Talk:Philippines/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Religion section - percentages, sources, source vintages

This is the discussion phase a WP:BRD discussion.

I had made these edits to update some assertions re the percentage of the Philippine population which is Muslim. The percentages had been based on outdated sources, and I updated them to more recent info based on reliable sources from 2012. The percentage figure changed from "Around 6 % - 10%" to "As of 2012, around 11%". The supporting source I cited was the U.S. State Department 2012 IRF report, which says that the 11% figure came from the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, an agency of the Philippine government.

This edit changed the figure to "Around 5%", essentially reverting my change, and also removed other material, saying "Religion: updated religious distribution with accurate poll sources". The source cited after the revert is this globalreligiousfutures.org web page which apparently quotes from a 2010 Pew Research report (which, incidentally, says "5.5%", not "5%"). The 2012 edition of the relevant Pew Research report can be seen here. The data therein for the Philippines can be seen here. It still relies on information from 2010, and still says 5.5%.

Another source also cited in this section is this CIA Factbook page, which gives a 5% figure which it says comes from year 2000 Philippines census information.

I suggest that either the 11% figure from the 2012 vintage reliable source be used in the article or, if there is a WP:DUE concern with this, that both the 11% and 5.5% figures be given in the articles and that the supporting sources for the figures given and their vintages be explained in a clarifying footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) A look at Demographics of the Philippines#Religion sent me back to that 2012 IRF report for a second look there. That 2012 IRF report does also say that according to a survey from 2000 by the National Statistics Office, approximately 5 percent of the population were Muslim. Also, I see that the Religion in the Philippines article says in one place that Muslims comprise 5% of the population (supported by the CIA Factbook, which bases that on census info from the year 2000), and says in another place that the Muslim population of the Philippines is estimated at between 5% to 9%,according to 2010 IRF Report. We need to come to a consensus about what should be said, and the contradictions about this between these articles need to be eliminated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) Below is a table containing information about articles which I've found which make assertions re the percentage of Muslims in the Philippine population, what the various articles assert, and what supporting sources they cite. There may be other articles whch should be added to this table.

Article	Timestamp	Assertion re percent Muslim and supporting source	Comments
Philippines	02:43, June 14, 2014‎	5	Mentions Main article: Religion in the Philippines
	11:55, June 12, 2014‎	around 11%
Religion in the Philippines	16:31, June 7, 2014‎	5(lead section)	Citation badly positioned. Another cite better located to support this assertion is tagged {{failed verification}}
		5% to 9%(Islam section)
Demographics of the Philippines	07:32, May 27, 2014‎	5, 11	Actually, the article says, "The U. S. Department of State International Religious Freedom (IRF) report for 2012, citing a year 2000 survey from the Philippines National Statistics Office, reports that 80-85% of Filipinos were then Roman Catholics, with 93% being Christian, and that 5% of the population was then Islamic.The 2012 IRF report also reports that an estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) in 2011 stated that there were then 10.3 million Muslims, or about 11 percent of the total population."
Islam in the Philippines	16:31, June 7, 2014‎	5 to 9%
Islam by country	22:13, June 13, 2014‎	5.1
Christianity in the Philippines	15:07, April 15, 2014‎	5

After looking at this, it seems to me that

1. The approach taken in this article of treating Religion in the Philippines as a {{main}} summary style article re this is a good one.
2. I like the way the Demographics of the Philippines article addresses the disparity between the 5% and 11% figures. I note that this is also addressed in the 2012 IRF source (and in earlier IRF reports).
3. The PEW Report source seems to be widely cited, sometimes via other sources which mention it. It should probably be included in a clarification about disparities between sources.
4. Unless there is a year-specific assertion to be supported, an IRF report citation should cite the latest report. Currently, that would be the 2012 IRF report.

I think that all of the articles in the table above need a look, and probably need some cleanup. I think that Religion in the Philippines should be the first article cleaned up, then this article, then the others more or less in the order listed above. I'll post a note about this discussion on the talk pages of all the articles listed above and will look for discussion here about this. Following on that discussion (or the absence of same, and if no alternative course of action gains consensus here), I'll probably WP:BOLDly begin cleanup editing of these articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done on that look through our articles. We should definitely be citing straight of Pew if using Pew instead of reporting it via others. How do you think we should address the discrepancy in very quick summaries? "a minority making up roughly 5-10% of the population"? CMD (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That reads smoothly, but "a minority reported as comprising between 6 5 and 11 percent of the population" better describes what the most current version of the sources usually cited say.

• The Philippines page in the CIA Factbook which (currently) relies on 2000 census says 5%.
• The Table:Religious Composition by Country page in the December 18, 2012 Pew Report titled The Global Religious Landscape says 5.5%, using 2010 population data.
• The Philippines page in the 2012 IRF report says that a survey from 2000 by the National Statistics Office (i.e., the 2000 census) reported "approximately 5 percent", and also says that a 2011 estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) said 11 percent (I haven't been able to find that NCMF estimate online).

I think that the 5-11 percentage range should be asserted in all relevant articles, citing the 2011 IRF report and transcluding {{main|Religion in the Philippines}} where that is not inappropriate. I think that the Religion in the Philippines article should also assert the 5-11 percentage range, but should discuss that more fully, should cite all the major sources at appropriate points in that discussion, and should chronologize the sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Following on the discussion above, I have WP:BOLDly starting editing these articles. See [1], [2] (more to come) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is better to use sources that base their findings on polls rather than from organizations that only do estimates, especially when there is a high possibility of prejudice in their work, NCMF is a Muslim organization therefore it is in their interest to jack up their estimates to make an impression that there are more Muslims in the Philippines than in reality. I think the 5-11% range should not be asserted in all relevant articles as this the range is highly dubious and a gross overestimation of the actual Muslim population of the Philippines. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about relative reliability of sources

It is better to use sources that base their findings on polls rather than from organizations that only do estimates, especially when there is a high possibility of prejudice in their work, NCMF is a Muslim organization therefore it is in their interest to jack up their estimates to make an impression that there are more Muslims in the Philippines than in reality. I think the 5-11% range should not be asserted in all relevant articles as this the range is highly dubious and a gross overestimation of the actual Muslim population of the Philippines. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Solarpiece, I have reverted your edits here to Religion in the Philippines, and here to this article. You placed an entry on my talk page saying:

Wtmitchell the source you insist on using have grossly over estimated the total Muslim population of the Philippines, the pew research poll that shows the 5.5 percent result is more consistent with reality than with the 11 percent estimate by a Muslim organization.

I responded to that with a request that you continue this discussion on this article talk page.

I personally don't have a opinion about the percentage of the Muslim population in the Philippines. I have not done any original research into the matter and, if I did have an opinion in the matter, would try not to inject that into a WP article. Assertions in WP articles ought to be supported by reliable sources having due topical weight, and should not be driven by opinions of individual WP editors re article topics.

That said, you seem to have been conducting a bit of an edit war over the question of whether it is more appropriate to assert 5–11% or 5 or 5.5%, and over the question of the reliability of the sources supporting those figures. The 5–11% assertion is supported by the US State Department 2012 IRS report, which says,

According to a survey from 2000 by the National Statistics Office, approximately 93 percent of the population is Christian. A large majority of Christians are Roman Catholics, constituting 80 to 85 percent of the total population. The 2000 survey states that Islam is the largest minority religion, constituting approximately 5 percent of the population. A more recent estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) in 2011 states that there are 10.3 million Muslims, or about 11 percent of the total population.

The US State Department is, of course, a department of the US government. The National Commission on Muslim Filipinos is an agency of the Philippine government. I find it difficult to dismiss either of these sources as unreliable without substantial backup for that. I therefore, believe that the 5–11% assertion is supported by reliable sources.

You seem to be insisting on a 5% or 5.5% figure, supported by this and/or this source, and insisting that the 11% figure not be mentioned. My take on this is that the figures of 5 and 5.5 are not inconsistent with an assert of a range of 5–11%.

Regarding on your apparent insistence that the 11% figure not be mentioned, please read WP:DUE. Regarding on your assertion in the comment on my talk page that the sources I'm attempting to reference in these articles "grossly over estimated the total Muslim population of the Philippines", see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR.

I look forward to your response to this but, please, let's not you and I get into a debate about what sources align best with our individual perceptions; our individual perceptions should not enter into this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The NCMF being a government agency does not exempt it from being biased. while the US state department is only basing their information from other parties as well. A poll by the Pew Research is as of the moment the best source of religious percentage info on this matter. If you do more research you will find out that most Muslim affiliated organizations not only in the Philippines but in other countries as well have a tendency to overstate the actual number of Muslims living in a certain area to aid in their propagation efforts. Therefore Pew Research is the best Neutral source for Religious date on this issue. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Solarpiece, thank you for belatedly joining this discussion. I understand your point above re possible bias on the part of the NCMF. However, absent indication from reliable sources that they are making biased estimates, and given their official governmental status, we should assume good faith on the part of the U.S. State Department and the NCMF which are, after all, official agencies of the U.S. and Philippine governments. Regarding differences between the figures those agencies report and PEW's figures based on 2010 data (and other sources relying on even older figures), see WP:DUE. To my mind, it is not WP:NPOV (and, therefore, is against WP policy) for WP articles to ignore numbers reported by agencies of the U.S. and Philippine governments merely because some WP editors do not like those numbers. If those numbers have been called into question by other reliable sources we should consider that and should report those differing viewpoints, citing sources, where the differences have due topical weight.

You made this edit recently, which you summarized as "Undid revision 613420980 by Wtmitchell (talk) Please dont use dubious sources and stop edit war thanks". To my mind, you are the edit-warrior here, not me. I would prefer to reach a consensus by talk page discussion. Perhaps this should be resolved via a WP:AIV report. I have not made such a report yet, though I have thought about it. Feel free to make such a report yourself.

Some of the changes made in that edit involved the {{bar box}}. I am going to defer comment on those changes at this point, and I will comment in a separate talk page section which I will add below. Other changes made in that edit are:

• You again changed the 5–11% figure supported by the 2012 IRF report which attributes the 5% figure to the 2000 census and the 11% figure to the NCMF to say Around 5% supported by this 2010 Pew Research source. This appears to be a violation of WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV), and I have (again) reverted that change.
• You changedd "Less than one percent of the population is non-religious" to read "1 percent of the population is non-religious", leaving the cited supporting sources intact. The supporting sources cited are this CIA Factbook page on the Philippines which says "0.1%", and this 2010 Pew Research source which says "< 1%". I reverted this change.

If you disagree with my reversion of these changes, please discuss that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The 10 million estimate by the NCMF is blatant distortion of facts and its sad that just because a recognized government agency is the one responsible for these fabrication the data they present to people is automatically considered as factual. If you look at the Population total of the Mainly Muslim region of the Philippines, the ARMM, it only has a combined population of 3.2 million, and the rest of the regions are predominantly Christian, so where did the additional 7+ million came from? This alone is a strong evidence that the estimates made by the NCMF is overblown and has a malicious intent at disinformation. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that assessment based entirely on original research, or can you point to statements in reliable sources supporting it? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) Solarpiece, quite a ways above you said, "It is better to use sources that base their findings on polls rather than from organizations that only do estimates". I infer from this and from your focus on Pew Research sources that you believe that the Pew Research numbers come from polls. Appendix A of the 2009 Pew Forum report Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population says:

The number of Muslims in each of the countries and territories is calculated by multiplying the United Nations’ 2009 total population estimate for each country and territory by the single most recent and reliable demographic or social-scientific estimate of the percentage of Muslims in each country’s population, based on the conservative assumption that Muslim populations are growing at the same rate as each country’s general population. (A 2010 Pew Forum report will provide estimates of the differential growth rates of Muslim populations.)

So, Pew did not base their findings on polls in 2009 and (I infer) probably did not base their findings on polls in 2010 either.

This does not invalidate the Pew Research numbers, of course, just clarifies them a bit. The January 2011 Pew Research report The Future of the Global Muslim Population : Projections for 2010-2030 gives the following figures for the Philippines -> 1990: 2,872,000 (4.6%), 2010: 4,737,000 (5.1%) 2030: 7,094,000 (5.7%).

Digging around, I see that the article Thomas J. O’shaughnessy (1975). "How Many Muslims Has the Philippines?". Philippine Studies. 23 (3): 375–382. began by saying, "Statistics on the total number of Muslims in the Philippines have never been more than rough approximations. Unofficial estimates, with no guarantee of accuracy, range from five to twelve percent of the total population. Hilario M. Gomez in 1972 gave a figure of between four and five million, or ten to twelve percent." That paper goes on to give more detail and to conclude by saying, "In view of the data presented above it is more likely that the Muslim population has continued its decreasing trend, not in absolute numbers, but towards a lower ratio in the total population. [...] The continuance of this trend between 1948 and 1970 would have reduced the Muslims to 3.97% of the total population or about 1,456,000 instead of the 1,584,394 attributed to them in the 1970 Census. Even 1,456,000 may be much too high if the 23% to 46% excess discovered by Stone in Siasi were to be verified even in part in the other Muslim areas."

Yegar, Moshe (2002). Between Integration and Secession: The Muslim Communities of the Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, and Western Burma/Myanmar. Lexington Books. pp. 189–191. ISBN 978-0-7391-0356-2. says, "All attempts at determining the number of Muslims in the Philippines run into a methodological problem because there is a lack of dependable statistics and because of a tendentious reporting of numbers—either raising or lowering them—for political, ideological, or propaganda considerations. Statistics regarding the number of Muslims in the Philippines were never more than general, with the spread between unofficial estimates running between 5 and 12 percent of the total population.", and goes on to give some details about those tendentiously reported numbers.

I continue to maintain that it is in keeping with WP:DUE to include information in this and other articles in this topical area re the 5–11% range reported in the U.S. State Department 2012 IRF report, with or without including detail from that report about the sources of the 5% and 11% figures. In my opinion, it would be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy to suppress inclusion of the 11% figure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(intent to seek involvement from WP:3) Solarpiece, with no discussion from other editors, it looks like you and I are the only two interested in whether or not mention of the 11% figure and the 2012 IRF report should be suppressed.

With no further discussion from you after our last exchange of edits to the article, it looks like you and I have reached an impasse. I would like to move attempts at resolution of this disagreement to the next level by listing it at WP:Third opinion. The procedures for doing that include an instruction to take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.

For the last month or so I've been editing from Romblon, Romblon, and my internet connectivity situation has ranged from pretty bad to bloody awful. Tomorrow I am beginning travel to Boracay, which ought to improve my connectivity situation but will involve an overnight stay on Tablas island. My intention is to check in two or three days to see whether there has been any communication from or activity by you regarding this and, in the absence of progress towards resolving this disagreement, to list this disagreement at WP:3. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) having seen nothing from you on this, I've listed this at WP:3. See [3]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Philippines and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

As many sources have been given above that indicate how unreliable estimates/surveys of this percentage are, the only sensible course is to identify the range of possible percentages. I agree with Wtmitchell that giving only the lower figure would be giving undue weight to it. I also agree with him that both the US State Department and the NCMF should be assumed reliable unless there is reliable evidence to the contrary. @Wtmitchell: as of this writing, Solarpiece hasn't edited since 19 June -- a whole week -- so he may have moved on. If not, though, I was slightly surprised at your mention of AIV? Wouldn't ANEW be nearer the mark? @Solarpiece: you're getting exceptionally detailed responses from Wtmitchell and all you seem to be saying in reply is that you consider Pew the best source. It isn't necessary to confine ourselves to one source; in fact, when different sources give numbers, it is far better to record this fact. I don't think it's tenable to say that Pew and only Pew should be cited. Stfg (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, Thanks for your input. You're right about ANEW vs. AIV, but I decided early on after noting the low number of edits at Special:Contributions/Solarpiece to try to work this out by talk page discussion without placing a formal warning about edit warring on Solarpiece's talk page or making a complaint. Basically, I was WP:AGFing.

Solarpiece, I've removed the {{dubious}} tag you placed re the 5-11% range. I also plan to review other articles relating to religion in the Philippines, and to bring assertions about the percentage of Muslims into line with this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014

2605:E000:3FC0:20:6965:3213:772C:2AE8 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

Can I edit this article Philippines because I'm FILIPINO..

MihoKomatsu 20 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sam ^Sing! 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Image additions

Here are the reasons why some recent image additions are ill-suited for this particular article, which is meant to give a broad overview of the country with carefully selected images used sparingly in order to retain its "Good" status:

• Adding a smaller map of the Philippines next to a similar and a more detailed map of the Philippines is unsuitable
• Adding World Heritage Sites tables creates too much clutter in small sections which should ideally have no more than one image each.
• The Manananggal image is irrelevant to anything discussed in the article.
• The Philippine arena is a multi-use venue and because the image itself does not depict one of the sports played in the Philippines it is ill-suited for the Sports section.
• There is already a picture of Makati in the article and adding two more pictures of Makati and Cebu creates redundancy and needless clutter/white space. I still have to figure out the best way to add four small city images within the table of Largest Cities as is done with most other countries.

Images that are appropriate/could be kept as compromise:

• Adobo image as a double image with Halo-halo
• A smaller version of the Masskara image
• The presidential palace as a double image with the president

Of course I'm not the final voice on these matters and further discussion is open regarding the perception/relevancy of these images and their place in the article. I would just like to keep this article up to wiki standards of quality. Cadiomals (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing The Name Of This Country

According To That Video Philippines or Republic Of The Philippines But We Have To Do Something To Change This Name From Republic to His Surname Because Due Of The Benigno Aquino III's Term Of His Madness As The President of this Country

Isn't True Or False? — Preceding unsigned comment added by National Names 2000 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlinks

When other countries are mentioned in this article, like the United States, Japan, India, China, and numerous other nations, there should be hyperlinks to those articles. It is a glaring omission that someone has incorrectly decided that this article is deemed too special to have hperlinks to other countries' articles. And it cannot be changed by the reader because the article is locked. Can we get this changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What? There are policies regarding internal linking; one of them is to have wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles when the term may not be understood or if there is a belief that a user could seek additional information on that topic. But generally, don't people know what the United States is, or Japan, and are hyperlinks needed to those articles here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Particularly relevant here is WP:OVERLINK. ^Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

I'm a registered user why cannot able to edit this article. PUNYETA Kobe Hyogo (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as your account is not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinatubo's eruption did not lead to base closures

"ended with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 1991,[81][82] leading to the withdrawal of U.S. forces and transfer of Clark Air Base in November 1991 and Subic Bay in December 1992 officially to the government, ending the basing of American military forces in the country" The senate of the philippines rejected the terms of the bases agreement therefore ending the stay of the u.s. bases in the country.

FROM NEW YORK TIMES:

PHILIPPINE SENATE VOTES TO REJECT U.S. BASE RENEWAL By PHILIP SHENON, Published: September 16, 1991

The Philippine Senate voted today to reject a new treaty for the Subic Bay Naval Station and to end an American military presence in the country that has lasted nearly a century. But President Corazon C. Aquino effectively extended the American lease by calling for a national referendum on the base's future.

In a vote of 12 to 11, the Senate adopted a motion to spurn the new treaty, which would allow thousands of American troops to remain at the base for another 10 years. The current treaty on Subic Bay, the largest American military installation in the Philippines, expires today.

"The treaty is defeated," the Senate President, Jovito R. Salonga, announced in a solemn tone after the vote was taken this morning in a show of hands. The decision was greeted with applause and tears in the chamber. Anger Over Compensation

The 11 senators who voted in favor of the new treaty were 5 short of the two-thirds majority needed for ratification.

The vote reflected a view among many senators that the compensation package offered by the United States was too small and, more broadly, that it was time to end an American military presence that began when the United States acquired the Philippines by winning the Spanish-American war.

In voting to spurn the new treaty, Senator Agapito Aquino, brother-in-law of the President and younger brother of her slain husband, Benigno S. Aquino, described the decision as "the dawn of our nation's birth." Ending an 'Adolescence'

"It is a vote for a truly sovereign and independent Philippine nation," he told colleagues in a speech on the Senate floor. "It is a vote to end a political adolescence tied to the purse strings of America -- a crippling dependence."

But Mrs. Aquino's call for a referendum under the terms of the Philippine Constitution has the effect of extending the deadline for an American departure by at least several months, and quite possibly for several years.

Invoking the rallying cry of "people power" that she used with such success in ousting President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1986, Mrs. Aquino proposed in a televised address Sunday night that "we take the issue directly to the people."

"Once again people power is being called upon," Mrs. Aquino said. "As in 1986, we seek the direct expression of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. Now, as in the past, every one of us must participate in an exercise that gives added substance to the democracy we have established."

The referendum could not be held until late this year or in 1992. Mrs. Aquino's move is expected to set off a series of time-consuming court challenges by lawmakers and others who assert that the Constitution permits voters to overrule a vote by the Senate on a regular law, but not on a treaty. U.S. Stand Called Flexible

While the Bush Administration indicated last week that it would start an immediate and irrevocable withdrawal from Subic if the Philippine Senate vetoed the 10-year treaty, Western diplomats said in recent days that the American position was actually far more flexible, and that American troops would probably remain at the base until after a referendum. Interim arrangements for compensation to the Philippines were unclear.

The base, home to more than 7,000 Americans -- servicemen and women and civilian workers -- is a major refueling and repair station for the United States Seventh Fleet.

While its strategic value has declined with the end of the cold war, Bush Administration officials say that replicating the functions of Subic Bay at installations elsewhere in the Pacific would cost several billion dollars.

Clark Air Base, a sister American installation on the central Philippine island of Luzon, was abandoned this year after it was smothered by volcanic ash released by nearby Mount Pinatubo. Possible Election Issue

Beyond its implications for Philippine-American relations, Mrs. Aquino's call for a referendum on the future of Subic Bay will doubtless have a broad effect on domestic politics.

She may well have created the principal issue in next May's general election, including the vote to pick her successor: whether the United States should be allowed to continue to place troops and weapons, including nuclear weapons, on the soil of a former colony that in many ways has yet to emerge from the American shadow. President Aquino has insisted that she will not seek re-election when her six-year term expires next year.

The new 10-year base agreement rejected today had been hammered out this summer between the Bush Administration and the Manila Government.

. Washington offered $203 million a year in compensation, far less than was originally sought by Manila. Some of the Philippine lawmakers had demanded that the treaty be renegotiated.

Mrs. Aquino, aware of opinion polls showing that an overwhelming majority of Filipinos support the treaty, is refusing to acquiesce in the Senate's rejection of it. The Philippine military also strongly favors the treaty.

At stake are the jobs of tens of thousands of Filipinos who work at the base or in related jobs, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars that the Subic Bay installation injects into the strapped Philippine economy each year.

Acknowledging on Sunday night that Senate rejection of the base agreement was "likely," Mrs. Aquino said that she would invoke a section of the Constitution that gives voters the right to overturn legislative decisions in a national referendum.

Under the Constitution, the signatures of 10 percent of the nation's voters, or about three million Filipinos, are needed on petitions authorizing a referendum.

Many senators disagree with Mrs. Aquino on the question of whether a treaty vote in the Senate, as opposed to the Senate's vote on a regular law, can be overturned by referendum.

The constitutional differences will probably have to be sorted out in the Philippine Supreme Court, a process that could take several months. It could even delay a referendum until after the general election in May, when new senators, including some who may be more receptive to a base treaty with the United States, will be selected. -------------------- U.S. Supports a Referendum

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (Special to The New York Times) -- American officials welcomed the effort by President Aquino today to win approval of the base treaty through a referendum.

Richard H. Solomon, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in an interview, "We support her efforts."

Exactly when the current agreement ends is, from the American perspective, a complicated question. The Philippines has said it expires on Monday. The United States disagrees, saying the earliest possible date is Sept. 16, 1992.

The Military Bases Agreement was signed in 1947, eight months after the Philippines became independent of the United States. An amendment adopted by both nations in 1966 says it "shall remain in force for a period of 25 years from September 16, 1966, after which, unless extended for a longer period by mutual agreement, it shall become subject to termination upon one year's notice by either government."

The Philippines gave such notice several months ago. State Department officials contend that the notice could not properly be given until Monday.

ONE of the major disagreements was on the custody of american soldiers who committed crimes on philippine soil. like in the current VFA agreement, custody of american personnel remains with the u.s military, regardless of the crime. Many protests were held regarding this. examples of the various crimes committed included a marine who broke a dildo inside the body of a teenage prostitute. because of ignorance, the underage prostitute did not seek medical assistance until it was too late and she died of sepsis. the american involved was never prosecuted and was sent back to the u.s. before the philippine gov. could intervene. (citations cannot be given because philippine newspaper archives are not online).

Currently October 2014, a murder committed by a marine under VFA is under investigation.

OLONGAPO CITY, Philippines (UPDATED) – The US Marine suspected of killing transgender Filipino Jennifer Laude was a no-show at the start of the preliminary hearing on the murder case on Tuesday, October 21.

US Private First Class Joseph Scott Pemberton failed to appear at the preliminary hearing at the Olongapo Hall of Justice, where family members of Laude were accompanied by their lawyer, Harry Roque, as well as Laude's German fiancé, Marc Sueselbeck.

Pemberton was represented by his lawyers, led by Rowena Flores, who said the subpoena served on their client did not require his personal appearance at the preliminary hearing.

Olongapo City Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos, however, told the US Marine's legal counsel that Pemberton should attend the next preliminary investigation on October 27.

Delos Santos said Pemberton's attendance in the probe will "give a very good example on the willingness on the part of the United States to comply with the [Visiting Forces Agreement]."

She told Flores: "On the 27th, Mr Pemberton should be with you…. I'm directing you to make him appear before us."

Flores told Delos Santos that she will confer with Pemberton, but the city prosecutor said: "I don't take any more arguments…. It is his right to be informed. But you are the one knowledgeable in Philippine law. So do not tell me that you don't exert any influence by explaining to him what would be the best thing to do. From now on, I don't want to listen to 'I'm going to ask him.' No. You have to compel him."

Asked by Flores what the prosecutor's office would do if Pemberton refuses to appear, Delos Santos said: "You will get an order from me later on. His non-appearance will get an order from this office. That's mere speculation. As you said you will confer with him. What if he wants to appear?"

During the probe, Delos Santos emphasized that the prosecutors will not touch on the issue of custody outlined in the VFA. Instead, the panel will focus on the criminal aspects of the case.

The subpoena issued last week by the prosecutor's office provided Pemberton 10 days to study the murder complaint lodged by Laude's family against him and to submit his counter-affidavit.

Flores said her client would avail of the 10 day period, but added that they may opt not to submit a counter-affidavit.

The preliminary investigation will proceed regardless if Pemberton submits his counter-affidavit.

'Disadvantageous' for Pemberton

In a press briefing, Delos Santos affirmed that Pemberton can waive his right to avail of the preliminary investigation to submit his counter-affidavit.

She also acknowledged that this may be a strategic move on the part of the defense.

"That's tantamount to a waiver on his part to present his evidence in the preliminary investigation. Maybe their strategy is, we will just present him in court. So they are now prepared for his defense in court," Delos Santos said.

But she said this can also be "disadvantageous" for Pemberton because he cannot refute the evidence presented by the complainants during the preliminary investigation.

"That's why we have to conduct additional investigation just to make sure that what the witnesses for the complainants are telling us by way of their affidavits are all true. We will know for sure if it's true or if there are lapses, because their testimonies will be very important in the event that Pemberton will not file a counter affidavit."

Probe possibly 'easier'

The city prosecutor is tasked to determine if there's prima facie evidence to file murder charges against Pemberton in court.

Following the hearings, the prosecutor can either bring criminal charges or drop the case.

Delos Santos said that while the required period for the preliminary investigation is 60 days, this can be shortened or extended, depending on factors like the available evidence.

"The required period is 60 days, but subject to the agreement of parties. We could expedite, we can shorten, we can also extend. We have to be reasonable. If the available evidence needed by the prosecution is not yet in, like the forensics, we don't have to make haste," she said.

On November 5, prosecutors will conduct an ocular inspection in Ambyanz Disco Bar and Celzone Lodge – the two places where Laude and witness Mark Clarence Gelviro (known as Barbie) met the suspect on the night of October 11.

Laude was found dead hours later in the bathroom of Celzone Lodge.

Delos Santos said the ocular will allow prosecutors to connect the witnesses' statements with actual evidence.

She also said that if Pemberton does not submit a counter-affidavit, the preliminary probe will be made easier.

"There will be nothing to refute. We will just validate and assess the evidence," she said. – Rappler.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.78.55 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing about this. I have already edited that part and added some references. GreenPH (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Alfred2995 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Etymology part: should be "The Philippines was named in honor of..." rather than "The Philippines were named in honor of..." which is currently written on the page.

Just grammar issues, no need for sources. 120.28.218.66 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam ^Sing! 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

are you a joke. a misspelled word not a request? how daft.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't find "pubilshign" with CTRL+F on this page, I couldn't tell what misspelling you were referring to, so I assumed your edit was vandalism. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

Please remove the hyperlink that's on 'American pop cultural trends'. It opens up some page on 'Popular Culture'. 'Popular Culture' doesn't necessarily mean 'American pop cultural trends' Jordanlegarde (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I don't normally agree to such requests, but that link was very tenuous - Arjayay (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I read the article and made a huge amount of corrections in terms of spelling, accents, punctuation and form. I also rearranged images to make the layout more pleasing to the eye. This article is fairly well written but it could be improved. I think it has some nice photos and some great maps.

I have a few comments:

1. How could the people of the Philippines or any country around the world allow the Marcos to escape after all the nasty stuff they did? How could the U.S.A. allow the Marcos to stay in Hawaii? It doesn't make any sense.

2a. The "Politics" sections says "The Philippines has a democratic government in the form of a constitutional republic with a presidential system. It is governed as a unitary state with the exception of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which is largely free from the national government."

Why does the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao have special autonomy?

2b. Not too long ago, the "Politics" section had an image of Benigno S. Aquino III in an elegant but simple dress in front of the seal of the country. It was a nice photo. I don't know why it was removed and replaced by the image of the president in yellow.

3. I am debating whether the table in the "Administrative divisions" section should probably list areas with the proper Spanish accents such as La Unión, Taclobán, Pagadián, Cagayán de Oro and Butuán.

4a. The "Wildlife" section says "It is one of the ten most biologically megadiverse countries and is at or near the top in terms of biodiversity per unit area".

First of all I don't like "megadiverse" and I don't even know if it's a word because the "mega" prefix is improperly used. Secondly, I don't like the expression "is at or near the top" because it's not clear what is the top and if it's at the top or near the top (it can only be one). Third, "megadiverse" and "biodiversity" are somewhat redundant. This sentence should be rewritten to something like "It is one of the ten most biologically diverse countries in the world".

4b. The "Wildlife" section says "The Philippines has among the highest rates of discovery in the world ...".

Discovery of what?

4c. The "Wildlife" section says "The Philippines lacks large predators, with the exception of snakes, such as pythons and cobras, saltwater crocodiles and birds of prey, such as the national bird, known as the Philippine eagle, which scientists suggest as the largest eagle in the world."

Should it be "is the national bird"?

5. The "Economy" section says "Goldman Sachs includes the country in its list of the "Next Eleven" economies[214][215] but China and India have emerged as major economic competitors".

"But" should create a contrast by describing The Philippines. The use of "but" in this sentence does not work so the sentence should be rewritten.

6. The "Communications" section says "On March 29, 1994, the country went live on the Internet through a router serviced by PLDT to a Sprint communication's router in California via a 64 kbit/s connection".

The sentence just doesn't sound right. I don't like the use of "to".

7. The "Tourism" section says "On January 6, 2012 it launched a new slogan named "It's More Fun in the Philippines"[276] and ranked third in world's best marketing campaigns according to Warc 100."

I think this sentence should be rewritten by removing "and" and breaking the sentence in two parts. The part on marketing just doesn't sound right.

8. The "Demographics" section says "The 3.21% population growth rate between 1995 and 2000 decreased to an estimated 1.95% for the 2005-2010 period, but remains a contentious issue".

The use of "but" in this case does not work well and "contentious issue" is somewhat disconnected from the first part of the sentence.

9. The "Health" section says "the country is still a low-HIV-prevalence country with less than 0.1% of the adult population estimated to be HIV-positive".

Low HIV prevalence compared to what?

10a. The "Education" section says "There are a number of foreign schools with study programs".

Study programs are mentioned but it's a somewhat vague statement.

10b. The "Education" section says "In 2004, madaris were mainstreamed in 16 regions nationwide, mainly in Muslim areas in Mindanao ...".

The use of the verb "mainstreamed" with "madaris" does not sound good. The sentence should be rewritten.

11. The "Sports" section needs a better introduction.

ICE77 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

{{edit selckljajncn a m am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:180:D:5103:F41C:46EC:D7D3 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "newsroom":

• From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Philippines: "Facts and Statistics: Statistics by Country: Philippines", Newsroom, LDS Church, 31 December 2011, retrieved 2012-10-18
• From Gordon B. Hinckley: "News Story", MormonNewsroom.org, LDS Church, January 27, 2008 {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

103.14.61.177 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

Does anyone else think that the lead section could be further improved?

I mean paragraphs three and four to me look like they should belong in a history section or subsection instead of in the lead. If at all necessary to be in the lead, could be further condensed.

Reijiro (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

There needs to be a correction regarding the "Classical States" entry on the Confederation of Madja-as. Although the entry cites the American colonial era-Blair as basis for this entry, it must be noted that the respected scholar William Henry Scott, in his dissertation which has become the basis for the book, "Pre-Hispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History" (1992 Edition), has debunked the so-called Confederation of Madya-as as found in the so-called Maragtas Code, which he has proven as most likely a forgery by an antique collector named Pedro Monteclaro. If anything, the Maragtas Code, alongside the fabled Code of Kalantiao (also a fake) is at best a collection of legends and folklores in the Visayas. Further, it must also be noted that there is no convincing proof that the entire Philippines became under either the Madjaphit or Srivijayan empires. In other words, it must be requested that the Confederation of Madja-as be removed from the list of Classical States of the Philippines because it never existed.

Here is the entry that needs to be corrected: "The Kedatuan of Madja-as was founded following a civil-war in collapsing Srivijaya, wherein loyalists to the Austronesian Datus of Srivijaya defied the invading Chola Dynasty and it's puppet-Rajah called Makatunao and set up a guerrilla-state in the Visayas islands. Its founder, Datu Puti had purchased land for his new realms from the Aboriginal Ati Hero, Marikudo. Madja-as was founded on Panay island. It is an island named after a destroyed state allied under Srivijaya, the kingdom of Pannai which is located in Sumatra. The Rajahnate of Butuan in northeastern Mindanao attained prominence under the rule of Rajah Sri Bata Shaja, who was from a Buddhist ruling-class governing over a Hindu nation. This state became powerful due to the local goldsmith industry. It also maintained commercial ties and a diplomatic rivalry with the Champa civilization. The Kingdom of Tondo was ruled over by the Lakandula dynasty and the kingdom grew wealthy via the exclusive trading-rights of Chinese goods which they marketed in Southeast Asia. This was granted to them by the Ming Dynasty." Also, the Rajahnate of Cebu was led by Rajamuda Sri Lumay, a monarch with partial Tamil descent. This state grew wealthy by making use of the inter-island shipping routes within the archipelago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandemo07 (talk • contribs) 03:05, May 4, 2015‎

 Not done Neeeds discussion. If that is true, the Confederation of Madja-as article apparently needs a heavy rewrite. I did quickly check page 74 of that Scott book and did not see any support for or refutation of the existence of the Confederation of Madja-as (see this). I didn't have time to check the other sources cited in this article. The requestoor's sig was lost in unclosed Refs. I've completed the Refs and added an appropriate sig. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

May I request for the deletion of this entry about the Philippines under the subheading on "Classical States:

The Kedatuan of Madja-as was founded following a civil-war in collapsing Srivijaya, wherein loyalists to the Austronesian Datus of Srivijaya defied the invading Chola Dynasty and it's puppet-Rajah called Makatunao and set up a guerrilla-state in the Visayas islands. Its founder, Datu Puti had purchased land for his new realms from the Aboriginal Ati Hero, Marikudo. Madja-as was founded on Panay island. It is an island named after a destroyed state allied under Srivijaya, the kingdom of Pannai which is located in Sumatra

This entry must be deleted since it misreads the book it cites as a source for this entry. Even the book that it used a s a source - William Henry Scott's Pre-Hispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History - has debunked the existence of a Madja-as/Madyaas Confederacy (see Scott, 1992 edition). Thank you very much! It must also be noted that sources before Scott's work took for granted and took as gospel truth the accounts and articles that seem to accept the historicity of the Madyaas confederacy for a long time until Scott's work came into the picture disproving both the Madyaas folklore and the fake Code of Kalantiao. Also, as a matter of historical record and fact, the Philippines was never directly under the control of the Srivijayan and Majapahit empires. Thank you so much!

Nandemo07 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Demonym section

The correct usage of Filipino/a is as follows:

Filipino (masculine noun)

Filipina (feminine noun)

Filipino (adjective, m. or f.)

Example:

Imelda is a Filipina.

Imelda is a Filipino citizen.

Explanation: The English language does not require gender agreement for noun-adjective combinations. (And we are talking about English here, not Tagalog.) An analogous situation is blond (m. noun), blonde (f. noun), and blond (adj.).

Grammar-Cop (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a Demonyms section to the article essentially containing this information. I've revised the presentation a bit and supplied a supporting cite. Feel free to improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Rail transport

A proposal for an update:

Now: Rail transport in the Philippines plays a vital role of transporting passengers and cargo within major cites as well as long distance travel. Rail network in the country including Manila Light Rail Transit System (LRT-1 and LRT-2),[272][273] and Manila Metro Rail Transit System (MRT-3) serving the Metro Manila area,[274] Philippine National Railways (PNR) serves the Luzon Island,[275][276] and the defunct Panay Railways that previously served the island of Panay.[277] Three types of train systems are currently under development, namely the Automated Guideway Transit, an electric powered, fully automated train,[278][279][280] the Hybrid Electric Road Train which is a long bi-articulated bus,[281][282][283] and a full-scale passenger train.[284]

Proposal: Rail transport in the Philippines plays a vital role of transporting passengers within Metro Manila. The area is served by three rapid transit lines: LRT-1, and LRT-2 and MRT-3. In the past railways were serving major parts of Luzon, and railroad services were available on the island of Cebu and Negros. Railways were used for agricultural purposes, like in the tobacco and sugar cane production.

Explanation: rail transportation does not play a vital role as long distance travel. Even when the Bicol Express was shortly revived, its market share was minimal, compared to road movements. Lets keep it in line with the actual proportions. The AGT prototypes and pre-feasabilty studies on this mode of transportation, initiated by DOST, MIRDC and UP should be described; this is quite something, and worth mentioning. Something like: DOST-MIRDC and UP are implementing pre-feasibility studies on Automated Guideway Transit for the country. Any thoughts, reactions?Abante86 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Please add the spanish alternate name of the "Republic of The Philippines" which is "Republica De Las Filipinas"

103.14.62.26 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

Filipino - People of the Philippines Pilipino - Language of the people of the Philippines 98.221.129.142 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please note that we use the common name in English, not the Official name, nor the name in the local language. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Negros Island Region (NIR) - references to Region XVIII

I have removed references to the new Negros Island Region (NIR) being called Region XVIII. There are several reasons for this:

First - Within Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), there is no specific mention that Regions can be renamed (no doubt this is because they are not like other LGUs).

Second - in same Act: SECTION 13. (g) The change of name of any local government unit shall be effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political unit directly affected.

Third - if the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII then there should be an official issuance to that effect (either executive or legislative).

Given that (to the best of my knowledge) there has been no plebiscite, executive or legislative issuance proclaiming that the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII, the "XVIII" numerical designation is not part of said region's official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwai94 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Region XVIII" is not the title of the article on the region. Even if it were, I see no problem with it as Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer to use official titles in naming articles. A simple reference to the region as Region XVIII (even if it is not official yet) should be allowed considering the number of WP:RS that calls it the new Region XVIII. I would restore those references based on reliable sources alone.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on WP:RS alone, Region XVIII is acceptable as another name for the Negros Island Region because reliable references have been provided to support such name. Citing the LGU Code of 1991 is misguided since regions by themselves are not separate political entities (with the exception of ARMM). Your second reason does not hold water as well because again, regions are not LGUs, therefore the LGU Code of 1991 does not apply to administrative regions. Therefore, there is no need for a plebiscite in renaming, reorganizing, abolishing, or amending the component LGUs of administrative regions. Your third reason is acceptable, given that EO 183 only calls the Negros Island Region as "NIR" and not explicitly with a numeric unlike those regions reorganized under EO 36 where, for instance, it is explicit that Region IX is the official name and Zamboanga Peninsula is the other name for one of the regions reorganinzed under that EO.

I guess it would be acceptable to stick with NIR to refer to the Negros Island Region for now, since afterall, that is how it is referred to under EO 183, then place Region XVIII somewhere in the article for the region as an "unofficial" name. In fact, even the Philippine Statistics Authority calls the region as NIR and not Region XVIII. Xeltran (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For me though, I would probably leave the region out without an acronym or number until the government officially acknowledges its designation. I get this impression that Regions labeled as acronyms instead of a region number, are those regions with special status: ARMM being the only autonomous region, NCR being the special capital region, and CAR being the formerly proposed autonomous region of the Cordilleran people. All the rest are "regular regions" which are designated with numbers. Negros, i believe, is just a regular administrative region.--RioHondo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Regions labelled with an acronym does not necessarily mean such regions have special status. All regions are administrative with the single exception of ARMM. Although, NCR is unusual in that there are no provinces within it.

If NIR was officially Region XVIII then that could cause some confusion to those not familiar with Philippine administrative divisions. Where are regions XIV, XV, XVI and XVII? Maybe this is why no official numerical designation was included in EO 36.

Furthermore, even though NIR is the 18th region to have been created that does mean it will necessarily be Region XVIII. For example, NCR was the 13th region to have been created but it was never called Region XIII (which is the designation given to Caraga, the 16th region to be created). In fact, soon after the NCR (or Metropolitan Manila as it was known as back then) was created, it was called Region IV with the existing Region IV (Southern Tagalog) renumbered as Region IV-A. You can read for yourself in PD 879.

Some sources claim that NIR is now officially Region XVIII. If anyone knows of official documentation changing the name to incorporate "Region XVIII" into the region's official name then please show me and I will gladly retract on the subject.

In conclusion, it is without prejudice that I have removed references to Region XVIII in preference of the official name although a reference remains on the NIR page to Region XVIII.

David A. Short (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC);

I'm just saying there is a choice not to label the region with an acronym or number pending clarification from the government.--RioHondo (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder what is actually meant by Negros Island Region is now officially Region XVIII. It could in fact mean one of two things:

First, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially the 18th region (a reference to the region's creation).

Second, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially Region No. 18 (a reference to the region's numerical designation)

Given this ambiguity, it is possible that the original statement is being misinterpreted. Either way, without either an executive or legislative issuance, the name cannot officially include Region XVIII.

David A. Short (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC);

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015

49.150.215.15 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)