Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.


WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY - Deletion Sorting (Philippines)


Start new topic


00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37

Wikimedia Philippines.svg
AOI • By-laws
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Identi.caYouTubeUStreamYahoo GroupMy Space
Find us on Facebook     Find us on Twitter     Find us on Google+     Find us on

Find us on YouTube      Find us on UStream
This box: view  talk  edit

AfC submission[edit]

See Draft:Mel Senen Sarmiento. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This person is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, so he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. That being said the article needs far better sources... –HTD 21:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Massive move of article names: History of the Philippines / "Middle Ages"[edit]

Hi. I don't have time to help fix this, but there seems to be a massive movement the names of history articles to use the term "middle ages." For example, Barangay (pre-colonial) to Barangay (Middle ages). This is alarming, and I must protest. The term pre-colonial might not be perfect, and I've been wanting to find some way to change it to be more inclusive (the term "pre-colonial" becomes problematic when you consider Moro and Cordillera history), but my understanding is that "middle ages" is entirely without context as far as Philippine history goes, and/or will make western readers associate its context with a European historical period which does not reflect the nuance of the Philippine situation. Also, I must objecct to the category " History of the Philippines (Prehistory until the Middle ages)" as it presents the early History of the Philippines (1521–1571) as prehistory. There's a difference between history and prehistory, and the category undermines the cultural significance of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and other early-historic Philippine articles. As I said, I would normally undo all this myself, but I don't have time. This middle-ages thing is perpetuating a massive historical inaccuracy. HELP!) - Alternativity (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This is not the first time the user have been disruptive with his page moves and unexplained edits. See "Diego and Gabriela Silang" and Tagalog/Tagalog language. Kindly report this user:Shhhhwwww!!!! to ANI.--RioHondo (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Middle Ages" refers to the era in between the Classical period and the Modern period also known as the postclassical period. It has nothing to do with Europe. The problem is there is no official name for that era and Using the term "pre-colonial" is offensive to Moros and Indigenous Filipinos. "Post-classical" is just too long and presumes there was a "classical" era in Philippine History which we don't know. There is no term better or worse. "Middle ages" is merely a placeholder until somebody comes up with a better word. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
* To quote the "Middle Ages" wiki page,

"In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery.The Middle Ages is the middle period of the three traditional divisions of Western history: Antiquity, Medieval period, and Modern period."

The term, unless otherwise specified, is precisely specific to the European context because it's a reference to their post-classical period, the application of which to Philippine history, as you pointed out, would be presumptuous.- Alternativity (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Use Pre-colonial, colonial period, etc. per WP:COMMONNAME. Denying the existence and wide usage of those terms for historical periods in the Philippines and using other unheard of phrases or terms is tantamount to WP:OR. Revisionist historians/propagandists have no place in Wikipedia. I don't believe those are offensive to Moros and Cordillerans considering both nations also were subjugated by the Spanish (and Americans) albeit at a later century. See histories of the Cordillera Administrative Region and Sulu, Jolo and Maguindanao to see exactly what I'm saying. This is the history of the Philippines, a country that is a product of King Philip, of colonialism. Like America and Columbus/Amerigo Vespucci. And there is no changing the name nor that fact. If the US/Americas has Pre-colonial / Pre-Columbian era, we too have Pre-colonial or Pre-Spanish era.--RioHondo (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the term "Early Historic" an acceptable description?[edit]

A further suggestion: I've seen a number of anthropology and archeology texts refer to the 900-1521 period as "Early Historic", which seems to be the most neutral statement to me. Perhaps that's usable if we want to avoid the use of the term "Pre-Colonial", although the use of the term is not universal as far as I'm aware. - Alternativity (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • We need to avoid inflaming the nationalists so the term "colonial" should be avoided. I'm good with "Early history". Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not for us to decide. We only follow WP:RS here, a basic WP rule, so your WP:POV or whoever else's don't matter, especially not coming from rebels/revisionist "historians".--RioHondo (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alternativity, if the majority of RS use pre-colonial, then we follow them. That's what everyone who's ever studied Philippine history knows, not this Philippine "middle ages" or "early historic." We should only do mainstream history here, as WP:RS = mainstream.--RioHondo (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with the term "colonial" is that it goes against WP:Worldwide view. People who object to the term are marginalized and may not have the resources to be published. WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy so even of there are objections, their points of view still need to be recognized. Using the word "colonial" has a very Eurocentric tilt in the perspective of history. There needs to be a balance for those who disagree wit that term. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish the term "pre-Magellanic" (or "pre-Legazpi") was predominantly used a la "pre-Columbian". The mainstream "Pre-Spanish era" is one too many words/too long. I object to the use of "Middle Ages" as that's a Eurocentric term. –HTD 20:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, "pre-Magellan" could be even more recognizable than any of those suggested. Im sure those suggesting to avoid using the term colonial only represent a minority. The main consideration here is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY based on RS. It's always been.--RioHondo (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huhm. @RioHondo, I think I shall concede to your point WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for now. I shall study the case more, but I think you are probably right in indicating that these are the applicable wikipolicies. My interest is more academic than ideological, as this perpetuates a number of misconceptions about the early states established in the archipelago. But I recognize the importance of upholding WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. - Alternativity (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
* For the record, though, I equally object to "Middle Ages" as being Eurocentric. Note that I was one of the first to bring the issue up in the first place. My suggestion of "Early Historic" reflects a trend I've seen in RS after the '90s, which is when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was found. - Alternativity (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Note to the note: This really depends on how you define "relibable" in the case of RS. I think the shift in term usage has reached a point where it's more dominant in primary (journals and theses, particularly in anthro-oriented fields) and grey (papers and lectures) literature, but because of cultural intertia, secondary literature (textbooks and some government texts) hasn't caught up yet. Main reason why I'm conceding to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, I don't think there's actual academic agreement on the precise term yet. - Alternativity (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
* Also, as a contribution to the above argument, I'd like to point out that Eurocentrism, while indeed an issue, isn't as big a problem here as is Manilacentrism- Alternativity (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it hasn't caught up yet. So, can we revert to the old recognizable labels for our historical periods please? Prehistory, Pre-colonial, Spanish colonial, American colonial, and years. See US template as guide. (Unless someone can come up with other recognizable terms for those historical periods, i think the US template is a close match and is neutral, straight to the point, and unromanticized/no drama). {{History of the Philippines}} {{History of the United States}}--RioHondo (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I was about to do that, and then I realized, the originals were just "History of the Philippines (Year-Year)". May I request comment on why that's objectionable? (I suspect reasons, but I want to have an articulation so that I can cite it in the edit history and talk page) - Alternativity (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer the usual names: Prehistory, Classical, Spanish, American, Independence. I'd have to admit "Classical" era (recorded history before the Europeans arrived) was a "new" term for me, but at least it sorta made sense... unlike "Middle Ages" which is never used outside Europe and perhaps North Africa/Middle East. –HTD 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Whose classical period? The only legit definition of classical era in Wikipedia is that of classical antiquity within the Greco-Roman world which is again, eurocentric, and which was never used outside of Europe and Middle East/North Africa. Do we have RS to back up this definition of Philippine classical period inserted in 2014 by an already blocked suckpuppetteer? Or is it all WP:OR, part of a revisionist agenda?--RioHondo (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Our" classical period? FWIW, aside from sheer laziness, the reason why I didn't object to "Classical" was that I thought it was used elsewhere. –HTD 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
In my view, it is better if we just use years rather than labels that tend to offend any one side of the narrative. Take for example the use of "modern." Until today, modern is still modern. How modern is modern? How early is early? Another thing of note is, how contemporary is contemporary? In five or ten years time, our "contemporary" would have had moved from 1986 to, say, 1992? The last thing I want to see is a postmodern label, which assumes there was a premodern era. Nothing comes after it. And come to think of it, a "classical" era? How come you had a golden age even before falling apart? This seems a nationalist viewpoint. A golden age to look back and regain. Not that I am not a nationalist. I may be as nationalist as any of you can be, or perhaps even greater. Who can say? But, what have our "classical" era produced? Any renowned scientist or artist from that era? Even Panday Pira is no longer of the "classical" era. How can one regain what is not lost anyway? Then again, Wikipedia is a supposed to be a neutral arena. Let us make it as neutral as it can be. You may not agree with me, but even historians in the past had problems with labels. That is why I do not prefer it. Have you heard of "Rediscovery of the Philippines" or perhaps "The Moro Wars"? If labels are indeed necessary, provide the most neutral labels. Arius1998 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, using years instead of labels or descriptions doesn't make it any more neutral or "politically sensitive" or whatever. Cos why begin in 1521? Why don't we just cover history per centuries. Like instead of 1521, let's start from 1600-1899. And before that: Pre-800, 800-1199, 1200-1599, etc. Lets do it per 4 centuries, if we really want to avoid using labels that "offend minorities" (whatever that means). However you try to mask history to suit your agenda, history is still history. Our story doesn't change.--RioHondo (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Centuries are still years, right? Arius1998 (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, and i was giving an example on how using years as labels does not cover the fact that we are still basing our historical periods on those you are trying to hide. Imagine if it was done per centuries as in my example, your narratives would be nothing more than just a timeline of mixed and unrelated topics and events from those years.--RioHondo (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Common people talk of the periods in terms of labels not years -- the Spanish Colonial Era, the American Colonial Era, Independence, Martial Law, etc. -- and so we should use common labels, not years. People will come to Wikipedia because they heard a reference to, say, the "American Colonial Period" at a party or on the TV and are looking for an explanation. Therefore labels are better. But there is a problem with the label "classical". Is it used by the general public? How often does the Inquirer or the noon-time shows refer to the "classical era"? Is it a common label? It is also clearly associated with Ancient Greek and Roman, especially Greek. See Neoclassical. And not with other historical Ancient European civilizations such as Egyptians, Persians, Vikings, Israel, Celts, etc. Lastly "classical" is not neutral. Ancient Greece and Rome were called "classical" because they were thought to be superior, classier, "of the highest rank", unlike those other Ancient civilizations, let alone those of the Dark Ages. Think Classical Music. See Etymoline, here. Wikipedia is not the place to try to change how people classify and label historical epochs. We are merely an encyclopedia. We are to summarize the historiography developed elsewhere, not participate in the discussion. We should use "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Era", "American Era", "Independence", etc. because that is at present how Philippine history is commonly divided and commonly labeled, even if historians are moving in a different direction. Years and "classic" are not common. Whether these terms are eurocentric, offensive or inaccurate is a debate to be had elsewhere. We just summarize the common, popular conventional historiography. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Iloilo Wanderer, I couldnt have said it better. It's like when you discuss history to someone who's not an expert on the Philippines, or even to a Pinoy kid who's only beginning to learn history, do you narrate it in years? Or do you say sa panahon ng (insert historical period here). E.g, you say "sa panahon ng Kastila", "Panahon ng Amerikano", "panahon bago dumating ang Kastila" etc. There goes your WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Those who are offended by the truth, are simply in denial or have an agenda to perpetuate a false sense of nationalism for their own political ambition (i.e., secessionism).--RioHondo (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The terms Prehistory, (blank), Early modern period, Late modern period, and Contemporary history are based on how World history is organized in general. The terms did not come out of a magic hat. Admittedly, using "Middle Ages" was ill-advised but the rest are fine. The use of "colonial" names colour the articles in a particular way that may be offensive to some minority groups. Though they may not be mainstream, their views are just as valid because of the concept of WP:NEUTRALity, which prevents a tyranny of the majority. Particularly giving the "American period" WP:UNDUE weight is a bit unbalanced since it only lasted for less than 50 years as opposed to the "Spanish period", which lasted for over 300. Framing the article based on how world history is perceived in general avoids any political colour. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Yup, he is our candidate. Person fits the profile. Funny how someone who is actively promoting using WP:COMMONNAME based on RS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other wikipolicies in all his RM requests would come here to introduce changes Against those same wikipolicies he loves to banner elsewhere. Your world view is Greek to 99% of our readers of Philippine history. And please, there is no political colour here until YOU mentioned there is. If there's anyone with a greater and more personal interest in this topic, it is only you. You need to learn to separate your political orientation from your newfound org from your work as a WP editor which is to only mirror what is common and what is recognizable for all.--RioHondo (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • We don't apply how the Europeans divide their history to ours. We apply how the Philippines divides its history. See for example Template:History of Indonesia or Template:History of China which don't use the Western divisions of Early/modern/post/contemporary. We use how mainstream historians divide history into eras, and how they are named. I haven't seen a history book that groups the swath of time from the British invasion to People Power into one "chapter". And the usage of 1762 as the demarcation is quite arbitrary; most historians divide the Spanish era into "controlled from Mexico" (1565-1821) to "controlled from Spain" (1821-98). The British invasion didn't change things a lot. –HTD 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • India and Iran (among others) both use the universal subtitles for history currently used for the Philippines, both have issues with colonial powers, and both are non-Western countries. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Template:History of India is not divided this way, while Template:History of Iran... AFAIK, Iran has never been subjugated by colonizers, but sure there were "issues", and both are within the Indo-European sphere. Whether or not these countries use these divisions is immaterial, though. What matters is how the history of Philippines is divided and labeled by mainstream historians. It's not divided and labeled this way. No one (and by "no one" meaning it's not mainstream) groups the British occupation of Manila and the People Power Revolution under "Early modern period of Philippine history".
    • There could be a discussion in the History of the Philippines article though on how history is divided and labeled, including the mainstream use and uses by other historians, with the note that "in the rest of Wikipedia, we'd use how mainstream historians do it". –HTD 21:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The template used by mainstream historians is already visible in the History of the Philippines article with "Spanish colonial" and "American colonial" subsections. That isn't as necessary in the main country article because it should have a condensed version of history that avoids political bias which may cause edit wars. The British invasion is not important because of its impact in itself but the impact of the event that coincided with it i.e. the Silang revolt of Diego and Gabriela Silang. This is one of the more important revolts that inspired the Philippine Revolution. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's look at the definition of "neutrality" in WP:NEUTRAL: "...neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." For the purposes of this issue, the two key phrases are "reliable sources" and "proportionately". First, what do reliable sources use? In my reading, the sources universally use "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Colonial", "American Colonial", and "Independence", or some version of those tags. What sources are others looking at? What sources use the other phrases mentioned? Second, what proportion of the sources use what titles? Proportion is explained in WP:Neutral as: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." So a minority view -- say using "classical" or "early modern" -- should be given a minority weight in proportion to its preponderance and if the minority view is significantly less, no weight at all. Neutrality in Wiki-land does not mean treating all viewpoints equally. It means reporting fairly viewpoints in proportion to their influence without concern about whether doing so furthers any other agenda, including not liking the way mainstream sources color history, including avoiding offense, and including trying to provide the right balance. Wikipedia does not take sides in such disputes. Wikipedia just reports what reliable sources say in proportion regardless of whether the sources color history, offend, or are unbalanced. If one wants to debate color, offense or balance, bring it up with the sources. We just say what the sources say in proportion, and yes that means that the majority view takes precedence. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There goes that word again. Political Bias? Edit wars? Is that what you have been smoking on campus after class? I see they're actively recruiting Pinoy students again. So what happened after Diego and Gabriela Silang inspired the revolution? Please do tell. I am hearing all of this for the first time really.--RioHondo (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks btw for moving this article on the Southeast Asian country from Burma to Myanmar following WP:COMMONNAME based on WP:RS. It only means Europe or Britain does not dictate on how countries and related articles should be named. Now, stop being a hypocrite and do the same for our articles you have disrupted boy.--RioHondo (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iloilo Wanderer, please see History of the Philippines. That version there is the same as stated. (Except, perhaps, the term "Independence", which both the Philippine government and the U.S.State Department agree happened on June 12, 1898. This issue is what should be avoided since Filipinos don'the seem to agree when it happened even though the holiday happens every year. The fact is the "American colonial period" is very problematic if included in the main article.)
Can the URLs to the relevant statements from the US State Dept. and the Phil. Gov. be provided?--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@RioHondo, I didn't say that the Silangs directly inspired the Revolution but their efforts did have a lasting impact for them to be remembered up to now. Ilokanos did form a significant portion of Aguinaldo's army and his final stronghold was in Tirad Pass having conquered Luzon before the Americans. The British invasion delineates the Revolutionary era of Philippine history which may have been affected by Mexico's independence. Whichever of the two is more important is a chicken and egg thing but the point is both were a byproduct of the late modern era. I do not understand your last comment. I don't live in the Philippines. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The "American colonial era" screws the whole thing actually. Apart from the fact that it is so short (48 years) compared to the other eras (for example "Early history", 621 years), it is also the most politically loaded. Even Americans themselves what nothing to do with it, like say Mark Twain or in the current era, Bernie Sanders. It is given more focus than what is proportional. The use of the word "Independence" after 1946 also creates controversy to the point that the Philippine government, Filipino Americans in New York, and the State Department seem to do a Pontius Pilate on the issue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Certainly there should be a consistency across all the articles on the History of the Philippines and the template and it should be based upon what third party reliable sources say. It was consistent. For years. And it recently has been changed. I am still waiting to see a list of URLs and other citations for the reliable, third-party sources demonstrating that there has occurred a significant change among the public discussion. I still hear and read "American colonial era" all the time, for instance [here] is an article in the Inquirer in February 2015 which says, "Wadi observed that from the American colonial era to the present..." and [another] from Feb. 2014, "The iconic building of El Hogar, one of Manila’s remaining American-colonial era landmarks..." and [another] from January 2013, "The three heritage buildings, all in Neoclassical style, dating from pre-World War II American colonial era...". The discussion of the length of the period and the political loading of the term is not relevant to our consideration here. We should only look at what the reliable third-party sources say. We should not replace their judgement with ours. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Shhhhwwww!!, I don't understand your question. What do you think that I am objecting to? I am arguing in favor of going back to the status quo ante of following the mainstream historigraphy of "pre-history", "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish Era", "American Era", and "Independence" instead of maintaining the recent change to "early mondern", "late mondern", "contemporary", etc. across all the relevant articles and Wikipedia templates.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection to the so-called "American colonial era" on the mere basis of number of years. Let's ignore the name for a moment. Let me argue that that time-period should somehow be marked. Because that time-period marked a clearly defined gestalt of events, thought patterns, etc. Because the beginning and end of that era marks major conceptual turning points in our government, jurisprudence, economy, educational system etc. Turning points disputed by no historian. That's why there's an eagle beside the lion on our great seal - an inherent recognition that these countries (and their eras of influence) contributed significantly to the formation of the Philippine nation. If there's any aberation I can think of, it's actually WW2. Which took our government in a radically different direction for three years, only to have many of the old directions restored after the war (albeit set back in a big way, development wise).- Alternativity (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Some student doing homework or paper for his history class might get a D for copying wrong information posted on WP, and that's what worries me more than anything here. Seeing as only one person has issues with reliable sources, may I ask that we resolve this thing ASAP? Thanks. To the dissenter, take your grievances to other more appropriate fora. Or to the streets with your usual US-Aquino imperialism banners.--RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • First of all, the red baiting has to stop. Their views are just as valid as the rest of them. Second, @Alternativity, the focus and attention the "American colonial period" gets is disproportionate to its importance. The Spanish has a far more significant impact yet it doesn't get as much attention as the Americans do. The impact of the Americans on law, culture, and the economy has more to do with globalization that actual colonization because Spain and Mexico are just as Americanized as the Philippines is. As long as it is mentioned as a subsection, the vultures continue to gather and fight over a carcass. The complete contents are still in the Philippines article it's just the title that isn't. The full subsection is in the History of the Philippines, though so the objections are puzzling.
      • Their views? At least cite a pamphlet or notebook where this is all written, cos so far everything we hear from you is WP:OR. Cite your sources and we'll tell you if it is reliable. FYI This revisionist propagandist campaign and historical politicizing on your part is a serious violation of our wikirules. Especially when advancing outside interests is more important for you than advancing the aims of WP for mainstream historiographies and WP:RS based writing.--RioHondo (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I am totally going to have to challenge the assertion that "The impact of the Americans on law, culture, and the economy has more to do with globalization that actual colonization because Spain and Mexico are just as Americanized as the Philippines is." First, as pointed out earlier, the assertion needs to be supported by sources. Second, you can't argue that the American Period was "globalization" while the Spanish period wasn't. The galleon trade was a major touchstone of globalization. You might as well just lump the entire colonial period and call it "globalization"... and leave us with categories so general/broad they're contextless/meaningless in context. (Or is that the kind of "neutrality" you're aiming for?). Third, this is local history, which needs to be defined by local events, not by broad global categories. The American period saw the Philippines experience globalization under American administration, marking a distinct period of changes/events/experiences in a particular direction. I can't see how you can argue against its significance to the local experience of history (aka Local History/"National" History. - Alternativity (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • On one hand, I concur with the desire to conclude this as soon as possible since the revisionism is getting frustrating. On the other hand, I want some of these issues settled definitively and want to see a policy statement so we don't keep arguing about these things. I at the fact that the idea of imposing broad World History categories to Local History has been brought up, because that's the kind of thing that starts edit wars that spoil perfectly good articles. Can it please be pointed out somewhere that the topic in question here is Philippine history, and that when you discuss Philippine history, you automatically make the Philippines your point of reference. That is to say, Philippine history is defined by events that shaped the Philippines. To define this local history by the broad categories used by world history (or even regional history) would literally involve forcing historical, geographical, cultural, and civic realities into artificial conceptual categories. As for periodization, given that there's ALWAYS going to be room for debate (some arbitrariness is part of the very nature of periodization), I feel it would be good to have some stated core principles. - Alternativity (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have major beef at this point with the term "modern" as it does not describe events, and lacks the necessary context to be meaningful. "Modern" relative to what? And defined by what characteristics? Pinned down to a specific point of history on the basis of what shared experiences? "Contemporary" is an acceptable placeholder because the period it describes hasn't ended and therefore can't be clearly defined yet. But "Modern" is just vagueness for the sake of vagueness. - Alternativity (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I will just pipe in to say that Iloilo Wanderer has provided the best arguments with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is a tertiary resource. It is not a battleground for ideologies. We follow what mainstream historiographical sources do. And if "colonial" is really objectionable, I think "pre-Hispanic", "Spanish era/period", and "American era/period" are acceptable. —seav (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Alternativity is right to suggest that we go back to Wikipedia's core principles to decide of periodization. The core principle is reliable, third party sources. It is NOT UP TO US to decide on periodization. Wikipedia policies are clear; we adopt the prevailing practice. We have no choice, per Wikipedia policy. We cannot go against the prevailing practice for any reason, whatsoever, period (no pun intended). The prevailing practice may be offensive. The prevailing practice may be unbalanced. The prevailing practice may be Eurocentric. The prevailing practice may be.... it does not matter. We do not, per our rules, make such judgements. We, as seav says, are a tertiary source. We just follow majority mainstream does. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still at work, so... if anyone wants to do it, can someone please revert the categories in the History of the Philippines template (above) already? :D - Alternativity (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some issues:
    • I have reverted some of Riohondo's edits based on the following:
      • The original version of the History of the Philippines article was aesthetic ally displeasing and has some WP:READABILITY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH issues. The current state incorporates some of the original without returning to it completely.
      • The "Early history of the barangay" title has a more WP:NEUTRAL tone than having the word "colonial" on it in consideration of the Igorot people and the Moro people, who are still probably living in precolonial times having never been completely colonized by the West.
      • The demarcation of the "American colonial period" is based on law and the constitutional history of the Philippines.
      • The demarcation between the Spanish is based on the discontinuation of Spanish control. That article is too long and has to have a WP:SPLIT.
      • During the Magellan to Legazpi years (1521-71), the Spanish did not have political control so this should be a separate article.

Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    • I don't need you to lecture me on history. Those are the old versions I have restored that you keep reverting and setting to 1762 and your own labels. Actually Im not having anymore of this conversation. Let this serve as a warning though so you don't get surprised if you get blocked.--RioHondo (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of these are actually improvements to the articles. Have you read the subsections in History of the Philippines. It's a mess. Find a better alternative than the status quo. WP:READABILITY is one aspect of an encyclopedia. What is the point of being historically and factually correct when no one is going to read it? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted History of the Philippines try navigating through that. Good luck. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's so frustrating how someone tries to make it easy for everyone only to be attacked. Reading the table of contents in History of the Philippines is like reading a menu from a restaurant. An article can be created from that table. Nobody tried improving these articles until now. Please try to provide a better alternative rather than simply opposing. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Return to mainstream historiographies[edit]

Back to square one, it should be easier to discuss improvements on the articles. Any opinion on how to improve the artices is welcome, except opinions on history itself. We don't need that here.--RioHondo (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone tried checking the periodization of Tadhana: the History of the Filipino people? Yes, it may not be perfect. It may be a Marcos project. However, it might be able to present a fresher view than that of Agoncillo and his contemporaries, which historiography and periodization is still been widely used in many textbooks today? Arius1998 (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sudden spike of contributions in Tagalog Wikipedia[edit]

Has anyone noticed? Congrats Sky Harbor for a job well done. -Filipinayzd (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the difference between Tagalog and Filipino couldn't be more apparent as soon as you start reading through that Wikipedia version.
For example, this stub note in Tagalog:
Ang lathalaing ito na tungkol sa Pilipinas ay isang usbong. Makatutulong ka sa Wikipedia sa pagpalalawig nito.
How many Filipinos know what usbong, lathalain and pagpapalawig mean?
In Filipino, this should be easier read as:
Ang artikulong ito na tungkol sa Pilipinas ay isang burador o panimulang sulat. Makatutulong ka sa Wikipedia sa pagpapalawak nito.
So, as a followup to our earlier discussion, does anyone else here feels that Filipino, our national official language, should be given its own Wiki Language Project, separate from Wikipediang Tagalog? :) Congrats tho. And Maligayang Buwan ng Wikang Filipino to all, both Tagalog and non-Tagalog editors.--RioHondo (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be like coming up with a separate British English Wikipedia, or something like that? Blake Gripling (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It could be. But officially, and based on the individual ISO codes, Filipino is not a dialect of Tagalog. It is by law a separate language, a product of a government language engineering program based on all Philippine languages. At least that's what is known officially. Hence, Tagalog is tl and Filipino is fil, not tl-fil (which it should if it was a dialect like en and en-us / en-uk for English (American or British).--RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Bad idea. There are already too few contributors at tl:wp (since the overwhelming majority of Filipino editors contribute only in English). This would dilute it even more. -- P 1 9 9   13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, i think it would be the reverse. I think it may even benefit the Tagalog WP with the amount of traffic that a Filipino WP would generate, considering most Filipinos are more confident and familiar with it. (Again, officially Filipino is a distinct language not a dialect). You know I am a Tagalog, but even I myself find Tagalog Wikipedia like Latin sometimes with the peculiar and kinda old poetic words they use. :) --RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, what I see happening then is that most Tagalog editors would merely move over to Filipino WP and the Tagalog WP would see no or little activity. It may be better to replace it then... P 1 9 9   18:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You still have your little Balagtases and purist regional Tagalistas, and I don't think they're going anywhere. Anyway, true story. I was kind of an active anon contributor in Tagalog WP back in the mid 2000s when Tagalog WP was just starting. I did some translations from the English WP to the country and province articles in Tagalog. I stopped contributing when I found all my edits were reverted or changed altogether because of grammar or word choice. This is the kind of things that turn people away from that side of WP. And so it is my hope that a Filipino WP would be that all inclusive venue for Filipino contributors where your edits are judged by their academic merits not grammar or vocabulary. A venue where we can write confidently in our language, the national official language which should be number one in our priority. We can leave the Tagalog WP to the regional Tagalog editors (the old poetic type).--RioHondo (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good writer in either language. So I put in technical content using whichever words come to me, sometimes more Tagalog than Filipino, sometimes more Filipino than Tagalog. I just keep my fingers crossed that someone will improve the grammar later. I'm sharing that because in the context of this discussion, I want to raise the question of whether contributors like me should be encouraged, and if so, how? - Alternativity (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Tagalog Wikipedia editors write in Filipino anyway (legally defined as Tagalog spoken in Manila and other urban centers), so I don't see how a "rebranding" of sorts will make matters any better except if it were to make it easier for us to pursue partnerships with Filipino departments at institutions of higher education. That being said, we have to recognize here that we are not linguists, and it is not our place to describe the "differences", existing or otherwise, between Tagalog and Filipino. This is a discussion that we've had on and off for the last ten years now, and I doubt anything will change as a result of it. (The linguistic consensus, as in consensus by linguists, is that Tagalog and Filipino are the same language, regardless of what the political consensus is. The ISO codes were born of a political consensus, not a linguistic one. Until that changes, there will be no Filipino Wikipedia.)
I am likewise half-Tagalog (and from Marinduque at that; the other half is Cebuano), but that said, at the same time I think it is both our responsibility and our duty to uphold the standards for proper academic writing in Philippine languages. Teachers still discourage the active use of English words in formal Filipino-language academic writing, so if the complaint is that the words are too "deep" (a malapropism, mind you, according to Rolando S. Tinio, since it's only in this context that we're complaining about how hard it is to understand formal Tagalog/Filipino when formal English absolutely baffles most Filipinos), then we can certainly fix that. Remember that the aim of Wikipedia is to be an academic encyclopedia, written in a formal style. If you were to have a Filipino teacher read a Tagalog Wikipedia article, he/she would probably not say anything about it.
It has always been the aim of the Tagalog Wikipedia to be inclusive of the entire politico-linguistic consensus, whether you write differently or you think Tagalog and Filipino are the same or vice-versa. As it was pointed out earlier, the community is already very small as it is (I can count with my fingers the number of super-active Tagalog Wikipedia editors compared to here), and it would be unconscionable to consider splitting the project into two when there wouldn't be enough people to go around between both languages. I already have very strong reservations about the level of demonization being put on both sides, as if only their side deserves to be the only one that represents the Tagalog Wikipedia (and often, this accusation comes more from those who are more "pro-Filipino", who often accuse those who lean more purist of damaging the project and reverting their edits in the process), and this does nothing for the welfare of editors who are caught in the middle.
If you are discouraged in any way by editing the Tagalog Wikipedia, please consider editing anyway. Your edits are welcome no matter what they look like. But I cannot, will not, and will never support, splitting a community simply because of a question like this. (I might as well ask Christopher Sundita, the community's resident linguist, to pitch in on this discussion as well when he finds the time.) -Sky Harbor (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This from the Tagalog WP Main page:
Maligayang pagdating sa Wikipedia, ang malayang ensiklopediang maaaring pamatnugutan ninuman.
Nobody speaks like that in Manila where I live. Actually, I have not heard this word pamatnugutan in my life, and I am a Tagalog. The Filipino instead might say:
Maligayang pagdating sa Wikipedia, ang malayang encyclopediang pwedeng i-edit ng kahit sino.
Yes, bring out some of those English and Spanish loan words the way it is naturally spoken everyday. I am saying Filipino is different from Tagalog. I don't care about the politics behind them or the rift between those two eventhough you keep bringing them up. I am just saying the Tagalog used in Tagalog WP is the regional variety that not too many Filipinos know. Because the language that most Filipinos speak is Filipino not Tagalog. The language used in the media, in telenovelas, etc. not those pamatnugutan by old Tagalog poets that only people from old Batangas and old Bulacan know. IMO The difference is comparable to Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia. Same roots and grammar, different vocabulary. And again, Filipino is fil, not tl-fil nor tl-ph. We are no linguists and that's precisely why I think a Filipino WP is essential, to preserve the linguistic rules of Tagalog by having a venue where we don't have to think and write in their own linguistic terms, and just be naturally different as Filipino language, our language, really is. :)--RioHondo (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You said in the previous conversation that the Tagalog/Filipino spoken on the street is Taglish. I don't think Taglish is particularly appropriate for an academic encyclopedia, and it would be laughable for us to even resort to using Taglish when there are perfectly good Tagalog/Filipino equivalents, borrowed, calqued or native, that we can use.
The reason why I bring up politics is because to really understand the debate between Tagalog and Filipino, understanding the politics behind their formation is important. Not everything that Virgilio S. Almario says, for one, can be believed hook, line and sinker. Malay and Indonesian are different because they encompass different cultural spheres and were countries colonized by different colonial powers, naturally resulting in a divergence between the two languages. The differences aren't just in terms of vocabulary—they also encompass pronunciation, spelling and idiom, and Malay and Indonesian are not always mutually intelligible to those who speak the other language.
That's not the case with Filipino: a language born of the Congress of the Philippines and Quezon's aspirations for a native national language, and to which the KWF claims the differences are that Filipino is more accepting of borrowings and it has more letters. Tagalog has been borrowing for thousands of years, and now because Filipino is around the consensus is that it can't borrow? Prior to the birth of the "wikang pambansang batay sa Tagalog" in 1939, Tagalog had already been borrowing from other languages, including Spanish and English (e.g. the word for "flashlight" is plaslayt, borrowed from English). Now, suddenly, it can't, because only Filipino can? Words like vugi (fish eggs), kalaniyog (eggwhite) and xappo (bell pepper) aren't even used in "normal" Filipino, but the KWF claims they're Filipino words, so we should start using those? When you go out on the street, Tagalog and Filipino are generally conflated to be the same language, so what then are you talking about? Even the sambayanang Pilipino (especially non-Tagalogs) thinks Filipino and Tagalog are essentially the same language, contrary to your claims.
In addition, the general consensus on the Tagalog Wikipedia is that we're all writing in Filipino anyway, so I don't see how your argument that we're all writing in "regional Tagalog" carries any weight (and, on that point, I live in Manila). It's not our fault if your Filipino language instruction happens to be less effective than ours and you're unable to understand more formal Filipino, as you should've also been taught the same corpus of Filipino-language texts in high school (e.g. Florante at Laura, written by the author you just derided) as we were. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, from the look of it, it's like youve already had this discussion or debate in the past. :) I didn't say Filipino was Taglish. There is a huge difference between the way any normal filipino (President Noynoy Aquino for example in his SONAs and speeches) speaks, and how people like his sister Kris Aquino do it. You know what Im talking about. Filipino is minimal English/Spanish, while Taglish is so very Kris Aquino already. Lol.
Forget the politics between the two languages for a second. And let's say the two languages are the same or a dialect of one another. Don't we have Wiki Language Projects here that are dialects too? For example, there's the Dutch Wikipedia and then there's the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia. We have the Arabic Wikipedia, and then there is also the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible and are standardized variants of the same language, but they have separate Wiki Language Projects also. If my English wasn't good enough, i'd probably go and contribute at the Simple English Wikipedia instead. I'm sure that side of WP isn't all academic.
So what is preventing us from having our own Filipino Wikipedia then? :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"First Spouse of the Philippines"[edit]

FYI, someone converted almost all the names from long names to short names at First Spouse of the Philippines -- (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Someone just created an article for Eat Bulaga's "Kalye serye" (aka YayaDub series). I'm aware at the pair's popularity, but with maybe half or most of the sources coming from GMA-affiliated sources and the nature of the "series", I'm not exactly convinced that it should have a separate article and at the most information could be merged to the articles on Eat Bulaga and Alden Richards. I'm thinking of nominating the article for deletion but given the existence of sources I'm asking for second opinions here before doing so. Should I still nominate the article for deletion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: The article has been tagged for speedy deletion as A10. An article at AlDub however still exists, which I find weird given that we don't have separate articles for other love teams such as KathNiel. The question stands. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, as long as it's sufficiently sourced and deemed notable then why not? We actually have er... precedence --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos[edit]

The Imelda Marcos article has been undergoing many changes over the last month, since July, you may be interested. -- (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jose Roy[edit]

I stumbled across Jose Roy by chance and noticed it was in pretty bad shape (see [1]), so I decided to try and clean it up a bit. I think it's a little better now then it was, but there's still quite a lot to do. In particular, the article still needs some better sourcing. I tried to find what I could by Googling, but was only able to get so far. Since Roy seems to be have played an important role in Philippine politics from 1946-1973 or so, I imagine there are probably quite a number of non-English sources that could be used in the article. I think this article is one that falls under the scope of this Wikiproject, so I was wondering if someone could take a look at it and possibly assess it or revise it as needed. I know almost nothing about Philippine history or politics and basically was trying to work with the text that was already in the article, so someone more familiar with the subject matter might be able to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

English names for Philippine languages/ethnic groups[edit]

Just a heads up, I initiated a move discussion at Talk:Kapampangan language#Requested move 2 September 2015 to use its English name: Pampango language. Similar to Ilocano language (moved from Ilokano language), there should be a conscious effort in our project to properly distinguish between English and local, the F and the P. Comment if you are interested. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pilipinas as indigenized form of Filipinas -Filipinayzd (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Good observation. But I was referring more to the names of ethnologuistic groups and their languages, where F (Filipino) is the common English spelling for the people of the Philippines and their national language, not P (Pilipino). The C is common for Ilocano in English, not K. But I understand that since we are all accustomed to using Taglish that we tend to forget which term or spelling we're using, if its English or our local language. Unless the local term has become more commonly used in English, we should stick to using English terms where available (and as they appear in reliable sources), like Pampango language which is by far more common in English than the local K, and V not B for Visayan people and language.--RioHondo (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Sambali language#Requested move 2 September 2015.--RioHondo (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Original Pilipino Music (OPM)[edit]

I have read and edited some articles about Filipino musicians and bands and I saw that Original Pilipino Music or OPM is one of their genres. Is OPM really considered as a genre or what? Should we state that OPM is one of the genres of a music act just because he or she is a Filipino? Israel's Son 09:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In that there is a set of core sounds/characteristics that are unique to Original Pilipino Music, from the Juan De La Cruz Band to the Apo Hiking Society to The Dawn to The Eraserheads to Sugarfree to Up Dharma Down, (And more obviously from Basil Valdez and Renz Verano to Aegis and whoever these newfangled other artists are) and so on, mixing and breaking across other genres (OPM Alternative has a distinctive sound, for example). So I think there is some value to calling it a genre. The problem is that this broad category is the only descriptor for some of these acts, but also includes acts that aren't distinctively Filipino, soundwise. (My first thoughts for examples: Outerhope and The Ransom Collective, and most of the OPM Blues Acts, which all reflect their respective global genres so much that I'm not sure they're distinguishable soundwise as Filipino. (Although of course that's not a bad thing. Just... an observation?)) More importantly, good luck finding reliable sources that describe the boundaries of the genre so that you can define that sound properly on Wikipedia. (Not sure this reply is helpful, but I've got to get to work now. hehe. Will be back to participate in this discussion further later. - Alternativity (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)