Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 04:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing phrase in the lede[edit]

The final sentence of the lede states "Other peoples of non-native and/or mixed descent include those such as, Filipino Mestizos (especially those of historical Mestizo de Sangley (Chinese Mestizo) and Mestizo de Español (Spanish Mestizo) descent or the mix of all of which)..." (emphasis added). I will remove the extraneous comma, reconcile the improperly nested parentheses, and standardize the two Spanish phrases, but what is meant by "...or the mix of all of which)..."? Bricology (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bricology: It refers to the Tornatrás, but this was an old term used during Spanish Colonial Times in the Philippines to refer to either a mix of Spanish and Chinese or the mix of the Spanish mestizo and Chinese mestizo, so having generally all of both ancestries from Spanish, Chinese, and native Filipino ancestry all together or just Spanish and Chinese. During Spanish Colonial Times, the Tornatras were usually the rarer kind, whereas Chinese mestizo was the more common more populous one but the Spanish mestizo held more social prestige and was respected and widely known more. In modern times due to generations of intermarriage, many Filipino mestizo descendants can already be described as such and also fit the bill like Tornatras, but the term is now obsolete and no longer used or widely known in public, instead the mainstream public in the Philippines usually just recognizes the term "mestizo" / "mestiso" (m) or "mestiza" / "mestisa" (f). Although in the Philippines today, the more common kind of Filipino mestizo descendant you can encounter are descendants of Chinese mestizos, but typically these sorts of people have families that don't reliably keep track of their ancestry or care about that sort of thing, so they will usually tell you that they are just "Filipino", of which is a nationality citizenship as per Philippine nationality law, so sometimes some like to falsely claim they might've had Spanish ancestry (a colonial residue behavior stemming from the Spanish colonial era cuz it was socially prestigious and beneficial to have Spanish ancestry back during that time) for various reasons like they had an ancestor who they heard or remembered to have known to speak Spanish, but Spanish was the formal prestige language taught to the few upper class and early middle class filipinos during Spanish colonial times or based alone on their Hispanic surname, of which many common Filipinos do not know was provided to most all families in the Philippines, regardless of ancestry, around the mid to late 1800s due to the Claveria Decree of 1849 using the Catálogo alfabético de apellidos. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should "nations" be used, or some other term?[edit]

The lead makes extensive use of the term "Nation," which has ideological connotations not often noticed by Filipinos (who, as Randy David notes, are accustomed to accept "nationalism" as a default reality). Is the emphasis necessary? For example, should we prefer the phrase "ethnolinguistic nation" instead of the more anthropologically neutral "ethnolinguistic group"? I don't see a discussion of ethnic nationalism in the Philippines anywhere in the article which would serve as an explanation of the emphasis. - Batongmalake (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a bit like an imitation of the US usage of 'nation' for Native American ethnic groups (even for those groups that never had a nation-like structure of political organization). In the Philippine context, it makes little sense. I support using neutral "ethnolinguistic groups" here as proposed by Batongmalake. –Austronesier (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and note it's in some headers as well. The term is not used in the title of any source on this page, which would be unlikely if it was the common term. CMD (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked again, it all goes back to this string of IP edits[1] which is problematic in many other ways (all those caps!). I'll just go ahead and bring the page back to its original terminology and the usage in the sources. The WP:ONUS is then on whoever wants to have "nations" back. –Austronesier (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Austronesier (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggested clean ups[edit]

Above discussion made me take a critical look at this (quite large) page. The "Identity of the ethnic groups" section seems a bit strange. The first 4 paragraphs are what Models of migration to the Philippines (which should better be called Peopling of the Philippines?) already offers. Then at paragraph 5 some random studies about European ancestry in Filipino DNA are randomly inserted. Paragraph 6 mentions some historical migrations from South America, without explaining what that means today. Paragraph 7 gives some background on Chinese migration. Paragraph 8 mentions South Asian DNA. Paragraph 9 randomly mentions Americans and Amerasians and 10 and 11 talk about genetic analyses of Filipinos and phenotypes. Note that none of these paragraphs ever talk about any "identity". Perhaps what is really meant is "origin". The "History" section starts off with a small repeat of the first few paragraphs of the previous section. From then on all it does is talking about foreigners arriving to the Philippines, often without using sources.

I think this page should be a simple list article and not delve into details of genetics and migration, the Philippines is too diverse to mention it all in an orderly way. Note that we already have the earlier mentioned Models of migration to the Philippines, and Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies is quite extensive as well. I think we should move some material from this page to these two pages, and perhaps even take material from Filipinos to create an article called Genetic studies on Filipinos (which I just found out, is an existing redirect to even more genetic studies), like other articles under Category:Genetics by ethnicity.

Finally, the "Immigrants & mixed peoples" section is very poorly sourced. Then, starting with Australia and downwards, the same text is copy-pasted. It just introduces the country and then says "Likewise as those from above, there have been a few recent expatriates, largely tourists, retirees, students, businessmen, traders, diplomats, or returnee migrants from overseas Filipinos who have brought home marriages with Australians. They are sometimes confused with Americans, just like other Europeans, leading to many being called Kano (short for Amerikano).". Then repeat that times 10 for 10 copy-pasted countries. Without any sources. I hope we can tidy this up a bit. --Glennznl (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had endless discussions about the fundamental difference between the present-day ethnic composition of the Philippines and the ancestral makeup of the Philippine population in toto (which are conflated mostly because the terminological sloppiness coming from US discourse (ethnicity = race = ancestry)). But I digress.
It's good to have as much information as possible in WP, but it should be well-sourced and in its right place and context. So all what you propose here sounds good to me. Only a separate article about Genetic studies of Filipinos is a bit dystopian given the low quality of most genetics-related editing in WP. It will be a magnet for an amassment of primary studies, SYNTH, OR, like most other pages in Category:Genetics by ethnicity. –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, genetics often attract low quality edits, but it should be easier to control and protect the quality when it is all condensed on a single page, unlike the current situation where we have some info here, some info at Filipinos and some info at Prehistory of the Philippines (which is where the existing redirect Genetic studies on Filipinos leads). There is probably more out there. If we notice bad edits on this new and condensed page, we could protect it from IP users for example. That is much more difficult across multiple pages. --Glennznl (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, that's better than scattered all over the place and as a result unmanageable. –Austronesier (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important that genetics and migration be mentioned, so I do not (currently) support excising them completely. I do think, however, that the mentions should be brief - perhaps the first sentence of the lead of the appropriate article, followed by a statement that further discussion of those topics are there. (A rare writing approach on Wikipedia, but I think one which is merited here.) Just my thoughts.(As for Models of Migration, I like that it makes it clear that there are numerous ways of interpreting the peopling of the Philippines, but again, just my thoughts.) - Batongmalake (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier and Batongmalake: I created the new article Genetic studies on Filipinos. For this page, we still need to clean up the Origins section and see what should be moved to Models of migration to the Philippines. --Glennznl (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: Actually, avoiding redundancies is supported by WP's MOS. Redundancies always bear the risk of eventually diverging information e.g. if only one article is updated/modified (which in the worst case can lead to WP:POV forks). So I fully agree with your suggested approach, we should restrict information in non-specialized article to short summaries of the main article, giving only the most significant and best-sourced information; a complete removal is not necessary and not advisable. Obviously, opinions can differ about what needs to be mentioned in a condensed summary, but this can always be discussed.–Austronesier (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier and Glennznl: I see this process is in good hands! I actually got here through the work I was doing on Culture of the Philippines; I will work on that first but see how much I can contribute here. Sadly, genetics isn't my strong point. - Batongmalake (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier and Batongmalake: I notice that the paragraph about the "Out-of-Taiwan" model is even slightly more detailed than on the main page Models of migration to the Philippines. Also, if this is the most widely accepted theory, I doubt the usefulness of discussing earlier theories in detail, on this page. I propose to have a small introduction saying that there are multiple theories, but the "Out-of-Taiwan" model is the most widely accepted, and then give a short summary of what the theory describes. Other info should be moved to Models of migration to the Philippines or deleted. --Glennznl (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The historical and modern fringe theories should simply be removed from this page. I'm not sure how much is worth shifting elsewhere, the first paragraph has an odd take on Malay not in the sources, and the second is completely sourced from Solheim's papers. "Origins" and "History" need to be merged too, as they currently completely overlap. CMD (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A short mention of Beyer is ok, because that's what many people have learned and read for ages and probably also expect to find here. We must of course also say that it's outdated, but maybe there is a less patronizing way to do it (the widespread misconception by Filipinos that they are "Malays"). Solheim and Jocano are not necessary in a short summary. –Austronesier (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos[edit]

@Mlgc1998: While we (= kami) have been discussing about how to improve the structure of the article, you have added lots of text about Filipino Mestizos in the lede of the article, and also to Filipinos. I'm not inclined yet to fully revert as of now, but actually this should be updated first of all in the main article Filipino Mestizos, then summarized here somewhere in one of the sections below, and this in turn summarized in the lede paragraph here. There is absolutely no reason to mention e.g. the Tan, Sy, Gokongwei families together with their assets in the lede of "Ethnic groups in the Philippines". @Batongmalake, Glennznl, and Chipmunkdavis: can you please have a look at these recent additions? Is there a way to fix this massively WP:undue lede content without reverting it? –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize in the lead, then merge into the "Immigrants and mixed peoples" heading below? - Batongmalake (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier version of the lede (Special:Permalink/1050853495) already had sufficient summarized mention in the fourth paragraph. Per WP:BRD, I will restore the lede, and preliminarily simply move all further additions down to "Immigrants and mixed peoples", as suggested. –Austronesier (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlgc1998 and Austronesier: I agree with Austronesier. Filipino Mestizos is quite a short article, so anything about Mestizos that is not exactly relevant to Ethnic groups in the Philippines should be transfered there, after checking the value and sources of the content of course. --Glennznl (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier, Glennznl, and Batongmalake: In what way then have these additions supposedly not "improved" these articles? If it is too long, I have shortened it in the lede, but if this is about how this content is supposedly "not exactly relevant to Ethnic groups in the Philippines" or should "simply" just be moved to "Immigrants and mixed peoples". I'd dare not even ask how any of you really regard these ethnic groups in the Philippines, even based on just the layout structure of this article. The assets of these families show to the common reader, that is usually unfamiliar with the ethnic groups in the Philippines, of examples in the Philippines of these ethnic group's widely known contributions to the country, in case where the common audience of articles like this are often unfamiliar of their existence in philippine society or much about other people groups in the philippines, as opposed to the current structure of this article just focusing foremost on it's lowland austronesian christian native ethnic groups while all that are not are simply others and regarded as mere immigrants or some mixed people.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlgc1998: I won't speak for the others, since my contribution to the edits has not given me an in-depth familiarity with all the edits. But in broad terms, yes, the major problems with the lead involved length and proportionality. For the most part, leads shouldn't go much longer than five paragraphs, and in the details in the lead should be minimal because the details are supposed to be in the sections. In addition to that, it needs to cover all the relevant subjects in a more or less equal manner. As it stood, the article before Glennznl's edits gave a lot of paragraph space to non-native peoples. Without having gone through the present version (incorporating edits both from you and Glennznl), it seems much better now - largely because it is shorter. (Still long, to be honest, but more manageable than before.) Much of what was removed was, indeed, detail. Much of the problem was that the lead, as written, spent more time discussing non-native peoples than it did discussing indigenous peoples and lowland ethnic groups. The alternative would have been to beef up the discussion of indigenous peoples and lowland ethnic groups as well. As I have discussed, that would make the lead far far too long. This is why details like etymologies and companies owned belong in the subheadings, not in the lead. (Although the entirety of the article should be proportional as well.) Actually, I think "contributions to the country" of any of the groups (non-native, indigenous, and lowland) should be removed from the lead entirely. What needs to be there is their existence, the broadest strokes of their subgroups, origin, and history, and perhaps their interrelations with the other groups. Keeping in mind that if add a level of detail to one group, you need to add the same level of detail to other groups. That said, despite all our edits so far, this remains a very problematic article, lacking in sources and with a lot of imprecise wording. Let's keep working on it please? - Batongmalake (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: I've fixed the length on that previously. As for its proportionality, the lede previously also spent more time discussing native groups than any mention about non-native and mixed groups. The native groups already have its foremost position place in this article. If you beefed up the discussion of indigenous peoples and lowland ethnic groups as well, it will also warrant an equal beefing up for the non-native ethnic groups left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlgc1998 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, did I get it right? Did you just propose a proportion that is (Native)=(Non-native), as in (Lowland+IP+Moro)= (Non-Native) rather than Lowland=IP=Moro=Non-native? Not trying to clarify; that's what it sounded like. I proposed an outline for the "Lowland=IP=Moro=Non-native" formulaton in a new section for everyone's comments below, if that's what you mean. - Batongmalake (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, let's all practice wp:Assume Good Faith please? Apologies if I fell short in that regard, myself. - Batongmalake (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the lead as it is presently written, I think the Indigenous Peoples (IP) section of the lead needs work; there is no definition of IPs, so it's not clear what distinguishes them from the other peoples. And the jump from group to group feels random. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlgc1998: Looking more closely at the lead as it is presently written, there isn't any discussion of the contribution of the lowland peoples or of the IP groups to the country. Is there some reason you feel non-native peoples should be an exception? Genuine question because I want to fix the IPs section of the lead. (As I've said before, I do not think we want to add "contributions to the country" by either lowland or IP groups, since that would bloat the lead.)- Batongmalake (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: there isn't any discussion of the contribution of these peoples because nobody has written it yet, or many months or years ago, I also wrote many of these missing native lowland and highland IP and migrant groups because I was not satisfied with them being entirely missing or the vital details about them, but that's a lot of work for only me long ago before. That's also the reason why some of them are copy pastes or unsourced because I added them long ago to make sure they at least had something talking about their existence, cuz a lot of them do indeed exist that I've personally met or heard of yet mainstream ph society have usually not. With this, you may improve on that because previously, there was absolutely none about them on this article. Also, of course, I was not the only one who contributed to this article before since many of this content was here before I was here, especially the ones by the common majority who end up reading and editing this article. Also, from previous experience encounters with people from past weeks I've since encountered who had read this article and based their knowledge of theirs on this article and other such articles, the placement of all these native ethnic groups has affected their perspective and there are now some pan-"Austronesian"-minded (previously pan-Malay-race) people out there who do not know as much about the non-native ethnic groups in ph, especially the rarer minorities, where I and some peers have experienced racism online in other online platforms due to this. Have you ever experienced being told by your fellow countrymen that you're non-native ancestry and its history is simply not a factor or non-existent in this country or only associate you with the country of your ancestors yet several generations of your family and the family of many of your likewise peers have only ever known of life in the Philippines? and yet, we are told that we and our peers are basically assimilated to them as the majority just because we also speak their languages and our peers intermarry with these same groups accepting them as our peers too, so I recommend you to at least keep an eye out as well for such people, since the Philippines is more than just its native people.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlgc1998: Looking at the discussion so far, I don't think anyone disagrees with you about the importance of "non-native peoples." In fact, I would strongly encourage you to write more. The issues raised are technical in terms of how a Wikipedia article should be structured - what goes in the lead, how much each section can contain given the contents of other sections, etc. I think one major next step is the development or expansion of an entire Wikipedia article on non-migrant peoples. The strength of the reaction you got, I think, is due to the fact that your edits gave so much more emphasis to non-native peoples as compared to the other categories, in an article that is supposed to cover them all, especially in the lead. Since the lead is required to be short, there's really no choice but to distribute the detailed content in other places in the article. Expansion there is welcome, I think. Although at some point it will also have to be spun off into it's own article if there are too many details. (This is how Wikipedia grows, by the way, and it is... very fun.) I agree that this article, in its present form, is poorly written. In a way that's ironically unfair to almost all the groups. (A reflection, I agree, of the fact that the literature outside Wikipedia is slanted unfairly too.) Let's work within the wiipedia core content principles and lead writing guidelines? also work more constructively? I for one would love to keep collaborating with you. - Batongmalake (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Little to add to Batongmalake's observations. This article presents an overview about the ethnic diversity of the Philippines, and the lede summarizes this overview. No need to talk about "contributions" here, all the more if it only singles out a specific group; doing so is obviously not WP:NPOV.
As for the ordering, we can use population size, time of migration to the islands, or economic power. My personal preference is by time of migration, or less preferred, by population size. –Austronesier (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit worried that "time of migration" will result in the question of whether lowland populations or indigenous peoples should go first. But aside from that potential controversy, I agree it's a pleasant ordering. I do agreee population size is acceptable; perhaps it's a good compromise option if the lowlander/IP question is not definitively settled by the most updated RSes. - Batongmalake (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping back, I think the question here emerges from the overall poor state of the body. There seems to be a need to order items in the lead because this article is a (mostly unsourced) list, rather than an actual article. Putting more article content into the lead is not the solution, but Mlgc1998 is right that the overall layout and structure needs a rethink. CMD (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Being a linguist, I can hardly escape viewing e.g. Pangasinense and Ibaloi, or Visayans and Mansakans, each on par in terms of "nativeness". Probably we should have look at some modern overview sources to see how they handle this (also per CMD's comment below). I'll take a dive into the literature... –Austronesier (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the body of the article is horribly in need of work. But it's a huge article and one has to start somewhere, thus the focus on the lead so far. Just saying. :D But yes, time to focus on body sections.- Batongmalake (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precolonial Chinese and Japanese settlements[edit]

A technical question for everyone: the lead currently attributes the arrival of non-native peoples to the advent of the colonial era. My concern is that this excludes the well-documented existence of at least Chinese and Japanese populations long before Magellan and Legaspi. Should those populations be considered native? Or do we draw the line further back in history? The problem with that last option is that these populations remained distinct, either by choice or because they were relatively new settlers. Either way, do we have a technical definition of non-native somewhere so this can be clarified? - Batongmalake (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is terminologically problematic. I prefer "autochthtonous" over "native". People who have been around for many generations are native by all standards. ("indigenous" would be best, but that term has acquired a ideosyncratic meaning in the Philippine context).
As for the timeline: is there strong evidence for a continuous stable presence of these migrant communities? Merchant outposts come and go, so we need good sources here. –Austronesier (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A native non-native distinction is certainly not a term that sounds familiar in this context, although perhaps I am missing a body of work. Even putting aside the pre-hispanic migrations, I think the terms should be avoided unless they are particularly common in reliable sources for the particular group. CMD (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: The settlements I had in mind were the Chinese settlement permitted by Lakandula in what is now San Nicolas, Manila, and the Japanese settlements in Bolinao, Pangasinan and Agoo, La Union. There is no record of how long these settlements existed before the Spanish came along but they were stable (or stable enough) by every functional standard of the word. These were certainly not seasonal visitors. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "continuous". These groups most likely fully assimilated and are not part of the present-day Chinese Filipino and Japanese Filipino communites. (Btw, the Japanese_in_the_Philippines#Settlements says in the last sentence The relatively light complexion of the natives of Bontoc and Banaue is probably a result of the early contacts between the Japanese and other islanders from south of Japan and the natives of the Cordillera, based on a 1906 book. Brrrr.....) –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I misunderstood your first comment, then, Austronesier. My only point was that some kind of presence by these foreign groups existed. I did not think it important that the same specific settlement continue to exist as a separate entity. I think the fate of the Lingayen Japanese settlements is clear - if you look forward a few decades into the Spanish period, there are no more records of them, so it's safe to assume they no longer exist. As for the Chinese settlement in Tondo, a reading of future texts suggests that they were integrated into the Parians when they were formed. I am not sure that either example represents a continuous settlement, only a general sense of general contiguity (if that's the right term). Not objecting to what you're saying, but I don't entirely understand the signficance... yet. Or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill and this isn't so significant as to merit mention int he article?- Batongmalake (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree about the actual facts. The question rather stems from the idea to assign modern Filipino ethnic groups into broad categories (which most sources do too), with apt labels and sound criteria (such as "post-1565 immigrant" groups etc.). –Austronesier (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

@Mlgc1998: I have removed again two sources because you have used them to bolster a statement about the population size of Mestizos, especially Chinese Mestizos, in spite of the fact that they are about different things, and in one case not even a WP:RS.

  • National Geographic[2]. The full text goes:

The reference population is based on people living in the Philippine archipelago. The large Southeast Asia/Oceania component is indicative of some of the earliest settlers of the islands of Southeast Asia some 40,000 years ago, when much of the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagoes were connected to mainland Asia. The East Asia component, in contrast, is associated with the migrants from China and Taiwan who expanded south, spreading Austronesian languages and rice cultivation some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.

Clearly, the text does not mention anything about Chinese Mestizos, but in fact ends Filipino ethnogenesis with the Out-of-Taiwan migration–which is of course wrong. Our initial lead was better, as it actually takes into account the groups which arrived in the Philippines during colonial times and after independence.
  • Senate press release. This is not a WP:RS for statements about the ethnic make-up of the Philippines. Further, "Filipinos with Chinese descent comprise 22.8 million our the population" does not equal "Chinese Mestizos". Chinese descent can vary, it can mean one or fifteen out of one's great-great-parents, or anything inbetween. Filipinos don't self-identify based on a one-drop rule, but based on their cultural background. Some are aware of Chinese ancestry, some aren't; some proudly consider this part of their identity, some simply don't care. But you cannot construct an entire 22.8 million Mestizo-population based on the Angara figure.

Please don't reinsert these sources without discussion and consensus about their actual content and usefulness for the article. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment - this is why we the lead needs to contain clear delineation of the population categories.) - Batongmalake (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: In the first place, before you speak for how most Filipinos supposedly self-identify as, the elephant in the room for this article is that Filipinos don't even officially or socially need to self-identify oneself to any ethnic group, since the Philippine census nor any official body during one's life in the Philippines does not even require to ask anyone about whatever ethnicity they are. There are no "Ethnicity: " nor "Ancestry: " nor "Race: " boxes or fields in any government ID nor document about oneself in the current modern Philippines, nor would it be based on any self-identification nor ancestry record nor mother tongue natively spoken, unlike other widely known and/or neighboring countries with such norms. The self-identification you're referring to is but an opinion anyone can make, which can even vary throughout their lives if they or anyone else even thought of thinking about it, on them. Many even superficially proudly claim whatever descent they discover about themselves, regardless of their cultural background. I have not claimed of any "one-drop rule" you are on about nor that these "Filipinos of Chinese descent" nor any of these sources to be solely where Filipino Mestizos can be quantifiably referred to with their existence in the population, yet you have raised this "one-drop rule" or even a one-to-speak rule that you were stating assuming all such Filipinos of such background to self-identify, on the implication that they'll solely identify to one of the major lowland ethnolinguistic groups nor even care to identify with any of them besides their nationality as a "Filipino". Identity politics is an ugly thing in many other countries. I don't suggest you can speak for what many other Filipinos regard themselves as, especially when such a system is not at all currently ingrained in Philippine society, but widely so for widely known countries most Filipinos know about, such as the US, or some of our neighbors, such as China or Singapore or Malaysia, who also practice such ethnic or racial identification systems ingrained systemically in their government and societies. More so, especially given the Philippines' recent colonial history under the American colonial era, when American educators and authors started studying the ethnic groups in the Philippines with a more specific light akin to their own racial perspectives, sometimes even regarding only the native filipinos as "The Filipinos", when the Philippine revolutionaries and ilustrado figures themselves that founded the country originally envisioned a more inclusive sense for all citizens, when the Spaniards themselves, at least from Spain, during the Spanish colonial era previously only reserved the word to those ethnic Spaniards born and raised in the Philippines. In this sense, the sources above for those groups stated in the previous sentence show some evidence of their share of existence throughout the population that you cannot deny based solely on what you assume their supposed self-identification is or how that matters to their actual ancestry, whichever the proportions may be. The placement of the source does not even specifically pin this amount to Mestizos that you interpreted it as, nor however that source interpreted that amount to be about. Please don't continue to remove and deny their share of the population based on how you view those populations.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity ≠ race, so why do bring up "race", when this article is about "Ethnic groups in the Philippines"? That's a red herring. Just as the denouncement of anthropological scholarship (which didn't end in 1945) as based on "own racial perspectives". And it's ironic to see you cite inclusivity when your initial edits started with a disproportionate adulation of a particular group, remnants of which are still here in the present version of the lead.
If it's a red herring, it sure did catch your attention lol. I mentioned it in case anyone thought of treating it that way, which is very important for anyone writing an article about "Ethnic groups in the Philippines", since many in the Philippines and throughout the world sadly aren't exactly clear on the differences there, which is why that sort of perspective didn't end in 1945 and is still present among many throughout the world. Also, it's your opinion what was supposed to be disproportionate, especially for someone who was fine with keeping the previous lede that disproportionately put the placement of the supposed "autochthtonous" groups above all with most supposedly falling under Austronesian, while the rest supposedly should just be moved down because apparently they are all simply a "success story of cultural assimilation" under the supposed "autochthonous ethnic groups".--Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Angara press release, I'd like to hear the opinions of Batongmalake, Chipmunkdavis and Glennznl (in alphabetical order), before I bring it to WP:RSN. Actually, I could just restore to old lead per WP:BRD, but I'll leave edit-warring to those who are here to right great wrongs. –Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add the Philippine census nor any official body during one's life in the Philippines does not even require to ask anyone about whatever ethnicity they are Yet the NSO decently asked about ethnic self-identification (nothing else matters in a open and democratic society) and got 99.99% responses [3]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet in a democratic society as well, the NSO never did require everyone in the country to answer any question about their supposed ethnicity. I'm not sure what you mean by "got 99.99% responses", since I do not personally know anyone during 2010 nor on any census that was ever asked anything about ethnicity.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The press release[4] is certainly not a great source for Chinese descent, although it's not unique in its claims; the main Philippine article uses a Xinhua article from the same time period to bring up similar numbers. A better source would be great there too, but even taking both sources at face value, they are certainly not a basis for extrapolating "Chinese descent" to equal mestizo. CMD (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: there are a great many other, high quality sources that should trump this. I agree that in this case, it likely won't pass as a WP:RS. My thing is, though, that I (and this is just me) don't want to touch it until a reliable source replacement with a systematic discussion can be found. It allows a bad source to stay on for a while, but it also means we avoid having to rewrite the paragraph again and again until we find a source (and paragraph organization) we can all agree on.- Batongmalake (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which Xinhua article are you referring to? Also, I'm not sure what sort of "mestizo" you mean since in the first place, "mestizo" can refer to more than just those of mixed chinese descent and there are also many among the chinese filipino community that are not purely ethnic chinese and fall under the mestizo category though the press release also simply stated "Filipinos with Chinese descent", which when referring to the citizenship can mean anything, if basing on ancestry proportions. Either way, there's an acknowledgement in the government itself that people of such background, whether Chinese Filipino or Filipino Mestizo, contribute a considerable proportion of the country's population, which is why they even passed the law that the press release was reporting on.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tabon man was not Negrito[edit]

I deleted the sentence that said "The first known were the people of the Tabon man remains." This has been disproven by an examination of the Tabon man remains. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lowland/Upland and Indigenous/...mainstream?[edit]

Hi all. It seems to me that this article currently creates a dichotomy of "Lowland vis a vis Indigenous," which is confusing to say the least. I'm trying to figure out if there should be separate paragraphs for Lowland Christian peoples and Lowland Moro peoples. But I can't figure out the boundaries between categories since they aren't actually mutually exclusive. And it just makes migrant peoples/ non-native peoples all so much harder to clearly define. This is a structural problem, I think. Any suggestions how to fix it? - Batongmalake (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the lowland/indigenous/moro split before. I don't find it too confusing, can you expand? CMD (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On my question? I don't think so; I think I just need guidance on how to perform the split, and what terms to use. On the other hand, if you mean expand the article, well... I think I just need guidance on how to perform the split, and what terms to use. - Batongmalake (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what exactly the point of confusion is. Is it whether Moros should be groups with "lowland" groups? If that is the question, I would say no. CMD (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. It's "what we do with the any lowland/upland dichotomy within the Moro population?" And whether Moros who live in lowland locations should be part of the mainstream? I sorta always thought they were equally part of the mainstream as lowland Christians, but maybe that's just me? It has always been a point of confusion on my part, but does "the mainstream of Filipino society" really just equate to Christianized lowlanders? This seemed disingenuous to me, and everytime someone has said that, I thought it was an exercise in hyperbole, wanting to inflate the influence of Christianized lowlanders. But nobody has ever actually shown me numbers, or even actual definitions of what delineates a group to as included in or excluded from that majority. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it's "Christian lowlander - Moro - NonMoroIndigenousPeoples - MigrantPeoples"? Not "Lowlander-MoroUplandIPs-NonMoroUplandIPs-MigrantPeoples"? Sorry I feel ignorant now. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the lead, there's probably not enough space to go into too much detail regarding divisions of divisions. My impression is that Moros are not considered traditionally within the "mainstream" so to speak. For example, this page mentions a few divisions in society, including a two-way split between indigenous and others, and a three-way split between Christians, Moros, and indigenous people. I don't think it's too much hyperbole, given the demographic difference and the dominance of the national capital if nothing else. CMD (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source[5] distinguishes three groups: Moros (non-IP and IP), non-Muslim IPs and the rest (non-IP, non-Muslim, thus including Mestizos and Chinese). Encyclopædia Britannica goes its own ways[6] without mentioning Moro groups at all, but Negritos, Chinese Mestizos and later immigrants (in this order) at the end of the overview. This source[7] is surprisingly uninformed in its terminology, distinguishing between "Christian Malays [sic, in 2015!]", "Muslim Malays" and "Igorot" leaving us wonder what happened to Chinese, Mestizos, Negritos, and IPs practicing traditional religions.

In any case, most sources agree having a single wider Moro group in rough classifications. –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've tried to use two of those classification systems in the first paragraph: the IP/Non-IP Dichotomy (in the first sentence), and then the Moro, Non-Moro IP, and Non-Moro non-IP categories expounded upon, each with their own sentence. It's a bit confusing that the PIDS study, which cites PSA Census data, has numbers that don't seem to add up, no matter how I double check the addition. So I've decided not to add numbers whenever the article didn't state them in the main text. (15 Moro groups are listed in a table.) I think the PIDS source can be useful for standardizing the discussion of each group, now - with Migrant groups using a different set of sources, but roughly following the PIDS outline.- Batongmalake (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of random ethnic group listings[edit]

Hi all, just letting you know that I'm going to delete this sentence because it's just a random list:

Major lowland ethnolinguistic groups from north to south include, the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans (Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray, etc.), Zamboangueño, Moro, and many more.

I have replaced it with a list of groups with populations greater than 1 Million, based on the PIDS source, which is as follows:

The most populous of these groups, with populations exceeding a million individuals, include the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans (Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray.

I notice a similar random list on the Immigrant Peoples paragraph. I suggest that list should be de-randomized too. - Batongmalake (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a wisely chosen and explicitly mentioned cut-off is a great idea; people always feel tempted to say "hey why is my folks not in here?" and add the item of their choice to the list. –Austronesier (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing after structural changes in the body on 5 November 2021[edit]

Hi. I've just made a number of structural changes in the article body, reflecting changes in the structure of the lead. Specifically, I've given the Moro peoples a top level category, and then followed the Moro-NonMoroIP-Others ordering used by the PIDS source. I think we have consensus on these changes, but I want to pause my editing here for a day or two so that others can comment on whether I've made any big boo-boos while doing the editing. - Batongmalake (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Lead outline[edit]

Hi, may I suggest an outline for the lead, so we can all proceed with the hard work of fixing the body?

1. First paragraph

1.1 The Philippines is inhabited by more than 175 ethnolinguistic groups, [insert any universal commonalites here] ,which are broadly categorized into Group A, Group B, and Group C, and so on.

2. Group A. 2.1. Group A first came to the Philippine archipelago (when)2. They are generally concentrated in (where) 2.2. They are characterized by (what) although there are (main exceptions) 2.3. According to the latest statistics (specify), X% of Filipinos count themselves as Group A.

3. Group B Repeat

4. Group C. Repeat.

Revisions welcome, but maybe let's build consensus here so we can stabilize the lead? Thanks - Batongmalake (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it reflects the existing article body, Group->Group->Group is not a great way to structure the lead. I've just noticed that ru:Народы Филиппин is considered a featured quality article, and I much prefer its lead. The first paragraph provides a high-level overview of the number of groups, the fit within the overall population, and commonalities (eg. Austronesian languages). The second mentions historical migrations and the broad overarching groups we have touched upon above. The third paragraph covers varying socioeconomic capital and status as well as cultural conflicts. CMD (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Structurally, the ru.WP lede is good, but content-wise, we can follow it only with care (e.g. it has outdated concepts of "race", only makes marginal mention of people of (partial) European and Chinese descent who are called wikt:пришлый (= 'alien, foreigner'), etc.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I withdraw from the particular task of ordering the lead paragraphs, then? I feel you guys know what you're doing better. Meanwhile I shall go hunting for reliable sources for things that need citations, and maybe fiddle around with content organization within each paragraph. :D - Batongmalake (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, please don't! I just felt I could lean back and appreciate your good efforts :) –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I'm certainly not saying we should rely on ru.wiki for content (or that it would meet en.wiki FA standards), I just took a look after seeing the star for a point of comparison. Re Batongmalake, I would certainly not ask you to withdraw! The lead needs work, I don't think there's much dispute on that. My comments are general thoughts, like Austronesier I appreciate someone looking into the topic and mean to encourage rather than discourage. CMD (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I had hoped to move on to other aspects of the article. But okay. Please watch my edits, though? There are a lot of sensitivities at play and I would like to be quickly corrected if I accidentally make any mistakes or misrepresentaitons, or shift the emphasis of the lead too far in any one direction. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: I think the lead looks good now, thanks for the work. --Glennznl (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article on the various Immigrant Populations in the Philippines.[edit]

The more I look at it, the more I think the reason we're having trouble in this discussion is the lack of a collective article on the various Immigrant or Expatriate Populations in the Philippines. There are articles for the individual groups, of course, but without the larger article, we have no collection of broad information on the patterns of Immigration of these peoples, and of their degrees of assimilation into Filipino society. What say you, fellow editors? A new side-project? (Sheesh, I'm really just here because I started working on Culture of the Philippines.) - Batongmalake (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a new article could be justified, but if you don't want to get into that much commitment, I would suggest putting your envisioned information into this article (and split later if desired). CMD (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake and Chipmunkdavis: I think using the redirect Immigration to the Philippines to create a page similar to es:Inmigración en Filipinas would work well. I think the table under "Recent modern immigrants and expatriates" should be transfered to this new page. --Glennznl (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I just scraped together information from various articles and created Immigration to the Philippines. --Glennznl (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've already discussed this in bits and pieces, but may I request comments towards a clearly defined consensus please? (1) Do we prefer to use "Immigrant peoples" or "non-native peoples?" (2) (Assuming this group is separate from the immigrant/non-native peoples previously mentioned) Is there a difference betwen the terms "mestizos," "mixed heritage peoples," and "Filipinos of mixed descent"? And (3) If there is no contextual difference among the three terms under "2," is "Mestizo" preferred? (4) Is "mixed peoples" really still a used term, and should I have listed it among the choices in 2? (It feels a bit... dated... to me.) - Batongmalake (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a quick note: (1) What is the preferred term in modern sources? (2-4) "mixed" is to vague (children e.g. of a Ilocano/Waray couple are "mixed" too) whereas "Mestizo" is an established term. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology[edit]

Eithnic procedure 182.54.144.92 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines&oldid=1201820628"