Jump to content

Talk:Philippines/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

"erased and mysterious"

This edit caught my eye, which drew my attention to the snippet in the Early historic coastal city-states and polities section reading "There is almost a millennium (previously "almost 900 years") of erased and mysterious history since the next earliest historical record of local polities and kingdoms is the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which ...". Erased history there implies that someone unnamed did the erasing, and that bothered me. The LCI discovery is dated at 900 CE, 900 years before 1800 and 900 years since the beginning of the CE, so this must be referring to the latter mentioned (earlier) period. "since the next earliest historical record" doesn't make sense, as the LCI is understood to be the earliest historical record, and there is no known "next earliest historical record". Thinking about it, I don't see why the length of the period before the LCI discovery is anchored at, or anchored near, the beginning of the CE. I've reverted this earlier edit back to the earlier language, and replaced the word these in there with local, so it now reads: "The earliest historical record of local polities and kingdoms is the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, which ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Otley Beyer said that some Spaniards deliberately burned and erased hundreds of codices, it's in the Rajahnate of Butuan article. And in between the Jade findings in 1000 B.C. and the Laguna Copperplate Inscription in 900 A.D. there are almost 2000 years of forgotten history...
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
(added in response to the addition above) That source might be cited in the article with the following wikitext:

<ref>{{cite book|last=Beyer|first=Henry Otley|title=Philippine and East Asian Archaeology, and Its Relation to the Origin of the Pacific Islands Population|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lq9gGQAACAAJ|year=1948|publisher=National Research Council of the Philippines|page=48}}</ref>

which would produce the following citation:

Beyer, Henry Otley (1948). Philippine and East Asian Archaeology, and Its Relation to the Origin of the Pacific Islands Population. National Research Council of the Philippines. p. 48.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(I've fiddled the indenting above) Thanks for the clarification. I see that now, but it previously came across as confusing to me because I did not know that background. You clearly have a more complete understanding of this period of Philippine history than I; more than most readers of this article, I'll bet. It's my guess that most readers of this article would not have been able to put that into context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It gets even more interesting, there are recent discoveries by the Facebook Group and Youtube Channel; "Kasaysayan Hunters" of more intriguing lost and rediscovered Philippine history artifacts and facets, like the rediscovered Binuangan Civilization (Which I recently made an article of) and some 3000 year old Platinum Imperial Dings and even some Black Jade Imperial Kongs just randomly lying about in Luzon and even some B.C. era Phoenician beads. I expect to be gone or busy in a while, it depends on my circumstances, I already partially fulfilled my promises to J.G. Cheok to make articles about the discoveries of the Kasaysayan Hunters (Her Email: [REMOVED]). If, however, I am incapacitated somehow, can you or others continue on our work? I expect to be gone or busy in a while so I may not have the capacity to fulfill all that I promised but at least I already made one article. BTW can you please put the Binuangan Civilization article I made into the Philippines article? I feel like if I do it myself without humility or chastity, I am making a Luciferian mistake of epic Pride proportions. It's best if you do it since I don't want to be like the Lucifer for my people, drunk in vainglory and vanity of our own beauty. I want you to be an Apostle (Witness) who'll write this down vs me myself who would be guilty of self-worship if I do this to exalt my own people and have impure motives. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, but given this is such a high level article, it is better to wait until such information appears in a wider range of reliable sources. CMD (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
They already published a book on that, ask her; (Her Email: [REMOVED]). And they're planning on an international Symposium on it this May.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The above "civilization" article was converted to a local government area/barangay article by yours truly, as it is really a barangay at present. The article as created was problematic as it tackles a lot of what i would say poorly sourced WP:SYNTHESIS materials, and even pointed to a different area in Bulacan which really caught my attention. I left his theories in a history section. Feel free to remove it if the author fails to provide the necessary inline citations.--RioHondo (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Look at the videos of the Kasaysayan Hunters, I didn't synthesize my theories here, I merely wrote verbatim what the Kasaysaayan Hunters expounded on their videos. If you look at their Facebook page you will also see that they're organizing an International Symposium of their discoveries this May before they write a book about it, you should attend it. We have to move houses this May so I can't attend the Symposium, if you go, you'll meet Professor J.G Cheock there herself and Lt. Arthur Archie Tiu also, as well as the University of the Philippines Archaeological Society, it was they who proposed those theories not me. Don't shoot the messenger.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Even the notability of the source is suspect. Why should we trust a bunch of youtubers with very little grasp of basic Philippine geography apparently, for the official national historical account of an entire country? Find a different source, and a notable one with a WP article.--RioHondo (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the email address posted here. It is not a good idea to provide personal emails on public spaces, and its provision does not help this discussion. CMD (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

J.G. Cheock has a PHD in Anthropology and the discoverer of the Binuangan Underwater Megacity is a history professor and alot of the members of the Kasaysayan Hunters have good credentials. I reverse the question to you then... Do you really think that we amateur Wikipedia editors have more intellectual clout than these people? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW her writings will be expounded by Professor Boyet Manuel and Chemist JM Cayme who investigated the Binuangan Walls and Structures...Check out her FB: https://www.facebook.com/j.g.cheock/photos/pb.302736600337367.-2207520000.1556529757./361957081081985/?type=3&eid=ARA0BtukLmlfiamm_3Ee8G8GXBwIyifO21bEEUJjBBHAgpWFGjCfYBducGAT9w15ww1HZbq-99dHUsNP)Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, but see WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok thank you bro. I also thank you for inserting the Binuangan discovery into this article but I see that people don't think this information should part of this wiki and that they consider themselves more qualified than professional professors, historians, antiquarian, scientists and archeologists as well as members of the Philippine military and police whom they accuse to be "Amateur YouTube Video" makers. Fine! Let thine will be done! Their self proclaimed authority should be totally respected whereas these PhD holders and government official's findings should have to have their discoveries discreetly hidden.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood WP:RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so who are these people? J. G. Cheock, Boyet Manuel, JM Cayme and the rest of your "Kasaysayan Hunters." I don't write and have never contributed to this article, but i know WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:FRINGE when i see one. I leave it to the active editors here but the sources and synthesizing done to connect different questionable sources to arrive at new "truths" certainly puts into question the integrity and reliability of this article. Youtube video, facebook page, travel sites, "Brunei was so wealthy," "Brunei was so powerful", "credence to the talk that the Philippines is the biblical Ophir," if that isnt vandalism, i dont know what is.--RioHondo (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... Looking for the first appearance of Ophir in this article, I find this, citing this in support. Also, I see mention of that cited source here, which appears to be a WP:SELFPUB source pushing a WP:POV; it mentions a Facebook discussion group of the University of the Philippines. I don't know anything about the history of the Philippines in this period, but that source reads like WP:FRINGE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Earlier here there was mention of info in the Rajahnate of Butuan article. I see that the information referred to there was inserted in this edit by an anon who has been warned about adding commentary, POV, or personal analysis to WP articles about the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@RioHondo you have misunderstood the meaning of Vandalism. Vandalism comes from the act of the Germanic Vandal tribes looting and desecrating Rome. What I have done by putting up information that the Philippines is Biblical Ophir is the opposite of Vandalism. Instead of desecrating the article I am sacrilizing it. BTW none of my edits are Synthesis at all if you watch the videos, read the Books and are Facebook friends with the people I mentioned (You can even add me in FB if you want since my name here and in FB is the same I don't hide under a mask) you would learn that none of what I have wrote is Synthesis since it was some archeologists, scientists and professors before me who formed those theories not me.

Also, I am in personal communication with these people. And if you reject their discoveries here as "Fringe" then I'm afraid that you have proven yourselves as people who do not appreciate a rare gem. What do you think inherently has more value? Common knowledge or fascinating New discoveries? You are at the cusp a potential decision. Should we throw away a rare pearl that would snowball into a genuine movement? Or should we reject this info because we are so stuck on our self-righteousness?

Anyway, I am always open to criticism and compromise if the consensus thinks that this info is unworthy. Then I pray that you wouldn't turn this affair into a crucifixion and embarrass the whole Philippine Wikipedia community to the University of the Philippines by rejecting this info. Remember, the Biblical verses "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone". Whether one will Good Samaritan or a Pharisee (Keeper of the Law which Christ condemned) is up to you. Whether you prioritize the word of the law over spirit of the law is up to you too.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Common knowledge has more value than new discoveries. That's the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Instead of being a good repository of knowledge, this article has rubbish like "Butuan was so wealthy, the quantity of gold recently unearthed in Butuan surpassed that of the even more famous Srivijaya state" sourced to something which says literally none of that. CMD (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Common knowledge has more value than new discoveries? I think you misunderstood basic economics concepts brother. Dirt is common does it have more value than silver or gold? Engineers and Scientists work with knowledge that the layman is not trained in, while most laymen work with common knowledge, guess who has the higher salary? The one with the common knowledge or the one with rarer one? Also, you are a faithless person with trust issues. The source which claimed that the "Quantity of gold surpassing Srivijaya" is by Florina H. Capistrano-Baker, in her statement to the New York Times. If you didn't take things so shallowly and just leave things at face value and if you ACTUALLY CARED and clicked on the link "Kingdom of Butuan" in the source cited instead of dismiss it like the proud HOLIER THAN THOU that you act like you are, you would find the exact words you claim as "false" stated in the prestigious New York Times Newspaper. It's just hidden in another link...
(I screen shot that exact quote just for you)
PROOF: https://i.imgur.com/Y4bRGqG.png
But anyway, you let your PRIDE and SELF RIGHTEOUS PERFECTIONISM over-rule your compassion then use the law and the rules to justify your contempt for others.
Luke 11:46
45 One of the experts in the law told Him, “Teacher, when You say these things, You insult us as well.” 46“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load. 47 Woe to you! You build tombs for the prophets, but it was your fathers who killed them.…
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is not based on economic concepts. This is why we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:BURDEN. Even scientific articles, which crave novel information, require peer review.
That screenshot does not support the assertion in the text. It supports a statement that more gold object have been found in Butuan than Sumatra, rather than the wp:peacocky text we have now. CMD (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Rene, re the relevance and evidentiary weight of biblical quotes in support of a position, see e.g., #11 here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTESSAY: Wikipedia is not a publisher of new information. We only do common knowledge here or at least those with significant coverage in reliable literature. And besides i was not at all convinced by the lecture in that video you quoted regarding Binuangan. Tell your "history hunter" comrades that those geometric "complex of stone and earthen walls at 90 degree angles" which they claim are prehistoric and "built by advanced civilization" linked to china are actually the remnants of those large scale aquaculture during the latter part of Spanish rule, circa mid 1800s. If they cant prove that those walls were actually 19th century dikes built along those hundreds of hectares of fishponds by colonial enterprises off the coast of Obando and Bulacan then they shouldn't be publishing their assumptions anywhere and that their theory is just as good as mine. Cos remember Manila Bay at the time had been converted to large scale viveros de peces and salinas/salt beds. In early 1900s maps you see them start to build up along the coasts but reclamation and resettlement changed all that by the 1960s, either they were reclaimed or submerged by flooding or rising sea level. So...prehistoric architectural feat or 19th century fishpond dikes? That "civilization" might have been lost to colonial aquaculture afterall and only repopulated when the dikes were abandoned. You need better evidence and more prominent sources before publishing your theories here, otherwise youll be in violation of WP:FRINGE. That's why im asking you who your sources are, if they have no wikipedia articles then most probably they arent notable and shouldnt be relied on as source per WP:RS. This has nothing to do with loyalty to the flag or pride in its achievements. It's just being objective and fair in making sure we only publish common accepted knowledge.--RioHondo (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Why tell me to tell them? If you have guts, I challenge you to debate these history professors and archaeologists YOURSELF. Since you consider yourself smarter than them or the least your theories are of equal value to them anyway. PROVE IT! My Facebook is open for you to add me, my name here and there is the same. I'll let this insult against their dignity slide and I'll even introduce you to them if you like so that you can mutually enrich each other with constructive criticism. Anyway that "Civilization" is mentioned as state in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and Chemist JM Cayme will publish his analyses of the dating of those structures anyway in the Symposium which I would really like you to attend for your own good. You two here are unnecessarily antagonizing smart and honorable people. But I'll assume that you have good faith in only trying to be objective which actually is more evidence of YOUR LACK OF FAITH than anything else.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Anyway you all ask for proof proof proof "common knowledge" etc. etc. etc. You should consider yourselves lucky to have glimpsed something rare before it became common. Yet you willfully CHOSE to throw treasures away then cite "The Law" to justify your self proclaimed righteousness. I wished that you would have chosen the nobler path. It would have been like being with a friend when he's down in his luck and supporting him, those moments are infinitely more valuable to him than when the said friend becomes rich and famous and has many fans, but would prefer the intimate time he had with you when he was down to all the popularity and riches in the world now that he is up in life. Anyway, I'm done with arguing with the Pharisees and the Scholars of Wikpedia Law. When these news has already snowballed and information of this has spread everywhere. Then you would have to live with the fact that you rejected these people when they appeared weak and insignificant but when they have already proven themselves strong, they are in under no obligation to honor your compassion less self-righteous face at all. Anyway, I'm done with this talk. I have other things to do like trim this wikipedia page of more words since Chipmunkdavis said that it's too detailed and verbose which I actually agree with, even though I don't like his Pharisaical character which I am willing to forgive too BTW and I think people can change too, so the sin in people is not permanent if they commit to be better. I may be passionate and driven by zeal a lot of times but I'm also forgiving. :D
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The onus is on you being the editor and contributor of your new theory. You don't see me adding questionable materials in the article here so if anyone should back up their materials with credible sources, it's only you. I have nothing against the suggestion that Binuangan was a prehistoric polity as there is evidence of that in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription which i even added a citation for. What is WP:OR is your assertion that this was somehow a "lost civilization" or an "ancient mega city" that replaced the Liangzhu culture, or where the Liangzhu migrated to, that is now submerged underwater. That is stretching it a bit too far and without credible evidence and reliable sources, you are basically no more than a tool for spreading possible historical hoax or too gullible ultra nationalist that takes these things personally and not objectively. It's not the lack of faith but the lack of reliable sources, everything we do in Wikipedia is based on reliability of sources, nothing personal. Cant say im lucky to have spotted a possible hoax tho, and i suggest you carry out independent research too before believing in such probable hoax, which i know wasn't your own making but of those "historian hunters" of questionable integrity and notability, at least for now. Again, the onus of proof is on you. And you can stop being a weirdo with your biblical quotes and other shenanigans there. People here don't share your obsession for "prehistoric greatness" findings, as if that changes anything really, we are only after reliablity and notability of sources here.--RioHondo (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)“The fully developed rectangular adze culture seems to have first entered Luzon in the Batangas area about the middle or the later half of the 2nd millennium BC --being carried by a people, coming probably from South China or Indo-China, much addicted to the use of Nephrite as the chief material for their stone artifacts. They either brought a large supply with them or found some local source for the material not since re-discovered.”


Actually the translocation theory is supported by Archaeology since the Jade artifacts in the Philippines came fully developed without an earlier evolutionary period and furthermore, there isn't a native deposit of natural jade to explain the sudden appearance of Jade which is obiously Liangzhu in origin.
Otley Beyer. "Philippine and East Asian Archaeology", National Research Council of the Philippines, p48“The fully developed rectangular adze culture seems to have first entered Luzon in the Batangas area about the middle or the later half of the 2nd millennium BC --being carried by a people, coming probably from South China or Indo-China, much addicted to the use of Nephrite as the chief material for their stone artifacts. They either brought a large supply with them or found some local source for the material not since re-discovered.”


Otley Beyer. "Philippine and East Asian Archaeology", National Research Council of the Philippines, p48 Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an archaeologist, but somehow I doubt that your excerpt from this book written in 1948 is the be-all, do-all, end-all word on the matter. I'm not expressing doubt here, but rather concern about the recency of your cited source. Do you have anything more recent? There is some info re Nephrite artifacts and what you call translocation theory (re that, see the Models of migration to the Philippines article) at Philippine jade culture#Origin of nephrite artefacts. I haven't read it carefully, but you might be interested in looking at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that information, I have more sources and references oncoming since the Symposium that the Kasaysayan Hunters have conducted have concluded and there are forthcoming written content from them. I could expand on my work soon. Thank you so much.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Piliipina

Pangalan :Mary Rose de Vega Tirahan: Santa Rosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.33.51 (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with the history section?

It looks like very out of place. Its probably longer than History of Philippines article itself. And "died of broken heart" and "forbidden romance" sound weird but I'm no English expert. Looks like it need to be copy pasted to History of Philippines. TryKid (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It's more than weird ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.255 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

"As the 19th century gave way to the 20th, the Philippine Revolution quickly followed" - This is both poetical verbiage without proper dates, completely unsuited to an encyclopaedia, and actually wrong. The revolution started in 1896. 2.97.112.255 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not that bad, but if you want to make an edit request, you need to propose a specific change rather than just point out a perceived flaw. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox terminology re languages

This has been bothering me for some time. It seems confusing and quirky.

Comparison of descriptive terminology re language classifications
1987 RP Constitution This Article's infobox
national language not currently mentioned
official languages Officlai Languages
regional languages or auxiliary official languages Recognized regional languages;; (19 of them[a])
promoted on a voluntary and optional basis Protected auxiliary languages
  1. ^ This article lists: 19 languages: Aklanon, Bikol, Cebuano, Chavacano, Hiligaynon, Ibanag, Ilocano, Ivatan, Kapampangan, Kinaray-a, Maguindanao, Maranao, Pangasinan, Sambal, Surigaonon, Tagalog, Taūsug, Waray, Yakan; citing a source which lists: Aklanon, Bikol, Cebuano, Chabacan, Hiligaynon, Iloko, Ivatan, Kapampangan, Kinaray-a, Maguindanaoan, Maranao, Pangasinense, Sambal, Surigaonon, Tagalog, Tausug, Waray, Yakan, Ybanag.
    Those lists match except for spelling differences

It seems to me that following the constitutional terminology would be clearer. "Protected auxiliary languages" bothered me the most; I'm not sure what that means. However, digging around, I found this and I'm guessing that there might be some similar situation on Mindanao. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

Change "abandoning its military ties with the United States while affirming that the country will no longer participates in any US-led war." to "abandoning its military ties with the United States while affirming that the country will no longer participate in any US-led war." Analog70 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Philippines Correctional System

Based on what I have researched on the Philippines correctional system this country is going through a major struggle. One of these struggles are overcrowding in the jails, which is causing some inmates to sleep on the floor and living in unsanitary conditions. Also, the Philippines correctional system have a lot of staffing issues, which now makes the guards rely on gangs to help keep control in the prisons and jails. Many of these problems have started since their president started his war on drugs campaign. This campaign has been causing many individuals to be incarcerated for petty crimes such as being too loud in public which could have had another alternative punishment. Many of the inmates in the Philippine correctional system have not been convicted of a crime and are still awaiting trial.

Hmmm... Offhand, I don't think this needs an addition to this article. However, a WP:SS article on the Philippine correctional system might be useful. See Category:Prisons in the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Move to "The Philippines"?

In conversation, people usually speak of "the Philippines" when referring to the country that comprises the Philippine Islands. The government of that country also tends to use that form, although it's fairly clear that dropping the "the" is considered OK. Might we not move the page to "The Philippines" and have a redirect from "Philippines" and "Philippine Islands"? --69.165.140.180 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No. See naming guideline WP:THE. –Austronesier (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 Rebasing of Philippine GDP and updates on the economy section of the article

Did you know that the Philippines' GDP is underestimated by an unkown but huge percentage? The Philippines is still using base year 2000 prices (very outdated) for its GDP output. Philippine GDP for 2018 is at $330 Billion (using base year 2000 prices). Last time the Philippines rebased its GDP was "19 years ago". IMF and World Bank requires all countries to rebase its GDP for every 5 yrs to get a more accurate picture of the economy. Meanwhile: Thailand and malaysia already rebased its GDP last 2015; Indonesia already rebased its GDP last 2014 using base year 2010; Singapore already rebased its GDP in 2014 updated national accounts to a base year of 2010, from the base year of 2005 set in 2010; Vietnam is set to release its new GDP in 2020.

SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/therisingphilippines/posts/did-you-know-that-the-philippine-economy-is-underestimatedphilippines-will-recal/1379176412240569/

When the Philippine Statistics Office Releases the rebased GDP this May I think we should update this article in kind too; the exports panel as well as the subindices in the economy section need some work, I think we should at least form an ad-hoc committee to oversee this here.

@Darwgon0801, Wtmitchell, Stricnina, KinkyLipids, Shhhhwwww!!, RioHondo, and Alternativity: I need your input in this emminent rebasing. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Darwgon0801, Wtmitchell, Stricnina, KinkyLipids, Shhhhwwww!!, RioHondo, and Alternativity: Kindly chime in on this and give your opinions since the Rebased GDP will be released tomorrow afternoon at May 7. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

PH 0447's deletions of many Islamic era history paragraphs

As can be gleaned from the articles versions' comparison here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&type=revision&diff=954785432&oldid=954769716

PH 0047 removed the mention of several Islamic sultanates subsisting in the Philippines before Spain came, although I agree with PH 0447 that the history section is excessively detailed, I feel as if that deleting those mentions especially means removing very essential parts of the Philippine narrative since before Spanish times, Islam was strong especially in the south and even in Luzon, so much so that Manila was Islamized and it was the tension between Pagan Filipinos and Muslim Filipinos which the Spanish exploited via divide and conquer. One may not totally grasp Philippine history without the deleted Islamic mentions, I suggest that the content not be deleted, but rather only summarized and condensed. @PH 0447, Darwgon0801, Mlgc1998, Wtmitchell, Austronesier, Alternativity, and Stricnina: What say you? -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.

Also since I am under probation and I cannot revert such content, I ask everyone to either revert this or works towards a new version with proper consesnsus. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The impact of Islam should definitely be mentioned, but the vast majority of what was deleted does not remotely belong on this article. It went as far as mentioning the marriage of a Bruneian sultan to a particular wife, and trying to identify mythical figures on the basis that people like singing. There is also a bit of synth at the end, where the spread of Islam is linked to depopulation, which is not what the source cited was saying. Much of the removed text was also not written in a very encyclopaedic style. Perhaps a paragraph on the arrival of Islam and the establishment of some of the Sultanates could be crafted to replace the removed text. CMD (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I have restored a sentence on Islam in the interim to ensure it is mentioned. Given the removed text opened with a citation to a shockingly bad source is now a suspicious jewellery website of some kind (I advise all other editors not to check it), I pulled text and source from when this article became a GA. Given that source, I am firmly against any sort of reversion, as that feels actively dangerous for readers. CMD (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much Chipmunk Davis, I feel that we should only propound on the Islamic era with regards to the establishment and relations of several Philippine Sultanates but only in a brief and concise manner. May I also ask about the recent GDP rebasing, the current article cites IMF data on the Philippines based on year 2000 prices, which set a Philippine nominal GDP at 383 Billion, source here: "https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=89&pr.y=2&sy=2019&ey=2024&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=548%2C518%2C516%2C522%2C924%2C566%2C576%2C578%2C534%2C536%2C158%2C111%2C542%2C544%2C582&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a="
However, the PHilippines Statistics Authority released a Rebased GDP on 2018 prices setting the total 2019 GDP to 387 Billion Dollars (Its at page 24/146 of this source: "https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Q1%202020%20NAP%20publication.pdf" May I ask if its' ok to replace the outdated IMF projection with the Data from the Philippine Statistics Authority? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what your probation entails, so I don't know what's okay for you to do. Certainly I would agree that 2019 calculations are better than 2020 estimates, but the PSA source gives the value in PHP. How are you converting it to USD? CMD (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Part of my probation says I cannot revert edits. Also, I'll simply convert the Peso to Dollar using current exchange rates, I think the whole Philippine economy section and article needs reworking too since they're most using base year 2000 prices instead of the recently published base year 2018 ones.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I would not convert using current exchange rates, as they are inherently unstable. I for example did not get $387 billion when I tried some online converters. In the meantime, given you feel the Economy section is outdated, consider adding the PSA information in Pesos to the actual article (and Economy of the Philippines), rather than focusing exclusively on the infobox. CMD (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: The answer is simple. This is the general article about the Philippines. We have a more specialized main article "History of the Philippines", and we even have standalone articles about specific aspects of Philippine history. Therefore, the "zoom-in" princicle holds: this article should only give a bird's-eye view of Philippine history, and not duplicate every detail of "History of the Philippines", or even have more detail than in the specialized article. The same principle hold for every next level: avoid redundacies beyond summary-style overviews. Anyone interested in more detail can zoom into the main article. So, overly detailed material should be removed here (and—as you correctly note—replaced with a short summary, but only if appropriate for mention here), and transferred to "History of the Philippines", or to the specialized articles. For correct attribuition, you must mention that the material was copied from here, and I also advise as a next step to scrutinize the material for verifiability and WP:SYNTH, and delete unverifiable material, including material cited from poor sources. –Austronesier (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, material should be scritinised for verifiability and SYNTH as a first step. CMD (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree the history section is excessively detailed in particular, we should transfer some information to the history article already, I would like to thank you Chipmunkdavis for your excellent efforts in cleaning up this article from "bloat".--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
My recent edits were just low-hanging fruit really, lots more to do. At any rate, no matter how bloated this page is, there shouldn't be anything on this page that isn't in History of the Philippines (or other sub-articles), as the section on this page should effectively be a summary of that page. If there's anything on this page that is reliably sourced and verifiable, but not on the history page, it should be added to that page. This page could then be cleaned up without worrying about losing information. CMD (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
We need to edit and improve the article as I intend to make a voice recording of it one of these days, and I was thinking of doing it earlier, however, the written texts seems to be shifting, I think I should defer the voice recording to a time when the edits and improvements into this article cause it to be in optimum level, that way the voice recording gets the best available spoken version of the article, we must do it quickly though since I intend to do it this year, since next year, the 500th anniverary of Magellan's voyage and the Philippine's Christianization will cause alot of people to look at our article and the very least, we should have something good to present to the curious.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is 102kB of prose long, which is over the absolute maximum guideline wp:size, and double the recommended length. For the sake of your vocal chords, I suggest perhaps waiting until the article is a shorter (and more readable) length! CMD (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Title change from Philippines to The Philippines 112.203.104.222 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Most government offices"

I've WP:BOLDly removed Most government offices are established by region instead of individual provincial offices, usually (but not always) in the city designated as the regional center..This was unsupported and tagged {{cn}}, and I think it was unclear and confusing. I don't know what was meant by "Most government offices", but Romblon came to mind since I've lived there. Romblon province is in the Mimaropa region, which has its center in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The provincial capital is located in the municipality of Romblon on Romblon island, and few national offices are located there. Quite a few are located in the larger and more commercially important municipality of Odiongan, which is in Romblon province but located on Tablas island, and what national offices are located in the provincial capital are generally sub-offices of larger offices in Odiongan. I gather that some of the offices in Odiongan report directly to departments in Manila rather than reporting through a regional office, but I'm not sure of that and I'm guessing that it is on a case-by-case basis. That is too complicated to detail here, but I think that the summary of the situation I've removed was far enough from the Romblon case to be confusing. Revert or improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There should be something about the distribution of competencies and the national administrative organization regarding regions vs provinces, but I agree that sentence was not that useful. CMD (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Latin American settlers

This edit caught my eye. I've removed "alot of" from the inserted content but left the rest of the insertion and the supporting cite intact. From the cite, I'm having trouble identifying the cited source. I believe that it is, or is related to, what I found at https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=14003121&searchType=1&permalink=y, but I have not been able to get further than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This a one-to-one copy (or rather copyvio) from note [83] in The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 by Emma Helen Blair (1911). Rene can't drop his habit of grabbing primary accounts from secondary sources without citing the latter. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the addition and the cite. On a second look, I don't see how the cite supports the assertion: "The Philippines also historically received [alot of] Latin-American settlers." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I merely copied that source from an older version of the article, I didn't know it wasn't a secondary source, I'll try to look for it's main book or secondary source, and I'll post it with due citations once I find it.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Wtmitchell, how about this source? Is this a valid source for that statement? Since it puts up the number of approximately tens of thousands of Mexicans who were forcefully settled in the Philippines. https://academic.oup.com/past/article/232/1/87/1752419 Table 1 showing yearly migrations is particularly telling.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rene, this a very good source to expand History of the Philippines (1565–1898)#Spanish settlers. After that page has been expanded with the information from Mawson (2016), we might consider to mention something about it in the sections History of the Philippines#Spanish settlement and rule (1565–1898) and Philippines#Colonial rule (1565–1946) (which NB actually are meant only as summaries, since we have a main article for details). –Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier, should we also add the background information included in the source, that the Mexicans and Peruvians who were forcefully relocated to the Philippines as prisoners from petty crime or as political refugees, also were a very rebellious element against the Spanish since the Latin Americans connived with native Filipinos against racism from pure-bred Spain-born Peninsulares who only came to enrich themselves before coming back to Spain. Should we add that in the history sections? Also, after adding that in the articles you outlined can we use the source to support the statment in the ethnic groups of the Philippines, that "Latin-Americans were also relocated to the Philippines."? Thank you.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Be careful not to mix up information from different sources. I don't see in that source information about anti-racist revolts. The source describes most revolts as motivated by fear or by payment concerns. It also does not mention any migrants from Peru. CMD (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I mixed it up with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Novales where the sources state that Latin-Americans dislocated to the Philippines, were among the chief instigators and supporters of Andres Novales in his mutiny against Spain.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rene, as I said, this is very valuable source, so adding content based on a neutral reading of it is definitely an "enrichment" for WP (allow the pun). But be careful with interpretations such as "the Latin Americans connived with native Filipinos against racism from pure-bred Spain-born Peninsulares who only came to enrich themselves before coming back to Spain". I can't see this narrative in the source based a very superficial first reading, especially after I stumbled across this passge: "soldiers from Cavite and Manila had abandoned their posts and were roaming the countryside robbing the indigenous population (p.114)". But certainly, Latin-Americans were relocated to the Philippines, and many of them mingled with the local population (cf. p.124). But the right place for all this is History of the Philippines (1565–1898). Let's avoid redundancies, especially after CMD has done (and still is doing) such a great job of reducing redundancies and content forks. –Austronesier (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier, can we also contribute this tidbit to the Indonesia article? That source stated that the Moluccas in Indonesia was also a destination of soldiers levied in Mexico, some of whom desserted and mixed with indigenous Moluccans and even served with the Dutch in Indonesia.
https://i.imgur.com/rSBr4Xb.png--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, I just want the mention that some Latin-Americans were relocated to the Philippines, as just a short mention, because in actuality, the Latin-Americans actually outnumber Europeans. Since this source stated that out of a population of 600,000 only 600 Spaniards from Spain settled in the Philippines (http://www.uco.es/aaf/garcia-abasolo/files/63df3.pdf) while 16500 Mexicans settled the Philippines. (Stephanie Mawson, ‘Between Loyalty and Disobedience: The Limits of Spanish Domination in the Seventeenth Century Pacific’ (Univ. of Sydney M.Phil. thesis, 2014), appendix 3.) When historically, there has been immigration from the Americas in many magnitudes higher than the European settlement, but the ethnic groups section mention the European descent among Filipinos according to a genetic study, but historical censuses and archives from Mexico show, Latin Americans greatly outnumber Europeans in the Philippines.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Now, that I have outlined the conundrum, it seems that nobody disagrees that, there were Latin Americans in the Philippines then and thus need a short mention, and there also seems to be an agreeement that as @Austronesier said, the source and it's information should also be added to History of the Philippines (1565–1898)#Spanish settlers and History of the Philippines#Spanish settlement and rule (1565–1898). So unless anyone objects, the discussion so far point to these as necessary additions to those needed sections, and thus, when I have free time, I will add the info and it's source to the aformentioned articles and sections, thank you. P.S. @Austronesier, what do you think about editing the Indonesia article about Mexican recruits making it to the Moluccas via the Philippines? For example here's a document about how a Moluccan (An Indonesian) ended up as an accused person in the Mexican inquisition.
https://www.academia.edu/20365981/Transpacific_Mestizo_Religion_and_Caste_in_the_Worlds_of_a_Moluccan_Prisoner_of_the_Mexican_Inquisition
--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
That there is a piece of information that exists does not mean it needs to be added to any article. The Philippines and Indonesia articles are both very high-level, and the presence seems a very minor piece of information in the scale of both articles. It is also deeply anachronistic to draw such a firm line between "Spaniards" and "Mexicans" during that period. CMD (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the Mexicans in the Moluccas should at least be added in the history of Indonesia page or Moluccan related Wiki pages, also the Spanish themselves distinguished between Spaniards and Mexicans whom they called "Americanos" while the Spanish called themselves "Peninsulares", the main distinction being the place of birth. And even in the Spanish census I shared to you, cited by German Ethnographer Fedor Jagor, "South Americans" were twice the number of Spaniards in the Philippines even during the late stages of the Spanish era in the Philippines, when Mexico was already in the process independence from Spain. Source: http://www.authorama.com/former-philippines-b-8.html. Certainly, the Spaniards themselves, pointed out how they were distinct from Mexicans, that's my 5 cents.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There may be a case for some information to be added so some pages, but as Austronesier noted above it can be better to focus on more specific article topics. Regarding the distinction between the Peninsulares and the others, that is very different from our modern distinctions between the Spanish and Mexicans. You are using your source to support a claim of ethnicity, but the Spanish system was entwined with class. CMD (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok I understand your point, I will focus on putting the information on the other articles instead and unless I can see more clarifying sources, I won't insert the information about Latin-Americans into the high level Philippines or Indonesia article unless, 'Clear sources say so.--15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, its inclusion in the main articles does not depend on the quality of sourcing. This has to be top-level for every article. It's about due weight and avoiding redundancies/forks. This information is e.g. IMHO too marginal to be inserted in Indonesia (but you may discuss this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia to get another opinion), and doesn't deserve more than one or two sentences in Philippines. That's why we have specialized articles. –Austronesier (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

History and sources

After going through the History section, it has the most serious sourcing issues in this article, with the majority being incomplete. Unfortunately some lack urls and seem otherwise hard to come by. If someone has them, it would be useful if they could be checked. Otherwise, if editors have access to other high quality sources that might serve instead and cover similar areas, I would suggest information can be added/rewritten based on them to replace the incomplete citations.

As a general comment, please note that as I've been editing I didn't add a cn tag to every uncited fact or sentence to reduce potential clutter. When adding sources, please check all the content a cn tag is appended to, and rewrite per the new source and/or appropriately shift the relevant cn tags around. Best, CMD (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, the Spanish version is a featured article and appears to be very comprehensive. There is Google Translate, but maybe someone fluent in Spanish can get some information from the Spanish version and help improve this (English) version.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I've already pilfered all their images for various sub-articles here. CMD (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Capital of the Philippines

I just noticed that someone's recent revision made it so the capital (on the infobox) mentions both Manila and Quezon City. To my knowledge, this wouldn't be correct, because while the country recognizes that the NCR as the seat of government, no one recognizes Quezon City as a capital even though it holds the lower house (and by this logic, no one would recognize Pasay as a capital even though it holds the upper house).

As an alternative, would adding a line for "Government seat" with the same existing footnote from the "Capital" line be a good idea? Sorta like Netherlands' infobox. BenevolentBeast (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed QC at the "capital", as the Pasay analogy is perfect on this. I would be okay (but not necessarily support) having a separate parameter for a "Seat of government" linking to Metro Manila. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Brillante Mendoza

Seriously a brilliant director but I suppose we can find a better representative picture for cinema? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

Remove "which had been introduced by the Spanish colonial government" from the introductory paragraph of "Government and politics". EyeDecay (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Have reworded. The cited source does put blame on the Spanish system for fostering corruption. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

32.208.251.59 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC):::::I think this article should have a section on crime in the Philippines. The only discussion of it concerns Japanese war crimes and references to crimes in tabloids. Also, there ought to be a section on prostitution, which is extremely rampant in the Philippines.

Templates at bottom are no longer functioning

Within the last hour or two, an edit pushed the page over Wikipedia's template post expand include size limit.

As a consequence, templates at the bottom of the page no longer work.

Possible fixes include:

  • Converting templates used by this page so they call modules to do their actual work
  • Re-factoring the logic in templates so their "post expand include size" is less
  • Reducing the use of templates altogether
  • If a section already has a "main article" then reduce the content of that section
  • If a large section does not have a "main article" then consider splitting it off into its own article, leaving a short summary behind.
  • Eliminate redundant, unnecessary, or low-priority information
  • Re-write sections to be less depending on templates and more concise overall

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@PCommission: Please have a look at this message, especially point 4–7. We have specialized articles History of the Philippines, History of the Philippines (1565–1898), and History of the Philippines (1898–1946). The content here should be concise and restricted to a very basic timeline, details can be expounded at length in the specialized articles. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: Thanks for the pointers. As a fellow editor, this really helps a lot. I'll try to make the article more concise. PCommission (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled {{Navboxes}} to get below WP:PEIS limit

This page was over Wikipedia's template post-expand-include-size limit.

As a result, Template:Navboxes at the end was not working.

This is a "wrapper" template that allows other navigation boxes to be collapsed.

I commented out the "wrapper" with HTML comments. This means ALL of the navigation boxes are showing. At least they ARE showing now. The page is still pretty close to the PEIS limit.

The long-term solution is to trim the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view in History section

History section (contemporary period) is biased at making it look like we have the worst government, without merit of what the current government has done so far. It is also misleading in a sense that the wordings used tries to justify that we have a "demonic" government: e.g. a reign of terror links to the Anti-Terror Act Law of 2020. It is not a neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PH 0447 (talk • contribs) 03:22, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

I believe there are concerted efforts at destroying the balance in the way PH history, particularly contemporary history, is written. We've seen a surge of historical distortion from the radical far-left and partisan extremists even in PH geographical and non-political articles like Mindanao, Davao City, etc in recent years. Of course, the narrative is always that either Marcos, Arroyo or Duterte is the culprit behind those places' recent woes or conflicts. For instance, the Mindanao article has been made to look as if the entire region was peaceful and stable before Marcos took on the presidency, and that the Christian migration only began during the dictator's reign. I just dont have the time to correct those falsehoods which i know is linked to the untiring witchhunt by those agenda-driven editors, but if anyone got the time to rectify the article, just key in the Homestead program of the American insular government of 1903, continued by the Commonwealth administration of President Quezon through the Natl Land Settlement Administration under General Paulino Santos who led pacification and pioneering campaigns in Sulu and the Marbel valley, and the Moro raids and banditry that ensued from those displacements, all these happened in those supposedly "peaceful" decades prior to Marcos. Of course, through the CNI scholarships of the 1950s and 60s that produced 800 educated muslims that included Misuari, and the formation of secessionist movement that followed, the region under Marcos presidency wasnt peaceful either, but this was eventually addressed by the 1976 Tripoli Agreement. There are plenty more falsehoods around that i spotted but will probably wait for their partisan activism/revisionism to die down.--RioHondo (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
While I would urge you not to make assumptions about political views and motives ("historical distortion from the radical far-left and partisan extremists") of fellow editors, which unnecessarily turns any discussion toxic before it even starts, I agree that some of this is blatantly tendentious editing. This is a good example of it. Some commentators of Philippine politics have described current developments in the Duterte presidency as a "reign of terror", and there is nothing reprochable if anyone personally agrees with this characterization, but Wikipedia only mirrors controversies and criticism, and does not express this criticism in Wikivoice. Exisiting criticism should be explicitly mentioned as such. Many transgressions of the Duterte administration are widely condemned by the international community, and we can report about it and mention in the prose by whom this condemnation is voiced; our readers will then digest this information according to their own political POV. In the current form, however, with unfiltered criticism placed in the text, WP becomes a vehicle of political soapboxing. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Its a mess and is POV pushing. Recent years of History section tend to fall into a WP:RECENTISM trap. Ideally the history section should provide a summary of the history of the nation. The controversial drug war and Duterte's pro-China policy defined Duterte's administration. But as mentioned wording of some statements could be presented in a more neutral (not to be confused for whitewashing facts; it is fact that a significant part of the international community is critical of the drug war for example) and straight-forward way (avoid WP:EASTEREGG such as linking the 2020 Anti-Terror law in "reign of terror" as mentioned.) Definitely should watch out or exercise caution using news columns or reports on opinion of analyst/experts as definite facts. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what is the politically correct term to describe members of the CPP-NPA-NDF with which the Philippine govt has been engaged in armed conflict since 1969? Lol. I think people in general are not offended by those criticisms, they shouldnt be, otherwise COI, and that WP should reflect all those criticisms and negativities from mainstream outlets as it always has, provided they are attributed to notable personalities. But completely rewriting history and stating criticisms as facts are a different matter as Haribon mentioned. Especially when the article is not supposed to be political in the first place. Not so much concerned about the present administration, those criticisms are a given, but really this Mindanao problem revisionism caught my attention here. Not every problem started with the dictator and the PH Wikipedia community knows their history here. People have been migrating to Mindanao for over half a century before Marcos, hello? Lol. This is basic Mindanao History 101. Those newbie editors that come and go and which mostly edit in Marcos topics can definitely learn from WP:NPOV. As for Duterte's "reign of terror" bit, i dont think it's an issue, so long as the claim is properly worded, e.g, "government utilized it to usher what Senator Leila de Lima called a reign of terror." That's it, people dont have to prove anything more or make a point. Keep your partisan agenda in your own personal blogs, we dont want them here. It is our job to maintain the credibility of WP. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not politcal correctness. Just because editors make POV edits, that doesn't automatically turn them into "members of the CPP-NPA-NDF". –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad. I just dont know how else to call those editors engaging in a disruptive pattern of anti-Marcos, anti-Duterte, anti-Arroyo or anti-PHgovt edits in general. :) But i know some are legit members of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan here, and they are accepted in mainstream through their congress representatives. They form the NDF in the Leninist-Marxist umbrella org a.k.a. the far-left. A propaganda war is what were seeing here i believe, just as it was decades ago. Okay, from now on, ill call them "newbie libertarian editors." ;) But so long as we keep the balance in the presentation of historical accounts, we're all good (neither side has won anyway (at least for now), so history should not only be neutral but more importantly based on non-partisan facts, which i know are sometimes hard to find.) But i cant be bothered by this for now, not at the height of tensions between the parties, teehee! Its just sad that the newbie libertarians think Wikipedians can not distinguish criticisms from facts or are completely unaware of their's country's political situation, engaging in the same historical revisionism they are accusing the other parties of. Now thats a real bummer. Theres more to PH than those parties to the conflict anyway, hence i stay away from those propaganda edit wars, for now. Recent developments though are starting to unmask the propaganda that was the whole anti-Martial law hullabaloo with the massive CPP surrenders and confessions of recent years. Theyve caught the perpetrators of those gruesome massacres like the 1985 Escalante and Sagay, etc etc and theyre on the news. The changing narrative is what they are trying to fight against. Well, it's an unfinished war so the narrative is still very fluid, despite what their several partisan affiliates are saying. Until then, we keep an open mind and just observe their propaganda shenanigans LOL. But this is not to say those presidents were not corrupt or did not plunder, thats a different story. This is only about the rebellions and the whole anti-govt, anti-police and anti-military movement as reflected in those edits by newbies. More independent minds in WP are most welcome. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I just dont know how else to call those editors Should you anyway? It is very easy to brand people, in order to dismiss any contribution by them out of hand. My advice: discuss edits, not people, unless they display actionable behavior. –Austronesier (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Historical revisionism could be actionable, and so could POV pushing and UNDUE. Their editting behavior and topics they hang out in also gives it away. But you're right, that was completely unnecessary on my part and i apologize for my straightforwardness. Meanwhile, the rebellion continues. But thanks for looking into these problematic edits here. Peace out!--RioHondo (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Does Forensic Anthropology also study Ethnic groups?

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=983497360 , our friend Austronesier said that the paper focused on forensic anthropology is off topic and is not focused on Philippine ethnic groups, I am not a professional ethnographer so I don't really know the ups and downs of ethnography, but that paper specifically deals with Anthropology and as far as I know Anthropology also deals with human societies and ethnic groups. So, my little understanding of anthropology says that it, the paper, belongs in that section since it discusses the same issues as ethnography, that is of human societies. But perhaps I'm wrong since it is after all FORENSIC anthropology so which means it delves into dead bodies, perhaps ethnography is more about living bodies while forensic anthropology about dead ones? I don't know, you guys enlighten me on this. But what I do know is that the paper positions itself as a useful aid to population based research too, and for that alone, I think is warranted to be placed in the article. This quotation in the abstract is useful:

"Our Fndings can help biological anthropologists to better understand the evolutionary, population historical, and statistical reasons for FD3-generated classifications. The results of our studyindicate that ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology would benefit from population-focused research that gives consideration to histories of colonialism and periods of admixture."

Full Paper Here: https://www.academia.edu/38744342/Classification_Trends_Among_Modern_Filipino_Crania_Using_Fordisc_3_1

Furthermore I think we should remove these sentences in the ethnic groups section: "European DNA is present in many Filipinos today.[370] Estimates of what percentage of the population is of European descent range from a 3.6%, as per a Standford Study,[371] to a 7% as per a collective analysis of Philippine graveyards.[372] The country also historically received settlers from Latin America.[373]" and replace it with "Research from the Journal of Forensic Anthropology, show that the percentage of Filipino bodies sampled, that's phenotypically classified as Asian (East, South and Southeast Asian) is 72.7%, Hispanic (Latin American or Spanish-Malay Mestizo) is at 12.7%, Indigenous American (Native American) at 7.3%, African at 4.5%, and European at 2.7%.[383]".

In order to remove redundances and just use one sentence instead of 3. What do you guys think?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I totally agree that Anthropology usually deals with ethnic groups. But this paper doesn't. Not one of the major ethnic groups in Philippines is mentioned there, so it is clearly out of place in the section "Ethnic groups". We should not confuse the ethnic groups of the country with the composition of the ancestry of the Philippine population as a whole. Exactly the same content is found (=copypasted) in Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies, and even there, its inclusion is problematic. Note that the study is actually not about ancestry, but about phenotypical classification based on cranial data for forensic purposes (= what is the probability for correctly identifying a burnt/disfigured corpse as of Philippine descent). Genetic studies are definitely more apt in a discission of the origin of the Philippine population.
If the paper did a comparative analysis of the ancestral composition for each of the various ethnic groups of the Philippines, or the major ethnic clusters (Christian Lowlanders, Cordilleran Highlanders, Aytas etc.), then we would have information that could be included in "Ethnic groups". –Austronesier (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: If this paper does not deal with anthropology or the study of ethnic groups then why was it published in the journal of Forensic Anthropology if does not deal with Anthropology? Just asking, whatever consensus we will come across I will just accede to. Also the paper claims to be representative of the Philippines and can also be applied in biological classification, here's a quote from the page 1-2: "Fordisc 3.1 (FD3) makes it possible for a broad audience of forensic anthropologists to apply discriminant function analysis to craniometric data from unidentieed skeletal cases for the allocation of population membership using an unparalleled collection of forensically relevant and globally sourced reference samples (Jantz & Ousley 1993, 2005, 2012; Ousley &Jantz 1996, 2012). Beyond providing hard classifcations for forensic cases into one of the available reference populations, FD3 also captures broad continental ancestry (Asian, African, European, Indigenous American) variation—yielding results comparable to hard classifications generated from unsupervised approaches to population inference (Algee-Hewitt 2016). This information, while not immediately diagnostic, can be highly useful for understanding the general ancestry composition of the individual case in question, as already demonstrated by Hughes et al. (2018) for Latin American samples."
https://www.academia.edu/38744342/Classification_Trends_Among_Modern_Filipino_Crania_Using_Fordisc_3_1 --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Genetics are not the same as ethnicity, and anthropology is not the study of ethnic groups. They are related, but to directly conflate them is misleading. CMD (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Minor correction. Anthropology is a wide field. Ethnic groups are studied in the subfield Cultural anthropology. But as CMD said, ancestry is not ethnicity. The ancestral composition and the ethnic composition of the Philippine population are quite different things. And again: the forensic study does not even cover ancestry (it mentions other studies about genetics). It just studies the physical characteristics of remains of deceased Filipinos. The fact that a portion of 4.5% of the sample is "classified" as "African" does not mean that the Philippine population has 4.5% African ancestry. Actually it means that 1 out of 22 Filipino mutilated victims of a crime or calamaity will be mistakenly identified as "African". –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier:, I see I see, you do have a point. I also sometimes want this information slashed too since it may be unecessary bloat and this article is already too large. But concerning the classification, the study said that the information may not be immidiately diagnostic it is still useful in identifying ancestries. Quote: "This information, while not immediately diagnostic, can be highly useful for understanding the general ancestry composition of the individual case in question, as already demonstrated by Hughes et al. (2018) for Latin American samples." Also, that African descent might be real since there are records of Latin-American Mulattoes (Half European and Half African) arriving in the Philippines via the Galleon Trade. Here's from one letter which said that Mulattoes (People of half African and half European descent) made it to the Philippines ~ Letter from Fajardo to Felipe III From Manila, August 15 1620.(From the Spanish Archives of the Indies) ("The infantry does not amount to two hundred men, in three companies. If these men were that number, and Spaniards, it would not be so bad; but, although I have not seen them, because they have not yet arrived here, I am told that they are, as at other times, for the most part boys, mestizos, and mulattoes, with some Indians. There is no little cause for regret in the great sums that reënforcements of such men waste for, and cost, your Majesty. I cannot see what betterment there will be until your Majesty shall provide it, since I do not think, that more can be done in Nueva Spaña, although the viceroy must be endeavoring to do so, as he is ordered."). Maybe the African admixture is genuine and is part of the colonial settler population since letters about Mulattoes reaching the Philippines are recorded. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Are you ammendable to replacing the long winding 3 sentences of the paragraph with similar iformation with the one sentence from this source? I think it would cut it short, or perhaps not include this here at all, since its still contentious, I'm just asking so that we could move to a consensus, I will just follow what we will agreee with.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In general I think there is too much focus on this page which really needs to be written in summary style. I can't say I've ever encountered similar information reading on the topic of Philippine ethnic groups before, and so would not include it based on just one source. CMD (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: One step back. Since the study is not about ethnic groups (do you find any of the native ethnic groups of the Philippines mentioned there?), where shall we put it here? A new Origins/Ancestry section? But then we would need a source that actually gives us findings about ancestry (e.g. African admixture), and not about what crania of Filipinos look like. Craniometry has been discredited as a method to find out anything meaningful in the study of ethnic groups; it is still successfully used as an auxilliary tool to make estimates about the identity of unidentifiable individuals (aka forensic anthropology). We should not draw any new conclusions from a forensic anthropological study, conclusions which their authors themselves do not make. If you find a RS that does so, you may cite the secondary source; anything else is highly speculative OR. –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis and Austronesier: Ok then, let's not include my edit, the article is already waay too bloated and isn't even in summary style anymore. Likwise, the paper I cited is a useful as an aid or auxiliary but not significant in a diagnostic manner. I'll just transfer the source to an Anthropology or ancestry themed Philippine article since it is more useful there. Thank you for your input. Let's continue on improving the article! Good Job everyone!--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: It's already in Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies at the end of the 5th paragraph. However, it is used there in misleading way, because it is OR-ishly linked to a YDNA-study (which really is about ancestry). I will disentangle the two studies, which are about very different things. –Austronesier (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I used, "corrobate" to the genetic study because the anthropology paper itself said it will be a useful aid in population research.
It was stated so in the Abstract: "Our findings can help biological anthropologists to better understand the evolutionary, population historical, and statistical reasons for FD3-generated classifications."
Maybe I should change the words from "Corroborated By" to "As a useful aid, a paper stated that..." In relation to the aformentioned YDNA genetic study.
Since the paper said that its findings may not be diagnostic but is still a useful aid.
Also, its been days since you haven't edited my OR-ish sounding editions (I didnt mean it to be OR-ish I was just following the source's instructions). Since you haven't "disentangled" the edit. Let me do it for you. I'll do it tonight so you won't have to worry about it. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reminder to new Editors: we aim to improve the quality of the article to Featured Status and this article is currently too large for that

Reminder to new Editors: we aim to improve the quality of the article to Featured Status and this article is currently too large for that. One Featured article which we base this one is https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Japan which is only 100+ KB in size whereas ours is 300+ KB. The ideal word count is also only 10,000 at maximum while our word count is at 11,959. You can check the stats here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Philippines. So in relation, me, @Austronesier, Wtmitchell, Howard the Duck, Chipmunkdavis, and Stricnina: and others are trimming this article size to pursue that Featured Article status, however, I noticed that the new editors here @Jfect22, Sanglahi86, AnglicanNights, QuantumRealm, DMacks, Shhhhwwww!!, PCommission, and MidasHotel20: have been adding new content into this article instead of trimming it, let me just say that you are welcomed to add the content in the linked articles related to this one there, however, we should, as much as possible, in this article follow the Wikipedia policy "Summary Style" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style) which means we should trim down on excessive details as much as possible. I do hope you guys understand. Yours Truly! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My only role here has been to undo vandalism and other disruption. DMacks (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.:: I am aware that the article is getting much longer. My last revision on this page was on September 14, and I was doing my routine of adding sources or replacing several sources with more credible ones, along with some updating of obsolete info. The massive expansion of the article started after PCommission started adding details on several sections, especially at the History section, as can be seen in the page's recent revisions history. While I commend his dedication to expand this article, I personally believe many of his additions appear to violate WP:Undue. Several days ago, I have asked Chipmunkdavis for assistance in cleaning the article as he was involved in the impressive massive trimming and copyediting of this article beforehand, but he said he currently does not have enough time to edit. As of now, I am also busy and am unable to do some trimming/condensing in this article. Just for reference and comparison, this is the revision prior to PCommission's additions. Regards.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking note on this. I welcome any improvement to the article from other editors, and if some parts added are found to be undue for this specific article, I welcome the inputting of those parts and reliable sources into the articles where they may fit more, so that those information are not lost. PCommission (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Sanglahi86: for your annotations and additions of new sources to the article, I personally want to trim this article too but I too am pressed for time (I am about to help open a business so I'm busy), so we both are in a predicament wherein we don't have extra leisure times to improve the article, may I request our dear fellow editor and source of most of the additions @PCommission: that you transfer some excessive details to the Philippine History Article? That's what we have been doing to shorten this article up to recently. I leave it to your discretion which information you should transfer, I will be editing this article again as soon as my schedule permits.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: No problem, I have enough time until the middle of the week. PCommission (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(drive-by comment) WP:SIZERULE says, "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided", XTools says Page size 369,807 bytes for Philippines and Page size 268,261 bytes for History of the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes the 100 KB limit is already the maximum allowable page size as seen by the "almost" comment in the Wikipedia policy page, anything larger means absolute necessity to trim or subdivide, we are already 3 times the maximum threshold as per the allowable KB size. Hence, we should trim this some more. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have some free time this week until this coming Sunday, so i'll spend my free time, condenscing, trimming and rewriting the article to reduce it's size to at most, 199 Kilobytes, if you have any complaints or issues about my rewritting, take this here and let's discuss new consensus and what content should be included. Thank You.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI to everybody: PCommission has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Feel free to revert any of their material per WP:Block evasion (and if you're unsure, keep in mind that the editor is known to push POVs and misrepresent sources). I suggest keeping an eye out for them in the future, as they are a repeat offender. Crossroads -talk- 04:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Crossroads, although I sympathize with PCommission since I have just recently emerged out of a probation period, I cannot stress how he made our work in shortening this Wiki article much harder because he kept on adding content with heavy coding which is making the reduction to 100+KB of this article hard work for us since this article is already at 300KB. We thank you for informing us about his status, at least we have justification to remove his edits, since this article has been growing only heavier because of his modifications. Regards! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Especially given POV and source concerns have been raised by myself and other editors already, I have reverted the blockevasion edits. Looking through, a significant amount of the edits from other editors to sections the sockpuppet had edited were to fix or revert the edits of the sockpuppet, so luckily it isn't too complicated to untangle. This should save further work of people trying to further fix. There may be some useful sources in the edits (I have kept a few sourced but rewrote the content), but it'll be easier to add that on to the old framework rather than trying to clean up everything while seeing what might be kept. CMD (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Chipmunkdavis:, I agree with you, it is best to build up from your framework of the pre POV pushing versions induced by PCommision, thank you so much for your contributions. :D Regards! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Are old sources valid? How old should sources be?

@Chipmunkdavis: I added 2 sentences based on 2 old sources on November 11 but my friend, you then reverted my edits on November 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&action=history. I am just copying the information stated in the sources, but then you reverted it because you say it's sketchy and old. I am asking then, over what date of sources does Wikipedia consider legitimate? Since those sources I used are from the 19th Century and they may be primary sources nearer the date wherein the events happened, however I don't know the Wikipedia policy when it comes to age, can you enlighten me over what age or era are sources considered legitimate? So that I could put better sources next time. Thank You. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If in doubt, stick to the 21st century, and to secondary sources. More specifically, if a source says "Credit is certainly due to Spain for having bettered the condition of a people who, though comparatively highly civilized, yet being continually distracted by petty wars, had sunk into a disordered and uncultivated state.", it isn't reliable, and doesn't support a specific claim about the 2nd millennium. CMD (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I had to dig around to figure out what this was about. If anyone else is wondering, the revert is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&diff=next&oldid=988305165, and the quote might have come from History_of_the_Philippines#Spanish_rule_during_the_19th_century. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The quote is from the |quote field in the source I removed in that diff. CMD (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for educating me, I will use less old sources next time. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines/Archive_18&oldid=1014277161"