, (Fr. Les Philippines by Jean Mallat), the Spaniards make 110,000 of the total population in 'Luconia' (present-day Luzon), while that of the 'Tagalas' (they call all Filipinos Tagalas then) is 220,000. Based on that figure, it then seems like 33% of all Luzonians are now-Spanish. And Europeans, in say, for example, Japan, are mostly exptriates and are not permanent residents of the country, while here in the Philippines, there really are many Europeans permanently residing with their FIlipina wives(a carry over from the American colonial era). That's why there are many Filipinos (particularly in the entertainment industry), who carry surnames not typically 'Spanish' or 'Tagalog', but European. (The Encyclopedia Americana in the 1960 edition, it included the British, French, and Swiss in its demographics of the Philippines. Actually, it was said that the Spaniards planned to move all Spanish Jews (Marranos) here during the Spanish colonial period, and so they did (although just a small portion of the total Jewish [population in Spain.) The Jews had a wide influence during the Spanish colonial period in Mindanao, however, they were driven by the hostility towards Arabs and FIlipino Muslims, and many immigrated to the States. The reason why Jews were not recognized as significant in the history of the Philippines is due to the fact that all persons from Spain (thus, including Jews) are put under an umbrella called 'Spaniards'. That is why we Filipinos still call Basques, Galicians, and Catalans as Spanish, even though Spanish as a term really connoted the Castilians only. And also, the Spanish Jews were already speaking a dialect of Spanish, so they were considered as Spaniards by the people of our country. You may ask, why then did the Arabs and the FIlipino Muslims harassed the Jews, if they were known for being a Spanish? It is becoz the Filipino Muslims were soemwhat hostile then to all Spanish, and so they harassed the latter until they immigrated away in droves to the UNited States during the American tutelage. Btw, I think that labeling Filipinos as 'Malays' is totally wrong, for they are descended from Austronesians who came first from China to FOrmosa (Taiwan), then to the Philippines, before continuing on towards present-day Malaysia. Filipinos are NOT malays, they just bear resemblance and the physiognomy of the Malays, just as the Spaniards who bear the resemblance of Italians, and Argentinians bearing the resemblanbce of Mexicans. Because Filipinos and Malays belong to the same Austronesian stock, but they are not similar or domineering over the other, like the Spanish and the Italians, both belonging to european stock, but neither the spanish nor the italians domineering over the other.I think this is an equal view.

Btw, sana we will be able to find a real listing of peoples of different natianlities residing in the Philippines, so as to stop this conflagrating talk if FIlipinos really are Malays, Austronesians, or whatever. Cheers!

Hi!
Still it does not work like that. I'm sorry but Filipinos must accept the fact that they are Asian. South East Asian that is. Not this Mestizo race. Even Latin America,everybody is not a mix. Maybe Japan was a bad example. It's like saying in China, there are Mongols, Koreans, Tibetans, Yao, Miao, Dai Uygurs etc. Are they CHinese? politically, yes. Ethnically? No. Chinese are a race. Just like the Filipinos. They are a race. An Austronesian Race or Malay. Filipinos claim Sabah is part of their country and Sabah is Malay as well. Malay word Aku and Tagalog word Ako is similar. Filipinos are Malay. However, we can't completely shun the Mestizo community as well because they are important part of the Filipino history as well. But it must not be exagerated.
First, Spaniards did not migrate to the Philippines very much because of geological location (it was just too far)
Second, there were limited intermarriages in the Philippines. Mestizos were already endogomous. I have a Mestizo Filipino friend and he can still speak Spanish and his skin is lighter than mine. He is real. But he did say that Mestizos are unfortunately very racist and generally do not want to mix in with the masses (the local people).
Third, you cannot say all Filipinos are mixed with Spanish. That is just plain lie. Even East Timorese under Portugese rule have only couple thousand Mestico (Mestizo) out of a million population.
It is unfortunate that this document is severely vandalized by Poeple (probably fanatic Filipinos) who dream of making Filipino people of various race and deny the fact that they are Malay/Austornesian/Papuan.
Adding Italians, Jews, is pointless and just messes up people who truly wants to learn about the Philippines. I just can't stand Filipinos who say "I am Spanish, Chinese, Japanese Filipino" or what ever.
Why can't Filipinos just say, "I am Filipino". I love the culture, the people are friendly, and the language is beautiful (Maganda!) Just be proud of what you are.
Anyways, again, this article really needs to be cleaned up.

We don't need to include Italian Mestizo or East Indian Mestizo etc.

Just the significant ones. Spanish, Chinese,Japanese and American. Plain and simple. Their numbers are not big and does not exceed 5%.
Let's not make this article look Cheap.
Cheers!
Sept 27/2005 22:29. By Filipino lover
Hi.
No need to start calling people fanatics and not assume their good faith. Let's examine some statements based on their accuracy and not for any other reason. If you think they are accurate or inaccurate please state your reasons. --Nino Gonzales 16:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Filipinos are Asian
Accurate. Asia is a geographical term. The Philippines are located in Asia.
Filipinos are Malay
Inaccurate. If there is at least one Filipino who is not Malay, then this statement is inaccurate. St. Lorenzo Ruiz is not Malay and is Filipino. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay. The Igorots are not Malay and they are Filipinos. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera is not Malay and is Filipino. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay.
Some (or even most) Filipinos are Malay
Accurate. In so far as there is such thing as race (something which is disputed), most Filipinos belong to the race which is generally identified by their brown skin color, straight to slightly wavy hair, not as chinky eyed as Chinese and not as large-eyed as Caucasians; the race which is generally identified as Malay.
Filipinos are Mestizos
Inaccurate. Mestizos is generally defined as a person who has ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Many Filipinos have ancestors who are all considered to belong to the same race. Therefore not all Filipinos are Mestizos. Therefore "Filipinos are Mistizos" is inaccurate.
Some Filipinos are Mestizos
Accurate. Mestizos is generally defined as a person who has ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Many Filipinos have ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Therefore some Filipinos are Mestizos. Therefore "Some Filipinos are Mistizos" is accurate. In terms of %, I think 2% is too small. I think 50% of the people I know have some non-Malay ancestors. Most of this 50% have Chinese blood and many have Spanish blood.
Filipino is a race
I think this is inaccurate. My opinion is that based on the history of the word Filipino and the ambiguous meaning of race, Filipino should not be defined in terms of race. Filipino originally denoted belongingness to a community in a certain geography rather than race; the Spaniards who called themselves Filipinos did not do so because of their ancestry; they did so because they were living in a place which happened to be called Philippines. After the Philippine revolution, Filipino still did not refer to race or ethnicity. Rizal, Aguinaldo, Quezon, Osmena, Pardo de Tavera all considered themselves and by everyone else as Filipino. Yet, they could not all be classified into a race. That would be like classifying Martin Luther King and George Bush into a race. A cultural or political definition of Filipino would probably be better.
Filipino lover should be sorry that Filipinos must accept the fact that they are Asians.
Why should he be sorry? Is he saying there is something wrong with being Asian?
Overall, I feel that People are just ranting about wishing Filipinos to be set apart from the Malays/Papuans/Polynesian. There were way too little Spaniards in the Philippines even to mix in with the local people. There were no epidimics that killed the local Filipinos like the Americas, and also, there were no massive immigrants from Europe to the Philippines.

1903 census In 1903 the population of the PhilippinesPhilippines1911 was 7,635,426, including 56,138 foreign-born. In the 100 years since the 1903 census, the population has grown by a factor of eleven.

By city or towns exceeding 10,000:

Manila 219,928 Laoag, Ilocos Norte 19,699 Iloilo, Iloilo 19,054 Cebu, Cebu 18,330 Nueva Caceres (Naga City), Camarines Sur 10,021 There were 13,400 villages, nearly 75% of which had fewer than 600 inhabitants.

By race or ethnicity:

Malay: 7,539,632 (98.7%) Chinese: 42,097 (0.6%) Mestizo: 15,419 (0.2%) Negrito: 23,511 (0.3%) Caucasian: 14,271 (0.2%) [Spaniards and White US Servicemen] Negro: 505 (0.01%) [Black US Servicemen] The ethnic Malay population divided by language:

Christian Visayan: 3,219,030 Tagalog: 1,460,695 Ilocano: 803,942 Bicol: 566,635 Pangasinan: 343,686 Pampangan: 280,984 Cagayan: 159,648 Muslim Moro: 277,547 Igorot Igorot: 211,520

This seems to be correct or accurate. But the fact is, we need to clean this page for sure. When I first looked in to this page, I was going,"What a???"

Philippines never had such aggressive immigrants especially from Europe. See the difference. The figure of making European mix 50% is totally unbelievable. Not Even Peru has that mixture.

Maybe we should have a vote perhaps what to do with this page? I do agree that Jondel is a great candidate to fix this. I would like to help too. I am just worried about vandalism though...

Cheers!

22:22 September 29/2005 Filipino Lover


Filipino lover, I think the argument here is not the % of "mixed " Filipinos. The main argument here is to cease the concept of "Filipino" as a race; but rather it should be. Not unless all Filipinos would go under DNA tests, there will never be an accurate figure of Filipinos who are pure and who are mixed.

I want to agree with the disuse of the term "Malay" to refer to the native Filipinos. Outside the Philippines, the term Malay is usually equated to Islam especially in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Southern Thailand. In fact, the Kadazans, who are an indigenous peoples of Malaysia(Mostly, Sabah), are not considered Malay because they are not Muslim. The "native Filipinos" would be better.

Here's the logic. A Filipino of Chinese descent isn't less Filipino than the native Filipinos, a Filipino of part Indian descent does not necessarily make him/her "part Filipino", unless one of his parents is not a Filipino citizen or National. I also strongly oppose to calling the Filipinos of Chinese descent and others who are Filipino national of non-native descent as "Foreign Minorities"(in the Ethnic group og the Philippines; but good thing it has been revised). For Chrissake, they are not "foreigners". Just because they are not of native descent, we should call them foreigners. The foreign minorities would be the Chinese, Koreans, Indians who are not Filipino citizens nor nationals. The article seems to alienate the Filipinos of non-native descent as if they are less Filipino than the majority who are natives.

However, I find nothing wrong if some people identify themselves as [other ethnicity or ethnicity]- Filipino. It just that they celebrate/recognize the other part of their heritage other than Filipino. It's still a matter of allegiance and integration. =)

Filipino overseas communities

Keep? Stubify? If no one is willing to add or build up, please delete. We should do our own housecleaning. There is also a controversial Filipino diaspora article.--Jondel 05:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Filipino diaspora. But damn - why are there all those tags on that one? At saka, hindi ba dapat Overseas Filipino communities? In any case, before anything should be done, we should check out what has been done for other countries. --Chris S. 06:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Overseas Filipino --Noypi380 03:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Diaspora merged with Overseas Filipino --Noypi380 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the guy that started the Filipino overseas communities article. I've come back to build up the article, but it's been replaced by a redirect to Overseas Filipino (dapat "Overseas Filipinos" di-ba?). I would like to resume my work on Filipino overseas communities under that title (o "Overseas Filipino communities" kung gusto ninyo - pareha sila). The article will be specifically about the communities formed by overseas filipinos. These are noteworthy because while every country has overseas people, very few countries haved created the number of communities that Filipinos have formed. If there're no objections, I'll go ahead and resume work on this article under it's old title. Gronky 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, fine by me as long as youre really going to add material.BTW, I'm an overseas filipino in Japan.--Jondel 05:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the change was done coz overseas filipino can carry all related topics like, issues, communities, subculture, professions, and most importantly, the definition of who is an overseas Filipino, etc. Some Filipinos overseas are living solo also and live separately from the communities, and it would be best to carry them all in one long good article, than separate small stubby articles. Overseas Filipino is broader and has a wikipedia precedent, so i suggest we follow the norm, like Overseas Chinese. Country X overseas communities has no precedent when you search wikipedia, and surely there are other countries with as big or bigger communities than the Filipinos, like China for instance. With these in mind, I suggest you do not proceed with the new article all over again, and instead I highly recommend you lead in writing the communities sub section in Overseas Filipino. I'll help you if you want. :) --Noypi380 07:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to Talk:Overseas Filipino so that it's connected to the article. Gronky 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PhilWiki -- a Yahoo Group for collaboration among different Philippine wikipedias

Hi,

A Yahoo Group for coordinating efforts in the different Philippine- language Wikipedias is now available. For those who are active in the different Philippine Wikipedias (Tagalog, Cebuano, Capampangan, Waray) please join the group so we can collaborate on mutual interests. Thanks.

Here's the group description: This is the support group and coordination forum for the different Philippine-language wikipedias like Tagalog, Cebuano, Capampangan, Waray. This group aims to facilitate communication and collaboration among the different Wikipedia communities in the Philippines. The primary language here will be English, but posts in all Philippine languages are acceptable as long as an English translation is attached. Onward Philippine Wikipedias!


Group Email Addresses Post message: philwiki@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: philwiki-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: philwiki-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: philwiki-owner@yahoogroups.com

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philwiki/>

Thanks in advance.

-- Bentong Isles

Philippine Writer Biographies Project

This project is aimed to document the life of all known Philippine writers.

Miss International

I heard that Precious Lara Quigaman of the Philippines won Miss International Monday evening. Anyone wanna make an article? --Chris S. 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Done it! Please edit and add more info. A picture of Lara would be very nice to include, there are lots of it around but problema sa copyright. Can somebody upload a public domain pic of her? --Saluyot 10:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks nice! Great! --Chris S. 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ilokano Wikipedia

Dagiti gayyem / Mga kaibigan - There is now a proposal for an Ilokano Wikipedia. Please vote at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Ilokano --Chris S. 04:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A test page for the Ilokano Wikipedia proposal is now available! Please take a look and try to edit and supply articles! --Saluyot 03:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ilokano Wikipedia proposal has been approved! --Saluyot 10:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Baguio City, Zamboanga City and Davao City

Here's something that I don't think has been addressed sufficiently here in Wikipedia: how do we treat cities that are province-independent? The only three such cities I know are Baguio City, Zamboanga City, and Davao City, traditionally grouped under Benguet, Zamboanga del Sur, and Davao del Sur. I don't think it's correct that we're lumping these cities under the provinces, when they are independent and have no political relationship with the provinces. On the other hand, I wouldn't know how to shoehorn them in our rather organized structure where cities and municipalities are listed under provinces and are cross-linked with each other. --seav 12:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Also include Cebu City and Talisay City, which are traditionally grouped under Cebu. It's correct that they do not have a political relationship with the province they are usually placed under, but we could not find a better structure, can we? ;) --Bentong Isles 12:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ormoc City which is located in Leyte island is another case. It's an independent component city and not subject to the provincial government of Leyte province.--Harvzsf 17:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please include Naga City as well, which is traditionally grouped under Camarines Sur. It just happens to be grouped under its second legislative district. --Akira123323 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Emilio Aguinaldo

I am writing an article about Emilio Aguinaldo for the Dutch Wikipedia. While reading the article on the English Wikipedia, I was wondering what a cabeza de barangay means (see: Emilio Aguinaldo#Early life and career). Can somebody explain this to me? I want to add that extra information to the article, or maybe even create a new article. Thanks. Magalhães 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Cabeza de is Spanish for 'Head of ' meaning mayor of . Barangay means town or village. Therefore Town Mayor.--Jondel 00:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Today's equivalent would probably be Barangay captain, which we should have an article on. Coffee 03:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, I think it would be good just to expand or create a section at the Barangay for the Barangay captain and create a redirect(I ' think I'll do that now).--Jondel 04:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Magalhães 05:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, just curious, whats the diff between a barangay captain, and a barangay chairman? --Noypi380 07:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Also another question, shouldn't the g be double, ie baranggay? Officially is the spelling correct? Is there a ng sound (pronounced barang-gay)? I need this info for translations.--Jondel 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It's pronounced with both ng and g sounds (like Congo), but spelled "barangay" (at least on the government sites I checked [1] [2]). And Noypi, I think they're two terms for the same thing. Coffee 07:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Many, many years ago, I used to wonder why we spelled it with a single 'g', when we pronounce it with the 'ng' and 'g' sound, sort of like 'mangga'. Wala lang. =) --seav 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Haha, ya I thought so too, just checkin. :-) --Noypi380 08:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Coffee, even if we can speak the language, we need to coordinate with reliable or authorized sources. Or maybe I've become a bit more Japanese in my outlook.--Jondel 14:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Light Christian Academy

The article for Light Christian Academy, a small school in Quezon City, has been listed on WP:AfD. User:Inkypaws has asked for any Wikipedians in the Philippines to supply a newspaper article to confirm that it is a real school. Please comment at its AfD entry. --Idont Havaname 23:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Malufet ang mga batang pinoy

Yet another awesome pinoy beats incredible odds and follows in Kiwi Alejandro Camara 's footsteps. Apologies for not using English.--Jondel 04:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The Philippine Open

Pls help out in expanding one of the world's oldest running golf tourneys - the Philippine Open. It will be having its 90th edition in 2006. --Noypi380 13:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

ZIP Codes

I have started a list of ZIP Codes in the Philippines and can use help in expansion. Currently, the sections of the list on Caloocan City, Las Piñas City and Manila, as well as part of Makati City, are complete. Please help out! --Akira123323 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Aarrgghh, its gonna be so long! The whole RP? I don't mind helping out a bit, but where can I find a list of zip codes anyway? :)--Noypi380 08:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see that article becoming very useful... I keep forgetting my own zip code. >_> Here's a list of Metro Manila codes and Provincial codes. Those might be obsolete though; newer provinces like Zamboanga Sibugay are missing. Coffee 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
If I'm correct, I think Philpost has not released a new ZIP Code list with major revisions yet (there is one minor revision on the 2005-2006 PLDT Commercial Telephone Directory for Metro Manila for Directories Pilipinas Corporation (under the big users section for Makati City), who issues the directories). It is believable that the codes are correct, instead they are within their "mother" sections (for example, Biliran is still referred to as a sub-province of Leyte and the codes for Zamboanga Sibugay are still under Zamboanga del Sur). I will check though with the post office for the latest list, if any. --Akira123323 14:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference Website for Philippine Geography

Recently linked from Regions of the Philippines is this nice website. It's got a lot of info especially on the history of Philippine geography (when a province was founded, when the region was created). It's also quite updated since it shows Palawan as part of Western Visayas per E.O. 429. --seav 12:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is also a very good website concerning the Philippines in general. --Jondel 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Philippine Military Academy

Has a copyright vio. If any of you have the tamad, I mean, time, please write a clean original version the temp. Thanks.--Jondel 09:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Filipino Wikipedian is a disciplined military organization!*salute*--Jondel 09:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no prob, it has already been rescued by User:Circa_1900. Good job. disciplined military org indeed. roger 10-4, over and out. :) --Noypi380 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

La Union and Laguna were moved to La Union province and Laguna province because of other meanings that share the same term. Consequently there are now a lot of Philippine-related pages that now link to the disambiguation pages. I've started editing those pages to disambiguate the links. Maybe somebody would also like to help. =) --seav 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Include Isabela province (Isabela) in your prayers. =) --seav 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Paramilitary category

I am thingking of creating a paramilitary category for revolutionaries and rebels, eg for Emilio Aguinaldo, Katipunan, Sakay, NPA, Moro National Liberation Front, etc.Still investigating.--Jondel 08:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Paco, a Cebuano

Somebody keeps inserting the case of Paco, a Spanish filipino of Cebu who is on death row. He may have a point. I don't know if it is encyclopedic or not but I may create an article.--Jondel 08:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

His case has been on the media since last year, when he was convicted. I think mention of him would be best under the article Death penalty in the Philippines. What do you think? --seav 15:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you both, and I suggest that we check out the link to "Category:Capital_punishment_by_country" for a guide. I believe the articles from that cat are rather helpful. :) --Noypi380 16:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Capital punishment might be encyclopedic. When the Paco article comes out, this will be the dreaded moment of He should know, he's an administrator(if it gets deleted being unencyclopedic). Whatever. I'm an editor first , sysop second. BTW I wanted to mediate between Ang dating daan and Ang tamang daan . I got confused with the issues and decided to read instead about Koko the talking gorilla which seemed to be more interesting.--Jondel 04:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Created the Paco article , will work on Death Penalty later.I hope the article will not be voted for deletion. Just being bold.--Jondel 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barangays

I knew we'd have to ask this question eventually: Are all barangays notable enough to have an article? User:Bornok 20 recently wikilinked all the barangays in Barugo, Leyte, made Template:Barugo, and made an article for Abango, Barugo, Leyte. There are more than 40,000 barangays... Coffee 12:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I proposed an AfD (VfD then) for Barangay Tisa. The proposal was voted down since the article had very good information. Since I personally believe that barangays did not merit articles, a compromise was reached in the form of Barangays in Cebu City. --seav 14:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It should be in a case-to-case basis. Not all barangays deserve an article, but Barangay Tisa is worthy enough to deserve one. It all depends on the historical importance of a certain place. Another example would be streets. Here in Cebu City, a street named Tres de Abril exists. It might not be significant to non-Cebuanos, but for those who know the history of the place (it is where Leon Kilat and his men passed through when they stormed Fort San Pedro, the Spanish bastion in Cebu, during the 1896 Philippine Rebellion), it IS significant. --Bentong Isles 14:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe there are significant barangays in other parts of the Philippines, but I don't know of any significant barangays here in Metro Manila and in neighboring provinces. Usually, it is a place or spot in the barangay itself or an arbitrary set of barangays that is given a name that is significant. Example, Zapote is a significant place in the local history of the Philippine Revolution in between Manila and Cavite since that's where the Battle of Zapote took place and is an important passage. But it doesn't mean that Brgy. Zapote, Las Piñas or Brgy. Zapote, Bacoor, Cavite should have articles.
As for streets, I think there are indeed significant streets that transcend their being just motorways. Examples in Metro Manila include the historic Mendiola and EDSA. Major highways, by their nature, should also have articles (e.g., South Luzon Expressway). --seav 15:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, die-hard inclusionist User:Kappa has made skeleton articles for all the barangays in Barugo. *sigh* I'm not sure if there's enough time to make a difference, but the vote at the TFD entry for the Barugo template is split 50-50. Please add your voice to that discussion. Coffee 06:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added my two centavos. --seav 11:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Everyone, please add your voice to the discussion on the TfD, whether you agree with me or not. Thanks! --seav 11:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have boldly created Barangays of Barugo, Leyte and started the process of merging the barangay articles into this main article. I'm not done yet since I have little time right now, but hopefully someone can continue until I can get more time later. =) (P.S. User Kappa is an annoying extremist inclusionist.) --seav 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Merging is done. --seav 00:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. And Kappa is indeed annoying... really, someone came up with statistics of AFD votes in the past few months, and his votes were 95% keep. Coffee 07:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Going back to are all barangays notable, there are Category:Villages in the Philippines and probably villages categories for other nations. Knowing CalJW, he may insist on moving this category to the villages category which I will oppose. --Jondel 04:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Philippine-related Featured Articles

Wikitionary

There is a wikitionary and a place for us to create a Tagalog dictionary for those who don't know.--Jondel 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just wonder how it will stack up against UP Diksyonaryong Filipino. I have no knack for dictionary writing so I'll leave that one alone for now. --seav 08:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Are they paid to write the dictionary? Since wiki is open source, there is no deadlines. you just have to rely on volunteer work. It's probably like Linux vs Windows. There are others who may want to write the dictionary, just for them to know. --Jondel 11:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Pahabol, the link by the way (for Tagalog) is tl.wiktionary.org --Noypi380 15:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the burgeoning Tagalog loanwords, I've uploaded the first compilation of words.It is still a horrible mess though.--Jondel 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some planned additions to the dictionary:

Hinahamon kita, lumabas ka ryan.
I am turning you into a piece of ham, get out!
Anong gusto mong palabasin?
What do you want to exit?
Magandang hapon po.
A beautiful Japanese to you.
Baktol
libag

--Jondel 02:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Add this also: Umayos ka! - Fix yourself! :-) --Jojit fb 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Balang araw, pag-higantiin kita!
On Bullet's day , I will giant you!
Anong isip mo sa akin ? Basta-basta?
What do you think of me ? Just -Just?--Jondel 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kahit ano, basta ikaw, dahil malakas ka sa akin. Anything, just you, because you're strong to me.

Michael H. Allen

When the Leandro Aragoncillo case blew wide open a few weeks ago, I happened across an article about a Navy reservist who passed along classified information to the Philippine Constabulary back in 1986. I forgot his name, until I came across his name again in another article. Check out the article I wrote on him. RashBold 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Paco Larrañaga

Ok, time to face the dreaded 'He should know, he's an adminstrator ' criticism thing. I've created an article about Paco Larrañaga . I'm afraid of repercussions, misinterpretations, etc. I hope its not unencyclopedic.--Jondel 04:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Day1:Hmmm still no Vfd's or criticism. The tension is killing me.--Jondel 01:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, uhm, here goes. I think you can focus on his life aside from the legalities. :) --Noypi380 14:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • relief* I guess I can focus on his life other things now. Looks like wikpedia accepts the article .  :D .--Jondel 06:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
hahah, I guess so. But you better keep close watch, the VFd's could still come, though I doubt it would be from us. :) --Noypi380 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll keep watch. Maybe wikipedia is not as strict or scrutinizing on administrators as I thought.--Jondel 07:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Translation

Hey people. I was wondering if anyone would like to translate The all mighty and powerful GNU Free Documentation licence to the Philippine wikipedias. (Tagalog, Cebuano, etc). Its kinda like the consti of all the wiki projects that allow freedoms we all share today. Whja think? --Noypi380 02:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually started translating the GFDL and GPL into Iloko in the Ilokano Wikipedia. I plan to translate all GNU documentations, if I can. And there are Tagalog translations of most of F/OSS texts here (not within Tagalog Wikipedia, btw). --Saluyot 13:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you plan to translate all of them? Good luck, I hope the wikipedians there will help you out, tough to translate those docs solo (unless you are an expert in the lang.). Hmmm, other than that, it looks like that the Ilokano wiki has no prob then with those docs. What about the other Rp wikis, translations anyone? :) --Noypi380 14:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Help on the LRT and MRT

Hello people (again). I can use some help on the articles for the LRT and MRT. Pictures would be helpful for both articles, and I'm thinking of adding on to the entire MRT article (moving extensions sections to the LRT article and adding information aside from the already-present station names). Please help out. --Akira123323 12:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Filipino Americans

An article was requested to be deleted. Pls visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Americans to vote to delete or to keep. Apprently the article failed to explain its criteria on notability on who are worth putting on the list. Revisions I think are good too. --Noypi380 08:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch!--Jondel 09:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Ya, I was checking out Vanessa Minnillo, and then I found deletion request, just on time. :) --Noypi380 13:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philippine sites

Hi! This category has a vote for deletion. Please cast your vote here. I am requesting that the site be retained or at lease a category for place be retained. CalJW wants to rename it to Philippine Landmarks. --Jondel 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Julius Babao-Dawud Santos affair

Has anybody tried to make an article on this case? If not, allow me to write it. Please reply in my Talk page. RashBold (Talk) 21:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and write it. If the article exists, then I hope it would be OK with you to merge it.--Jondel 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
No problemo, Jondel. RashBold (Talk) 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Je vous en prie.--Jondel 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a tourist guide?

User:CalJW wants to convert Category:Philippine sites toCategory:Landmarks_in_the_Philippines. [See here]. His previous proposal was tourist attraction.

He also wants to delete Category: Places in Cuba. For some reason , places and locations are ambigous to him.

CalJW has done a laudable and respectable job converting and creating categories, however, I've done a lot of work on categories in the Philippines and I think a places or locations categories are needed which he feels are not.

Wikipedia is not a tourism site! There are Category:Star Wars locations,Category:Bible places, Category:New Testament places and Category:Torah places. I don't see anything vague with the meaning of place. Buildings and places have totally different meanings. --Jondel 07:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia is not a tourism guide, but citing important places is encyclopedic, so I do not think there should be any problem. :) --Noypi380 12:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I want to use words that mean important place or significant location or place not the word landmark. A landmark is a geographical marker to help tell where you are. It also has come to mean a tourist attraction. 'Place/location/site' feels more accurate. I was the one who created the Philippine sites category and don't want it changed to landmark. Thanks for sharing your insights though.  :)--Jondel 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking for a coordinator

Can someone become coordinator for 2005 Philippine electoral crisis? It needs one coz its now under peer review, and I can't work on it coz I'll be busy for quite some time. Pls add your name in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Featured articles. Thanks. Merry Christmas too :) --Noypi380 06:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Julius Babao-Dawud Santos affair

Ok I have begun the article and started the ball rolling. Any additions on this article will be welcome. RashBold (Talk) 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 SEA Games

Since the 2005 Southeast Asian Games is now ongoing, may we devote our time, at least for the duration of the games, to man and watch this article? =) --seav 04:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

I've nominated Provinces of the Philippines at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. It would be nice to see it promoted. :) Coffee 04:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fighting Maroons article

I'm calling all students of the University of the Philippines to help me with the article. I also enjoin you to clean-up articles about the system and the university as well. Thanks. qing_her

I have a story. My uncle was a 1933 graduate of the UP in Electrical Engineering. He then got a job at the Telephone company in the Ilocos provinces (where he was from). The linemen were very skeptical ("we've got a snot-nosed kid for a boss" -- when this was duly reported by the party-line gossip over the phone my grandmother was confident -- "he can take care of himself.") and my uncle proved his worth by remotely diagnosing a problem on the phone, simply by listening to the machinery over the phone. -- What this shows me is that the Philippines was fully up to date in terms of capital equipment and investment by the US companies -- education, equipment, etc. The telephone company was founded in 1928. That doesn't mean there weren't horse-drawn carriages then, but horses were also very much in use the US at that time as well. Even the US Army used them up til 1940 and WWII. --Ancheta Wis 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

High time for a promotion.

This is a job for super sysop. I would like to encourage you all to become sysops as most of you are inured, ready and have the temperament and caliber. If a man started to check and open an automated machine wearing only plain clothes , people would get paranoid. He should wear a badge and uniform. If a person asked for your ID wearing only plain clothes you would be belligerent and refuse. The man has to wear the uniform. You can't be in between. Like Jimbo says, it should be no big deal. You might encounter skirmishes as a sysop but not more than what you already encounter at the editor level. It is really no big deal. And considering there are many trolls prowling about. It is just not proper. We're probably the only English speaking group here with a modicum of sysops. I've requested a few to become sysops and might again nominate in the coming weeks.Pls don't feel like this is an imposition. If you are going to volunteer to edit here, might as well do it with full capability to do so. The only thing it takes for evil trolls to rule the online community is for good (looking) people to do nothing.  :) --Jondel 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm still not interested. Maybe you can convince others, though. =) --seav 03:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Seav, please, its no big deal. None of the ' he should know' yak yak yak. No edit wars. I was about to nominate you. As Luke and Anakin Skywalker says, 'NOOOOoooooooooo ' *fade away*. Seriously you've been here much longer than most us have.--Jondel 04:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Jondel, as you know I got the badge. Countrymen, I am available for your requests, but I may be in a different timezone than some of you, as I live in a Cold Country where we need to shovel snow. Still you have at least 3 sysops by my count, maybe more. A sus ordenes,--Ancheta Wis 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! =) --seav 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cavite Politicians

This category is up for deletion, FYI.Please vote.--Jondel 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Filipino movie directors to Category:Philippine film directors

This category is about to be moved, please vote here WP:CfD.--Jondel 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

CalJW is beginning to be really annoying. --seav 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
He is obsessed with categorizing and the superiority of his British English. How would you feel if the Barangays category got renamed? Ouch! I 've lost motivation to categorize Philippine related articles knowing he will redo the work.--Jondel 04:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we have an explicit policy about using "Filipino" or "Philippine" in the category system? We shouldn't leave that ambiguous. Taking a quick glance at the main Philippines category, I see Category:Filipino environment and Category:Filipino media, which are probably better as "Philippine environment" and "Philippine media". Perhaps we should only use the "Filipino" form when it deals directly with the people. Coffee 04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
My issue is with CalJW's overcategorization. For reference purposes, this was extracted from www.dictionary.com:Fil·i·pi·no( P )Pronunciation Key(fl-pn)n. pl. Fil·i·pi·nos :A native or inhabitant of the Philippines. The Austronesian language that is based on Tagalog, draws its lexicon from other Philippine languages, and is the official language of the Philippines. adj. Of or relating to the Philippines or its peoples, languages, or cultures. --Jondel 05:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Philippine to me sounds more formal and state-like. Philippine government. Philippine republic. Philippine embassy. etc. Philippine President=President of the Philippines. Filipino president=a president of Filipino ethnicity.--Jondel 05:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think "Filipino" is for people only, for example Filipino golfer, Filipino journalist. Excemptions I think are for titles such as Philippine president and other similar titles, (president is primarily an office, not a person, so rule does not apply). "Philippine" - inamimate objects, events, places, buildings, etc. I am 90% sure of these--Noypi380 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I also use "Filipino" as an adjective to refer to cultural things. Filipino art vs. Philippine art. Filipino music vs. Philippine music. Filipino cuisine vs. Philippine cuisine. Filipino films vs. Philippine films. --seav 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Quezon was moved to Quezon Province

Can this be moved back (admin rights needed)? This is getting ridiculous. I really think that the province is a case of Paris and not Paris, France. Antique, Cotabato, Leyte, Davao, and Samar are obvious in their need for the province marker. So do Isabela, Aurora, Abra, and probably Laguna and La Union. But I draw the line at Quezon. (And Rizal might be targetted next.) --seav 12:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved it back. Coffee 07:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! =) --seav 11:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Davao or Davao del Norte?

The province formerly known as Davao del Norte and renamed as Davao in 1972 (RA 6430) seems to have gotten its old name back. The official site calls the province "Davao del Norte" while the NSCB's Philippine Standard Geographic Code, which I consider the foremost reference on the naming of LGUs of the Philippines is now calling the province Davao del Norte too (see [3]). I'm quite sure NSCB named it as just Davao a few years ago back when I first created the province pages. I don't know when the province was changed back to its former name, but should we rename it here in Wikipedia?

This change is potentially a big thing since links would have to be changed, templates updated, maps updated (!), and article texts changed. There should be a checklist of things to update. Now if only I can find out why it was renamed back (was there an R.A.?) --seav 12:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

According to this site, "Name of Davao province changed back to Davao del Norte" in March 1998. I guess we should update everything. *dies* Coffee 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the same RA 8470 which created Compostela Valley also renamed Davao back to Davao del Norte. The province should've been DdN from the very start of Wikipedia. Ok... time to start the checklist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philippine LGUs/Davao del Norte checklist. BTW, there is a pending House Bill planning to rename Compostela Valley to Davao de Oro. I hope, for our purposes, this won't get passed. Hehehe. =) --seav 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
An even more awful change (at least for our purposes) would be if the Philippines shifts to a federal system and, as described at the bottom of this page, "Provinces would eventually be phased out and simply cease to exist". >_< Coffee 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the law (RA 6430) was even followed in the first place. After checking the actual law, no clause in RA 8470 mentions the renaming of Davao province back to Davao del Norte but the law in its entirety calls the said province Davao del Norte and not Davao. In fact, the title speaks for itself when it refers to Davao del Norte from the beginning:
Republic Act No. 8470
An act creating the province of Compostela Valley from the province of Davao del Norte, and for other reasons.
This probably means that the law was not followed in the first place (or some other law renamed it). --Akira123323 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What a mess. Is there any searchable online database of republic acts? I thought that the Chan Robles online law library would have it but I can't find it there. --seav 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a searchable database of republic acts from after the Marcos regime (8th Congress to present, meaning from 1987 until now) on the Congress website, www.congress.gov.ph. On the left-hand side, click on the link that says "Republic Acts", which is the database. --Akira123323 09:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Back onto the issue though, Davao was referred to as Davao del Norte as far back as 1987. I'm not sure, but this means that the law was not followed or a Batas Pambansa renamed it, but after checking the Chan Robles archives for the BPs it seems unlikely that the Batasang Pambansa passed a law renaming the province. --Akira123323 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Palawan is not yet in Western Visayas

According to A.O. 129, E.O. 429, which transferred Palawan to Region VI, is under a "TRO" by the president until the "Implementation Plan" for its transfer is approved. (It seems the president realized that it's not easy to transfer provinces.) THe question then is, what should we do with Palawan? Legally, Palawan is still in MIMAROPA. --seav 12:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • grumble* What a mess, I even updated this map already. Is it a sure thing that Palawan is moving to Western Visayas? And if so, will the change happen soon? If it's going to happen soon we might as well consider it part of Western Visayas now. If it E.O. 429 might still be revoked we should just consider Palawan part of MIMAROPA. And if Palawan is in an indefinite state of limbo, we'll need to update all the articles and templates with notes and footnotes explaining the situation. :/ Coffee 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What is really the coat-of-arms of the Philippines

Transferred to Talk:Coat of Arms of the Philippines --Noypi380 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hispanic

Mga kaibigan. Sali kami ni Al-Andalus sa isang revert war sa Filipino people. Sa tingin ko, hindi tayo Hispanic, pero ang Pilipino at ang Hispanic ay may relasiyon dahil matagal ang Espanya sa Pilipinas at malaki talaga ang impact nila sa ating mga katutubong kultura - kaya iniligay ko sa infobox ang "Hispanic." Pero ayaw ito ni Al-Andalus. Kaya humihingi ako ng tulong sa inyong lahat. Pakibasa ang mga argument namin at ibigay ninyo ang inyong palagay sa subject na ito. Maraming salamat. --Chris S. 05:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alam mo, masyadong matigas ang ulo niyang si Al-Andalus kaya'y maya't-maya lamang na nag revert ka'y babaliktarin niya kaagad. Kapag nakakakita siya ng isang linyang nagsasabi na ang mga Pilipino'y mayroong dugong Kastila o di kaya'y asimilado ng kulturang Kastila/Hispaniko ay bigla-biglaan niya itong binubura. Masyado rin siyang matalim sa mga binibitiwan niyang salita. Ang tingin ko sa kanya'y dapat siyang bigyan na ng karampatang parusa ng isang administrador. Masyado rin siyang mayabang magsalita at mapagmataas laban sa mga Pilipino. --User:Matthewprc
Oo nga. Kahit hindi kami sumasang-ayon sa mga detalye, nakakaintindi ako kung bakit sinasabi niya iyan - pero sa tingin ko ay mali. Kaya maghahanap ako ng sources. Ngayon tahimik na sa article na iyan, kaya hindi ko na kailangang tulong. --Chris S.

New Demographic/Ethnic Group Articles

I added new articles for Ilocano people, Kapampangan people, Waray people, Tagalog people, Sambal people, Bicolano people, and Pangasinense people. Please add something of value to make the articles more encyclopedic, or write some articles for some other Ethnic Groups topics (as stated in the Demographics of the Philippines infobox). Thanks! --User:Matthewprc

I think it needs to be trimmed down and condensed a lot, which is why I removed it from the Languages of the Philippines article. Huwag sana kayong magalit, but it's nothing personal. Maybe there are other similar infoboxes you could use as a model. --Chris S. 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about:

And create articles with these headings, put a short intro, and list down subheadings:

Luzon Lowlanders

Ilokano
Kapampangan
Pangasinense
Tagalog
Bicolano

Highlanders

Aeta
Coldirerra
Palawan
Mangyan
Lumad

Bisaya

Aklanon
Butuanon
Capiznon
Hiligaynon
Kinaray-A
Masbatenyo
Romblomanon
Sorsogon
Sugboanon
Surigaonon
Waray

Moro

Maguindanao
Maranao
Tausug
Samals
Bajaus

Mestizo

Chinese Mestizo
Spanish Filipino Mestizo

Minorities

Chinese
Spanish
South Asians
Amerasians

Filipinos Abroad

Filipino Americans
Filipino Canadians
Filipinos in Hong Kong
Overseas Filipino Workers

--Nino Gonzales 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't claim to be a linguist but I'm from Capiz. Capiznon's refer to the language as Hiligaynon or Illonggo. Although very native Capiznons can distinguish people from Ilo-ilo and Bacolod.--Jondel 10:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Philippine House

I was just curious. For the sake of history, should Philippine House be included in someway in any of our history articles/categories? After all, the Philippines is named after Philip II of Spain, who was followed by Philip III of Spain, and Philip IV of Spain. :) --Noypi380 16:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree!. After all, they were in effect our kings during the Spanish colonization, :) -- User:Matthewprc 16:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. An article for the Spanish sovereigns during the colonial times would be good. --Noypi380 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Malay dictionary

I 've been searching with google and would appreciate any links or sources about the first Italian -Malay dictionary which should be Italian Cebuano dictionary. This is to conclusively establish that Henry the Black was a Cebuano and not a Malaccan native.--Jondel 01:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Filipino is beyond ethnicity

Diagram 1: Ethnicity and Nationality

I urge you not to use the term “ethnic Filipino” or to use “Filipino” to mean low-land Austronesian-speaking Filipinos.

In several articles in Wikipedia, the term Filipino is equated with the Tagalog + the Bisaya + the Ilokano + the Kapangpangan + the Bicolano, etc.

I think it is true that the Philippines is composed mostly of these ethnolinguistic groups. However, I think that Filipino should not be defined in terms of ethnicity. I think Filipino is in a totally different level. Please see diagram 1.

Great Filipino thinkers have been very prudent in defining what Filipino is. For instance:

“History has our dates down in black and white, and knows that the Filipino, because he was created in the 16th and 17th centuries by a tool-forged fusion of tribes from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; Spanish and Chinese mestizos; etc..” – Nick Joaquin
“The Filipino belongs to a mixture of races, although basically he is a Malay.” – Teodoro Agoncillo

Nick Joaquin’s etcetera and Agoncillo’s mixture clearly shows that Filipino could not be pigeon-holed into a certain ethnicity or a group of ethnicities. Doing so would be like saying blues music is music played with a guitar, drums and keyboards. Blues music couldn’t be defined by the instruments used to play it the same way Filipino could not be defined by the ethnicities of its members!

Phrases like the following should therefore be avoided:

Filipinos comprise 90% of the Philippines.

Or divisions like the following:

People of the Philippines
Filipino
Ilokano
Tagalog
Kapangpangan
Bikolano
Bisaya
Maguindanao
Etc.
Chinese
Spanish
Etc.

Thanks! --Nino Gonzales 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's thought from the American Civil War: "What makes a country? 1st, the territory, then the people, then the laws.". Therefore, by Lincoln's definition, being Filipino transcends country. --Ancheta Wis 16:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the grouping. There are some perspectives to the term Filipino, and yes you're right it's more than ethnicity. It's also nationality. However, when you are talking about ethnic groups, it makes sense to native Filipinos. Chinese and Spanish are in the same exact position as Filipino. When one thinks of a Chinese person, they don't think of the people in Xinjiang province, do they? Or when one thinks of a Spaniard, they don't think of a Basque, no? So if any distinction is to be made, let it be "native Filipino" because that rids the reader of any ambiguity, AFAICT. --Chris S. 20:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) PS: As an analogy, here in the United States there is a distinction between "native Americans," "white Americans," "black Americans," "Filipino Americans," etc.
Now, I agree 100% with Nino Gonzales. The diagram in itself has shown and proven those points very clearly. It is very convincing, and I would support removing sentences like, Filipinos comprise 90% of the Philippines., as suggested. All other like viewed sentences are definitely contrary to NPOV, since sentences like those are not inclusive of ethnic Chinese Filipinos and other minorities. ;) --Noypi380 08:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Great :) However, we still have the problem of grouping. I think the American analogy is very close to the Filipino situation. Before "American" was, America was already peopled. And there is no ethnic American, no? Likewise, before "Filipino" was, the islands which we now call the Philippines was already peopled. And likewise, I guess there shouldn't also be an ethnic Filipino. Since American, like Filipino, is beyond ethnicity, ethnic groups in the US are always hyphenated, always qualified... as you said, Filipino-American, Black-American, Chinese-American, Irish-American, etc. I think that we have an advantage though (in terms of grouping the peoples of the Philippines). In America, the Indians are a very small minority. To divide the ethnic groups of America by tribe would be very tedious; thus the overarching term, native-American. Proto-Filipinos (I think Nick Joaquin used this term, but I have to verify), are the majority, and the majority of that majority could be easily grouped into ethnic groups. ~40% identify themselves as Bisaya, ~25% identify themselves as Tagalog, and then there are Ilocanos, Bicolanos, Kapangpangans and the Pangasinenses. I think the Muslim-Filipinos should also be a group. I think they are around 10%. Not sure but it seems their prefered name is Moro. The hillfolk (not sure of the term indeginous... does that mean you came before everyone else?) should also be another group. Then the Chinese, then the Spanish. That would be:
Peoples of the Philippines
Bisaya
Tagalog
Ilokano
Bicolano
Kapangpangan
Pangasinense
Moro
Hillfolk
Chinese-Filipinos
Spanish-Filipinos
Other minorities (South Asian-Filipinos, etc.)
I think only the Chinese and Spanish Filipinos should be hyphenated. The rest only exist in the Philippines. Maybe Bisaya is an exception--there are people in Sarawak who also call themselves Bisaya--but maybe they should be the ones to call themselves Bisaya-Malaysians.
But if we are to lump the Austronesian speaking Filipinos into a category I think this is the best... Austronesian-Filipinos. I think most of us are faily convinced of Chris' argument against the word Malay. If no one objects, I'll do some edits tomorrow :)--Nino Gonzales 11:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the context is pretty clear, then it is definitely unnecessary to hyphenate. I imagine hyphenating "Chinese-Filipinos" when you are doing an article about the Han Chinese and wish to make a distinction. But in the context of the Philippines, it's pretty clear whom you are referring to already when you speak of the Chinese alone, right? As for Filipinos, just stick with perhaps ethnic Filipinos; according to the Han Chinese article, "ethnic Chinese" is how people refer to the Han Chinese as in order to separate them from Mongols, Zhuangs, Tibetans, Manchus, and others.
I'll stress again that you guys are right, that Filipino is more than ethnicity, however if you are speaking in the context of ethnicity as the above groupings strongly suggests, then you would use the treat the word Filipino as an ethnicity. I mean, let's be honest here, Filipinos are first and foremost the people who are indigenous to the archipelago - including the Negritos. The article states that more than 90% of Filipinos are "indigenous" .. in China, the Han Chinese are 92% of China. The very presence of these minorities shouldn't dictate how the people refer to themselves. Look at what happened with the Hawaiians - we have whites, blacks, and many Filipinos who call themselves Hawaiian even if they are not originally Hawaiian. --Chris S. 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to questions here: 1) whether to lump together the Austronesian speaking Filipinos and 2) If we do lump them together, what do we call them?
1) On lumping together
In my opinion, I think it is better to use the ancient ethnic divisions in the Philippines rather than the relatively new term, Filipino.
First of all, books on the Philippines do this. For instance, Agoncillo’s History of the Filipino people does an overview of the “setting” of the making of the Filipino nation. He discusses the ethnic groups that make up the Philippine island. His groups are: Ilokano, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayan and Muslim Filipinos.
Second, if the Chinese and the Spanish get one section (a very tiny minority), why couldn’t the Tagalogs, who are 25% of the Philippines, get a section of their own?
I think these also express more accurately than Filipino what is meant my ethnicity. You could not be 100% Ilokano and 100% Bisaya in the same time, right? However, you could be 100% Chinese in terms of ethnicity while being 100% Filipino in terms of nationality, right?
2) If we lump them togetheer, what do we call them?
My opinion:
I strongly oppose: Filipino. If we treat “Filipino” as an ethnicity, I think we are saying that Filipino IS an ethnicity... then Rizal isn’t 100% Filipino, Quezon isn’t 100% Filipino, Cory Aquino isn’t 100% Filipino….
I oppose: ethnic Filipino. Are there ethnic-Americans, ethnic-Mexicans and ethnic Cubans?
I'm uncomfortable: Indigenous Filipino. This is commonly used to mean hilltribes. But what makes you indigenous? How long do your people have to be in the Philippines to be indigenous? If we are going to use indigenous, however, I think you are right: it should include the Tagalogs, Ilokanos, Bisaya, Bicolanos, etc.
I'm neutral: Malay Filipino. I think this expresses the fact that from the ethnic viewpoint, Tagalogs, Ilokanos, Bisaya, etc.. are in the same "race" or "super-ethnicity" (are there such things?) as Indonesians and Malays. Of course it's incorrect the same way American-Indian is incorrect... but people get the point
I support: Austronesian Filipino - language is easier to pigeon-hole than ethnicity, so I guess this is better.
I strongly support: Not lumping the Austronesian-speaking Filipinos together
My two cents worth.
And on the hyphenation. Yeah, I guess if the heading is ethnic groups in the Philippines, you could put there Chinese without the qualifier. But I think Ilokano, Bikolano, Kapangapangan, etc., should be at the same level as Chinese. And I think it is OK for white people to think they are Hawaiian.
Happy New year!--Nino Gonzales 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You can bet your bottom dollar that Americans, Mexicans, and Cubans are ethnic groups. I am not sure if you understand what an ethnic group is - it's not racial, it's more than that. So, yes, José Rizal is 100% ethnic Filipino despite his Chinese and Spanish roots just as George Bush and Al Sharpton are both 100% American. Please take a look at the ethnic group article and I can dig out my anthropology textbook if need be. :-)
Ok here is my opinion either 1. do not lump or 2. if you lump, then use native or ethnic Filipino if the context calls for it. Austronesian is too broad and perhaps inappropriately applied (maybe Austronesian-speaking? but too wordy), and Malay is grossly misleading. --Chris S. 10:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to add some input for you guys, Specifically, majority of Filipinos are not just Austronesian speaking, coz that includes the bulk of SE Asia and the Pacific. Majority of Filipinos are classified to speak under Western Malayo-Polynesian languages. Malay and Austranesian speaking could be too vague and misleading. Outer Hesperonesian is also a consensus term used to refer to languages like Tagalog, but I think we need a linguist or sociologist to make the call. But IMO, I suggest that we lump the majority into Western Malayo-Polynesian or Outer Hesperonesian, and then we subdivide that into Tagalog, etc. That I think is the most scientific we can get to. ;) --Noypi380 --Noypi380 06:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Ok, I guess we sort of have some consensus here:

  • 1) As far as possible, we do not use Filipino to mean lowlander Austronesian-speaking Filipinos ONLY. Just like Oprah is an American, Alfredo Lim, who is ethnic Chinese, is Filipino.

I guess you would also agree with this:

  • 2) In articles about the people of the Philippines, there should be proportional representation (i.e., Tagalogs (who are ~25% of the population), Visayans , Ilokanos should probably get a section. French-Visayans (maybe 0.0000000000001%) should probably fall under a section called minorities, or not mentioned at all.

Please help in removing statements like "90% of the people in the Philippines are Filipino," because 100% of people of the Philippines (excluding expats) are Filipinos :) --Nino Gonzales 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, help whenever I can. --Noypi380 16:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is Ethnicity

I'm kinda attached to my bottom, but I'm willing to risk it for the Filipino :) I'm not sure if you've read my answer to the same question in Jondel's talk page:

Why should the Filipinos not be defined by ethnicity when the "Filipino" is an ethnicity itself? I am currently studying anthropology and according to what I am learning, the term Filipino fits every criteria of an ethnicity. A better way of rephrasing the above would be - 95% of Filipinos belong to one of the many ethnolinguistic groups, 3% are of Chinese ancestry, less than 1% are Spanish, etc. And yes, avoid Malay all together. --Chris S. 05:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I guess we agree that this statement is wrong: "The Philippines is composed of 95% Filipinos, 3% Chinese, etc..."? Would you help in eliminating these kind of statements?
But I guess we are not in agreement to "ethnicity". What are the criteria for a group of people to be considered an ethnicity? I guess you could be right based on your definition of ethnicity. The current Wikipedia definition is "An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source. Members of an ethnic group are often presumed to be culturally or genetically similar, although this is not in fact necessarily the case."
Common Race? Definitely not. Race is also an ambiguous concept. I read a book from a nationalist scholar saying that Filipinos belong to the Brown Race. But what would that make of Cory Aquino or Manuel Quezon? And is there really such thing as race?
Common nation? I think this is generally accepted. However, people like David Martinez are questioning this.
Common language? If this means Filipinos can speak a common language, I guess that is true. Most can speak Tagalog or English or Cebuano. But does that make Filipino an ethnicity? Most North Americans speak Engish, but that doesn't make North American an ethnicity. If the language in common language means native tongue, it couldn't be common... there are 167 right?
Common religion? Obviously not.
In my opinion, Filipinos do not belong to one ethnicity, and Filipino is not an ethnicity as defined by Wikipedia, and in the same way that Ilocano, Tagalog, Bisaya, Tamil, Basque, Polish are ethnicities.
I also think that Filipino can be described by ethnicity; by % of different ethnicities. But I do not think it is beneficial to do so. I think Filipino should be defined in terms of politics or history.--Nino Gonzales 03:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of ethnic Americans, Cubans and Mexicans before. So at the risk of loosing my behind (but at the chance of gaining knowledge), please tell me who they are :) I'll make some sample navigation bars on the peoples of the Philippines as soon as I have time. --Nino Gonzales 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you what your definition of an ethnic group is? Perhaps we can go from there. But I'll just go on anyway. ;-) An important criterion of an ethnic group is a sense of oneness. Ethnic groups can come together for any or for all of the reasons you state above. For Filipinos, it is our cultural heritage, our historical heritage, our ancestry, our related languags, our religions, our perceptions of our common "race", etc. Nino, you and I come from vastly different backgrounds, but somehow you and I are both Filipinos. If you and I are in a room full of Italians, whom are you going to have more in common with as far as culture is concerned? Fabrizio or me? :-) What are the Italians going to call us in the room? Filippini of course.
Ethnicity is also circumstantial as anthropologist Frederick Barth described in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. To the Italians, you and I are Filipinos. To a Muslim Tausug, you and I are both Bisaya' (Christians, right?). To an Ilonggo, I'm a Tagalog and you're a Cebuano. To the world, we are Asians. To a Martian, we are Earthlings. To Andromedans, we're Via Lacteans. ;-) And to you as a Cebuano, you make distinctions between other Cebuano speakers from, say, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro, and Ormoc. And I as a Tagalog speaker see different ethnic groups among Tagalogs such as Batangueños, Bulaqueños, Quezonians, etc. So depending on the context or circumstance, we are a certain ethnic group.
In the Philippines, there is a certain "us" and "them" feeling. The us being the numerous people whose ancestors were here before "them" (the Chinese). I mean, you do notice a difference between the Chinese and the ethnic Filipinos, right? They do, after all, have their own schools and what not.
Finally, ethnic Americans are those who have simply grown up in a culture that is native to the United States. I gave you John Kerry and Al Sharpton as examples of Americans. To the British, they are Americans. They see another ethnicity. Someone who is not "one of them." I hope I was clear and not confusing. But thanks for reading. :-D --Chris S. 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nino Gonzales, Here are some examples of the Ethnic Americans: when Nobel laureate Herbert Simon was growing up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he lived on the west side of the Milwaukee River, and north of the Kinnickinnic River, a German-American side of town. (South of the Kinnickinnic was the Polish-American side of town, today, noticeably Hispanic-American. (The Filipino-Americans there tend to live in the suburbs today.) Anyway, the Americans (this was in the 1930's) lived on the East side of the Milwaukee river, which is currently the trendy part of town (like the North/East side of Chicago - Cubs fans). Simon stuck with the other German kids, because of language, culture, etc. In general, the Americans are 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of immigrant first generation. The former German neighborhoods are almost all Black today; the children of the former residents moving to the suburbs. Oprah (the billionaire TV show host) Winfrey's family lives in the suburbs and in the Lake area of the next county to the west, but one of her sisters moved back into the Black part of town, as more congenial to the High School kid in their family. But there is no question that Oprah is Ethnic American to almost everyone on the planet; her racial background is immaterial. But perhaps another label might be Secular American, or Mainstream American as the appropriate ethnicity.
In other words, American ethnicity is a state of mind. In general, as the generations pass, the families become more and more Ethnic American (almost completely forgetting their family heritage). Because Milwaukee is strongly German, (Catholic and Lutheran) there are strong German-language classes there. But the courses are designed for kids who must learn to speak familial German to their Grandparents. Thus they do not even learn the formal forms of German in their courses. --Ancheta Wis 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Bravo, you got it more or less. :-D Using myself as an example, I am American by nationality and by ethnicity because I strongly identify with being American due to being born and raised in the US and thus into American culture. I'm only ethnically a Filipino because I identify strongly with my Filipino roots, but to a lesser degree because I was only in the Philippines for a portion of my life. I'm essentially Filipino American, but depending on who you ask I am sometimes simply Filipino (in many Americans' eyes) and American (in many Filipinos' eyes). --Chris S. 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don’t want to discuss the semantics of “ethnicity” here since it's not in itself Philippine-related… I’ll try to do that in your talk page. But back to Filipino as ethnicity:

1) If we define ethnicity in a way that makes Oprah and your white guy both ethnic Americans, then Ang Kiukok, Manny Paquiao and Lucy Torres are all ethnic Filipinos. If black and white are ethnic Americans, then yellow, brown and pink are ethnic Filipinos. No?

Correct. --Chris S. 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2) If you insist in excluding the Chinese-Filipinos from "Filipino", then you must also exclude the aboriginal Filipinos and the Muslim Filipinos. The Chinese Filipinos are more akin culturally to "mainstream Filipinos", who I guess are the low-land Christian Austronesian-speaking Filipinos, than the Moros and the Highlanders. But I don't think we want that, no?


No. Here's how it goes. You have Filipino. Then you have "ethnic Filipinos" (Ivatans to Tausugs), "Chinese Filipinos", etc. Then from "ethnic Filipinos" you can subclassify it by religion (Christian vs. Muslim) or however else, like language (Northern vs. Central Philippine speaking) etc. --Chris S. 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And this feeling of the Chinese Filipino being different just seems to be coming from a Manilenyo POV (maybe it's just me). I never felt that my friends of Chinese and Spanish descent in Cebu were less Cebuano or Filipino than my friends of Bisaya descent. (but maybe that just me). I'll be the first one to admit that there is more ethnic consciousness in Manila, and maybe a bit of tension. (But probably very benign compared to Malaysia or Indonesia). But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not one is Filipino. I’m sure there are some (or many) people in the US who have some prejudice against some ethnicities. But that doesn’t make the giver or receiver of the prejudice any more or any less American, right? --Nino Gonzales 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be a Manilenyo(or Tagalog) POV. My buddy who transerred here(In Baguio) from a from a well-known school in Manila still calls himself Chinese. Whilst, my "Fil-Chi" friends here call themselves Filipinos even they are of pure Chinese descent. Some even don't feel comfortable being called 'Chinese'. Unlike the Chinese schools in Manila, Baguio's only Chinese school even caters to the native Filipinos. Infact, they have outnumbered the Chinese population. But the Chinese have the option whether to enroll in Chinese classes or not. from~A guest =)
Right, because Americans come in different varieties. Just because one is different, doesn't make one more or less American. Following the example I state above, the equivalent of "ethnic Filipino" in the United States would be what we call the "Native Americans" - people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land. --Chris S. 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps, the term should be used is native Filipino rather than ethnic Filipino. =) Native Filipino to Native American; Ethnic Filipino to ethnic American. We might have clash of POV sicne I live here in the Philippines and you live in the U. S. of A. But you must understand that here in the Philippines, it's not the same as that of the U.S. of A. from~A guest =)

Happy New Year!

Manigong Bagong Taon sa inyong lahat! (Tagalog)
Mabungahong Bag-ong Tuig kaninyong tanan! (Cebuano)
Narang-ay a Baro a Tawenyo amin! (Ilokano)
Mahamungayaon nga Bag-ong Tuig sa inyong tanan (Hiligaynon)
Mamura-way na Ba-gong Taon sa indo gabos! (Bikol)
Masaplalang Bayung Banwa keko ngan! (Kapampangan)
Mainuswagon nga Bag-o nga Tuig ha iyo nga tanan! (Waray-Waray)
Maaligwas ya Balon Taon ed sikayon amin! (Pangasinan)
Mahigugmaon nga Bag-ong Dag-on kinyo tanan! (Akeanon)
Makasi Tahun Ba'gu kaniyu katantan! (Tausug)
Hapi Nyu Yir! (Philippine English) ;-)
Prúspiro Anyo Nwebo (Philippine Spanish) ;-)

Best of luck to all of you in 2006. --Chris S. 21:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Peoples of the Philippine Templates

As promised:

Extremely inclusive: {{Peoples of the Philippines}}

Concise: {{Ethnic groups in the Philippines}}

--Nino Gonzales 09:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No violent reactions... so I guess I'll go ahead and replace the large infobox with the concise Successor series template... --Nino Gonzales 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)