Talk:Philippines

	Philippines To Do	edit - history - watch - purge
	Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Culture section to include Music and Festivals.

Wikipedia Meetups

July 2024 +/-
WikiClub Toronto Meetup	July 7, 2024 (2024-07-07)
London 206	July 14, 2024 (2024-07-14)
BLT Office Hours	July 28, 2024 (2024-07-28)
Perth 82	July 28, 2024 (2024-07-28)
San Diego 111	July 29, 2024 (2024-07-29)
August 2024 +/-
NC Triangle Wiknic	August 6, 2024 (2024-08-06)
San Diego 112 Wiknic	August 17, 2024 (2024-08-17)
BLT Office Hours	August 25, 2024 (2024-08-25)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in eleven areas in the Philippines:

• Manila (Metro Manila)
• Cebu
• Naga
• Lingayen
• Tacloban
• Calbayog
• Palo
• Catbalogan
• Catarman
• Guiuan
• Borongan

Interactive events

• Chat via Chatroll
• Group Chat via RumbleTalk
• Web stream via Livestream

See also

• Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
• Wikimedia Philippines

External Link

• Meetup page of Waray Wikipedia

Unclear sentence about celebrities

I think this sentence is vague and should be rewritten, but I don't know how because I don't understand what the writer meant or know enough about the country's culture to correct it:

"In recent years it has become common to see celebrities flitting between television and movies and then moving into politics provoking concerns."

By "provoking concerns," do you mean that celebrities become the champions of specific political causes (e.g. AIDS awareness, environmentalism, etc.)? Or do you mean that cultural critics are concerned about celebrities' entrance into the political sphere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.154.104 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Trajan21, 7 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} i want to edit something in the article about philippines. i want to add spanish name of the philippines (Republica de las filipinas) because of the enforcement of spanish language since 2008.

Trajan21 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already in the Etymology section.—C45207 | Talk 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Transportation pic edit

I just want to request for change in Transportation section, the File:Strong Republic Nautical Highway sign.jpg will be change into File:Manila-jeepney.jpg, because i think jeepney is a national icon, instead of a signage of the project of former administration, i wish that my request be granted. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree that I'm not crazy with the current picture of a sign post. But what to change it with?

or something else? Lambanog (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the second one, good to see a jeepney about to veer out of its lane. A true representation of Manila's roads. If not that one, maybe the first one, showing a jeepney and a bus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I select the first one, because it shows jeepney in motion, it also the most colorful among the images. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 09:11, 01 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional revision

May i request to change in the infobox. to change the Recognised regional languages (from Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Ilokano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, Waray to 120-175 Recognised Languages) and Population (2010 estimate: 97,976,603) 121.54.2.91 (talk) 010:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources need to be provided for both. I think the population figure can be changed easily enough but the languages info needs to be based on a superior source than the one the current information is based on (an old version of the official government website). Lambanog (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Following are useful sources, where i got my idea.

• Languages of the Philippines - just like the Recognised regional languages of Mexico, my purpose is to include several unknown dialects. to serve as one article.this are another source.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

None of those would be considered acceptable sources much less superior to the current source. Recognized in this template box's sense is recognized by the Republic not recognized by linguistic researchers. I don't think you're going to be able to make a convincing case to change it. Lambanog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Demographics of the Philippines - Infobox in the left side, that is updated for july 2010 estimate - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 012:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't look but an update to the population figures is likely okay. Lambanog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, i wish to replace [File:HOR Philippines Session Hall.jpg] to File:Philippine government.png to include all government branches, I hope that my request be granted - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the chart suggested would be completely inappropriate for this article. Consistency among Wikipedia country articles is one goal in editing and such a chart would be unusual and garish in comparison to other country articles in my opinion. Lambanog (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your opinion is wrong, Why China and India has chart has on their country articles. i think my reason is enough.121.54.2.91 (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please update information on the page, i.e. http://business.inquirer.net/6245/forex-reserves-hit-record-69b-in-june foreign reserves are now US$ 69 billion, please the data on the page is already very, very old. Thanks ~ajml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.202.13 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

largest city stated is quezon - causes some argument

quezon is the largest populated area, not largest city. largest city means area.. and that is Davao City. this info causes some arguments and if i may, would love for you guys to clarify it.. thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.112 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The template seems to refer to largest city by population on other country articles and I would assume that is the default implicit expectation. I might include a passing phrase that Davao City is the largest city in the Philippines by land area if a very good source can be found. I read there is some controversy over whether Davao City or Puerto Princesa is the largest. That should be clarified. Lambanog (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Largest city" almost always refers to the most populous city. It wouldn't make sense comparing cities by land area, as cities are characterized by urbanization. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

there basically black ppl in asia

african decendent ppl as well many philoppinos consider themselves black and the look black yet they classified as asian decendents of taiwan last I check asians aren't black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Filipinos are not of African descent. The continent Africa itself is far from Asia, and Philippines is almost at the edge of it. The average stereotype of Asians only refer to those of East Asia. Philippines may not have the "yellowish skin" or not all Filipinos have the epicanthic fold, but that doesn't mean they are "black" just because they are darker in color. Filipinos share the same trait as the Indonesians, Malaysians, some people of southern Taiwan, Bruneians, and other south east Asian country. They are darker in color in contrast to the light color of the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. Indians are darker than Filipinos and they are Asians. The term "Asians" used here is the stereotypical term. "Asians" refer to all people living in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachirisu222 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of university to use

I prefer the picture of the University of Santo Tomas. UP is getting double representation with Philippine General Hospital run by UP also being displayed. Education relies on private entities as well as public. Lambanog (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What about changing the picture for the hospital instead? Like replacing it with St.Luke's. After all it's a very reputable hospital in the Philippines. Aclarado (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Philippine Eagle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philippine Eagle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Should this be noted? Lambanog (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's just political jockeying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Political jockeying or not, it is notable. Because this is the article on the Philippines, Philippine perspective and usage is given greater weight than it would be in other articles. Mention of both terms strikes me as the most balanced. Compare with the article on Vietnam. If other editors express a desire to have it reintroduced I will support its inclusion. Lambanog (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that mention of this alternative usage here which is specific to the article topic is warranted. I suggest "... South China Sea, also referred to in the Philippines as the West Philippine Sea, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Philippine government's perspective does not get greater weight here than other articles, just like the Chinese government's perspective does not take precedence on articles about China (or the PRC as it is called on wikipedia). That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. As for the Vietnam article, there is a statement in the lead about how the vietnamese name is directly translated to East Sea (which doesn't even appear in the body). At any rate, the vietnamese name has been around as long as the Vietnamese language has, while West Philippine Sea was only made recently by a government declaration. There is no evidence it is referred to in the Philippines as West Philippine Sea yet outside government and other official circles, although this may change in the future. Mentioning it now would seem to be a political point against the spirit of NPOV. It is already covered on the South China Sea article, where it is appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Different Philippine news sources have been using the term. Not including a significant viewpoint would also be a violation of WP:NPOV. For other comparison if a building, company, institution, or country changes its name the article on it reflects it promptly. Many of the names attached to public buildings in North America are little more than advertisements (e.g. Qualcomm Stadium). Propaganda concerns should be noted but that in itself does not disqualify certain terms from inclusion. Lambanog (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So far they've almost all been in reference to the government declaration. There simply hasn't been enough time for a newly invented term to become a significant viewpoint. If you're looking for an example of a country changing its name and then wikipedia not following, simply look at Burma. It isn't propaganda that disqualifies it from inclusion. Basically there is a body of water, which in English is basically completely known by a single name. When one country invents another name for it, that doesn't suddenly change the most common name. Given time it is likely that the Philippines may achieve a large global recognition of the name, as Korea did with its East Sea, especially with the huge Filipino diaspora. However, that hasn't even come close to happening yet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A large global recognition of the name isn't necessary. A significant local recognition is sufficient. In any event it is already arguable that the world recognizes that the Philippines thinks of the body-of-water as the West Philippine Sea. Since this is the Philippines article and the Philippines is the closest and largest English-speaking country next to the said body-of-water, what it calls the body-of-water is significant enough to be included in the article. Regarding the Burma article, it includes the name Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Lambanog (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This encyclopaedia is meant to deal with an international audience, not Filipino one. One very recent name creation does not alter common english usage. If anything, this information belongs in information about the Philippine's foreign relations. The Philippine government has decided to change the name of the body of water, and likely local common usage will follow. However, it has been just under a month since the Aquino government first officially used the time. Placing the name in a prominent position would be a good example of WP:RECENTISM. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An international audience includes a Filipino one. It may well be of interest to a foreign audience as well. I don't see the matter only being of transient effect. If a place is renamed, I would expect the article on it to be updated quickly to reflect the change. How much time would you expect to pass before it becomes appropriate to include such a change? Six months? One year? Five? Ten? One hundred? The choice of time frame would be arbitrary. Now is as good as any. A recent name creation can most definitely alter common English usage. Czech Republic and Slovakia replaced Czechoslovakia very quickly. Lambanog (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Czech Republic and Slovakia are completely different places to Czechoslovakia, covering different areas of land. It wasn't a name change, it was a new area. As for the article on it, South China Sea has already been updated to reflect the change. Details on the naming disputes on articles not directly about those areas should really only be included in context. When West Philippine Sea begins to see usage in international tertiary sources, as East Sea has in recent years, then it would be worth including. As for time frame, I don't know how long that would take. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Population July 2011 estimate

According to CIA World Factbook, the population of PH is now 101,833,938. SOURCE: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html --93.82.95.102 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Mervynbunique (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that, which is an estimate. The Philippine gov't's own 2007 census was 88,546,087 [4], and their estimate for 2010 was 94 million [5]. Reaching 101 million in a few years doesn't seem very reasonable. The UN estimated 93 million for 2010 [6]. This is why I've reverted it in the world ranked list...Smarkflea (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Business districts

Metro Manila is the financial, commercial and industrial center of the Philippines. It accounts for 33% of the Philippines' GDP. It has a third of the country's bank offices but over two thirds of its deposits. Makati is the financial and economic hub of the metropolitan area and the country. Its central business district (CBD) hosts many of the Philippines' largest corporations including the Ayala Group of Companies and the nation's major banks as well as the main Philippine offices of many multinational corporations.

File:Metro Manila.png

Skyline of Metro Manila. On the left, The Gramercy Residences under construction. It will become the Philippines' first supertall building, and will also be the highest.

Skyline of Makati City.

Skyline of Ortigas Center.

The fifty tallest skyscrapers in the Philippines (inc. two structures) are located in Metro Manila like the PBCom Tower and G.T. International Tower. The skyscrapers of Metro Manila are, for the most part, clustered in many locations although three areas are distinct for having the largest clusters in the metropolis. The first and biggest is the Makati Business District, followed by the Ortigas Center Business District in Pasig. The newest to rise is the Bonifacio Global City Business District in Taguig.

The Makati area is built around the former Nielsen Air Base, an American installation during World War II, and its runways now form the district's main roads, which cross each other at the Makati Triangle, home of one of the two trading venues of the nation's stock exchange. Ortigas Center is the second most important business district in Metro Manila. Situated in Mandaluyong and Pasig, it is home to the headquarters of several major Philippine companies such as San Miguel Corporation and Meralco, and hosts many shopping malls and hotels. It also hosts the Asian Development Bank's headquarters and the Philippine Stock Exchange's trading floor at Tektite Towers.

New developments seeking to become vibrant business centers of their own are Bonifacio Global City in Taguig; Eastwood City in Quezon City; the Manila Bay City Reclamation Area in the cities of Pasay, Parañaque and Las Piñas; and Alabang Estates, Madrigal Business Park, and Filinvest Corporate City in Muntinlupa. Triangle Park in Quezon City is the latest addition to the list. The traditional business center of Chinese-Filipino businessmen and the country's CBD prior to the development of the Makati CBD was the Binondo District in the City of Manila. Escolta was the central street of commerce during the time of the Spaniards up until the development of the Makati CBD when Ayala Avenue superseded it.

Shopping centers

In the early 1980s there were not that many shopping malls in Metro Manila, but ever since Henry Sy a Chinese-Filipino businessman started putting up his "megamalls" through his SM Group of Companies, Metro Manilans have taken eagerly to them. Three of these monuments to shopping are among the largest in the world. The largest mall in the country is currently the renovated SM City North EDSA in Quezon City. It is expected to become the nexus for three metropolitan rail lines once the terminal station next to it is fully completed. Previously the SM Mall of Asia in Pasay was the country's largest mall, and before it the SM Megamall in Ortigas Center in Mandaluyong held the distinction from 1991 to 2006. Various other SM malls dot the metropolis.

File:SM Mall of Asia wide pan.jpg

Panoramic view of the SM Mall of Asia in Pasay from the east

Ortigas Center, located along intersection of the boundaries of Mandaluyong, Pasig, and Quezon City, is the site of many other shopping centers including Robinsons Galleria, Shangri-La Plaza, and The Podium. Recently opened in Pasig is a new development called Frontera Verde, which currently hosts Tiendesitas, a tiangge-style shopping center; SM Supercenter Pasig; and SilverCity AutoMall, the first mall in the Philippines that is dedicated to the automotive market. In the Makati central business district, Ayala Center comprises other commercial developments, including Glorietta and the upscale Greenbelt shopping arcades. Also in Makati in Guadalupe is the Rockwell Center.

File:SM North Facade.jpg

SM City North EDSA in Quezon City, the largest mall in the Philippines and the 3rd largest in the world

PBCom Tower, the country's tallest building.

File:GT International Tower.jpg

G.T. International Tower, the country's second tallest building.

Bonifacio High Street and Serendra are in Bonifacio Global City. In the City of Manila proper, the largest malls include SM City Manila, Robinsons Place Manila, and the older Harrison Plaza. Cubao is Quezon City's central commercial area and has five malls including the Gateway Mall at the Araneta Center. There is also Eastwood City, located along Libis; SM City Fairview, in Novaliches; and TriNoma, Ayala Land's newest mall, in front of SM City North EDSA. Muntinlupa hosts the Festival Supermall, Alabang Town Center, and Metropolis Star Mall, all in Alabang.

Before the advent of the air-conditioned shopping centers, Metro Manila had the palengke, the Filipino-style open-air wet market and there are still many of them. One of these is the Central Market, in Sta. Cruz district of Manila. Another known for its bargains is the market in Divisoria, in Manila. Cloverleaf Market in Balintawak, Quezon City supplies much of Metro Manila's fruit and vegetable products.

Navotas Port Market supplies most of Metro Manila's fish products. Other smaller markets include the Cubao Farmers Market, EDSA Central, Nepa-Q Mart, Novaliches Talipapa, and those found in Muñoz, Balingasa, Galas, Santa Mesa, Baclaran, Pasay Libertad, and Pasay Cartimar, the latter also being one of the finest pet markets in the Philippines.Midway between a mall and a market are the tiangges, or airconditioned markets selling goods such as clothes, shoes, accessories, computer parts, mobile phones, CDs, VCDs, MP3s, iPods, and DVDs. Examples are Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan and St. Francis Square in Mandaluyong.

Wealth extremes

Metro Manila is a place of economic extremes. Many high-income citizens are concentrated in gated communities in places such as Forbes Park, Legazpi Village, and Dasmariñas Village in Makati, Ayala Alabang in Muntinlupa (all three initially developed in part by the influential Zobel de Ayala family), Valle Verde in Pasig, La Vista in Quezon City, Greenhills in San Juan or in high-rise developments in or around central business districts, such as Rockwell Center in Makati, Eastwood City in Libis, Quezon City and Fort Bonifacio Global City in Taguig, or along Roxas Boulevard overlooking Manila Bay.

In sharp contrast to these residences are the slums and illegal settlements scattered across the metropolitan area, often found on vacant government land or in districts such as Tondo. Illegal settlements have been concentrated on land adjacent to the tracks of PNR lines; but with efforts to rehabilitate the railway system, steps have been taken to clear these areas and relocate the squatters to other areas.

---

A LOT here is missing in the WikiPage about the Philippines. For example the SM Mall of Asia and A LOT more.--Mervynbunique (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This single page can not possibly cover every single thing about the Philippines. It is meant to be a summary, per the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guideline. Furthermore, everything you have placed above can not at the moment be included, due to the lack of sourcing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

YES SURE! But there are maybe 5 things in there, (about Malls, Buildings, Landmarks (on the Metro Manila page there's even a section of it), Metro Manila itself and more) what's missing. All we need to do is editing it to a summary w/ 10-20 sentences.

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Trying to fit all of it in would likely make the article look crass. Lambanog (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Darkroom45, 26 June 2011

Please change South China Sea to West Philippine Sea. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/13833/%E2%80%98it%E2%80%99s-west-philippine-sea%E2%80%99

Darkroom45 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done South China Sea is the common english name, wikipedia does not follow the Philippine Government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Population figure

I'm questioning this edit, which I have not reverted. The edit summary said, "CIA population data is unreliable. See Brazil for example. See also International population data base, data is way off the Philippine censuses".

The edit replaced an estimate of 101,833,938, supported by the CIA Factbook (the Factbook notes, "(July 2011 est.)"), with a differing estimate of 94,013,200, which is a "medium assumption" estimate for the year 2010 done by the Philippine National Statistics Office (Philippines), based on the year 2000 census.

This appears to be a judgement by a wikipedia editor about which of these two sources gives a truer estimate of the population figure. In this regard, please see the initial paragraph of WP:V.

Regarding its population estimates, the CIA Factbook says at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#P

Population

This entry gives an estimate from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics registration systems, or sample surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends. The total population presents one overall measure of the potential impact of the country on the world and within its region. Note: Starting with the 1993 Factbook, demographic estimates for some countries (mostly African) have explicitly taken into account the effects of the growing impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These countries are currently: The Bahamas, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

It appears to me that WP:DUE might apply here. Possibly both figures should be used as a range for the estimated population, and a clarifying footnote provided. I'm currently connecting online from a boat which is docking and don't have time to do that myself just now. Perhaps I'll come back and do something like that. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:DUE does not apply here. The CIA like every other source uses data from one source which is the statistical office of each country. It's quite obvious that the U.S. Census bureau is using either old data information giving unreliable data or have at least some sort of statistical error. This is why we don't use CIA data at List of countries by population. Furthermore, that population is in an outlier (see below). No other reliable source I've found even come close to that figure.

Let's do a slight comparison between the official census vs. CIA data

Year	Philippines Census	U.S. Census Burea/CIA
1980	48,098,460	50,940,182
1990	60,703,206	65,087,720
1995	68,616,536	72,597,432
2000	76,504,077	81,222,082
2007	88,574,614	94,157,465

You can look at other years too. The Census bureau/CIA hasn't adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I already checked other multiple, verifiable, reliable and widely used, sources to confirm that the CIA has unreliable population data:

Philippines Stats Office: 94,013,200 (2010 and Medium variant)

United Nations: 93,261,000 (2010) (UN data seems to be the most widely used I've seen)

World Bank: 91,983,102 (2009)

IMF: 95,834,000 (2011) and 94,013,000 (2010)

World Gazetteer: 93,897,444 (2010)

I can probably find more if you wish but this is what I have off hand. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though the World Bank estimate is 2 years old, using this from the World Bank, we can probably make our own prediction that population is around 93.5 million+ for 2010 and around 95 million for 2011. This is pretty close to the other 4 sources. In comparison we have 5 sources saying the population is around 93-94 million for 2010 with only one source saying it's around 100 million (see 2010) which I would like to say again, has a large difference for two different censuses. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like you are suggesting that editors owning this article engage in WP:SYNTH -- combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. To do that would be original research, and contrary to WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See what I wrote this above, under "Population July 2011 estimate"Smarkflea (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even granting all of the above (and I have no reason to doubt it), this seems to flout Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is summed up in its lead sentence as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. " Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that there are several verifiable sources here. One of them [CIA]is way off, so it's hardly reliable...Smarkflea (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What editor's think is something that is not disregarded. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a page called Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which is included in WP:V. The term "reliable" is relative and is different from person to person. So reliable in this context is different for each us. Taken from the second paragraph: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. This is exactly what was being done here. In general, not everything a publisher produces is reliable. Editors have to first make sure the direct source itself is reliable. So comparisons are made with other sources. Sometimes though this is not possible. Here's an example, the Dewey Defeats Truman story. The publication came from a considered reliable source. However, the official data (similar to the censuses) and many other news organizations (I'll treat this as the estimates as a comparison) said otherwise. After comparing other reliable sources, you find out that the Chicago Tribune was basically wrong. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And the Dewey Defeats Truman story wasn't either ignored at the time or consigned to the trashbin of history. It was given due weight at the time, and is still given due weight today. I'll also point out here that WP:IRS is a content guideline, and WP:V is a policy. I'm not going to argue further here over this, though I do see it as treading perilously close to the edge and, IMO, it flouts WP:V#What counts as a reliable source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the point I was trying to make here in a wider venue over at WT:NPOV#V:SOURCES vs. RS in DUE; policy vs. essay; slippery slopes. I think the wider point is better discussed there. I've mentioned this discussion there as an example. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

One million deaths?

That the suppression of Philippine resistance to American take-over in 1898 was a bloody affaire, is a fact that is generally aknowledged. Until recently generally a figure of 20.000 deaths was mentioned. Now it has become 1.000.000. How serious is this figure? I consider it quite likely that this is a fabulation from people with a political agenda: getting a claim for more financial compensation.

Lignomontanus (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)