Talk:Philippines/Archive 6

Adding references

Now that the article has more or less stablized, lets add refs so that this can at least be a GA article. --Howard the Duck 10:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged lots of passages with {{fact}}. That will make it easier for us to cite the article. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the longest river?

What? --Howard the Duck 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Maybe this should be researched. But the most famous is probably Pasig(?).--Jondel 10:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's the Cagayan River. Coffee 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough, it is not mentioned there how long it is. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fi / Phi

What's the go? Can someone possibly explain that in the article? Filipino is an odd way to spell it given that it is said pilipino if anything. Where did the replacement of phi with fi in some literary references arive? What information can anyone provide on the matter? Perhaps we can bash up something for the article itself, because the blazingly strange inconsistancies of the nomenclature and a lack of address in the articles opening paragraph seems unsound and unencyclopaedic to me. 211.30.80.121 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

--193.203.200.2 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC):It's the English/Spanish difference. (I asked the same question not too long ago!)Cameron Nedland 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But Phillip in Spanish is still Phillip? Furthermore, where'd the L go? :P It's been bugging me for about a decade you know, I've just never bothered asking. :P 211.30.80.121 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Phillip in Spanish is Filip, (Spanish doesn't use ph or dubled consonants). It confuzed the hell out of me forever too bro.Cameron Nedland 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Phillip in Spanish is Felipe. And hence the name became Felipinas. However, there were different ways of spelling Felipinas until Filipinas became the most popular way of referring to the country. Then since many Philippine languages lack "f" sound, it became Pilipinas. --Chris S. 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Phillip in Spanish is Felipe indeed, however by that time the most prestigious language was Latin and hence Philippus, from there is where we go to the Filipinas in Spanish. Mountolive 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's probably why there are two p's in Philippines. By the way, I'm searching for material related to the Philippines in Latin to beef up the the latin wiki.--Jondel 05:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Filipinos used Filipino in English and Pilipino locally while foreigners (some foreigners) used the word Philippine rather than Filipino... peads 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At that time, Phillip was also named el gran Filipo (e.g. by Francisco de Quevedo). Filipo is still the standard Spanish name for Philip II of Macedon. So there is nothing strange about they being called Filipinas by Spaniards.

Well In england Phone is Fone, Photo is Foto and Sulpher Is Sulfer (although the spelling has recently been chanded to Sulfer) also Philadelphia is Filadelphia and If I am not mistaken the Philipines Has always been pronounced Filipines and Philip has always meen Filip. Although I dont know why would be called the Philipines but but people from the Philipines would be called Filipino... But they are so who cares why? SKRIBUL 08:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know so many people were confused about the whole Philippines-Filipino thing. I hunted down a bunch of misspellings of "Philippino" and "Philipino" a while back. Come to think of it, if I were a foreigner, I probably would be confused too. It is weird. zephyr2k 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought Americans were called United Staters or Statesiders. --Howard the Duck 14:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

People from the Philippines are called "Filipinos" because this is the original term (and spelling) used by Philippine-born Spaniards during the early colonial period, later by all persons born in the country irrespective of ancestry, and later by Philippine nationals after 1898. The word is indeed Spanish, as Spanish was the official language of the country for more than 3 centuries. But the term is also built into tagalog, ilocano, cebuano, ilonggo, and other native languages, and therefore considered purely Filipino too. Nothing wrong in my opinion, in using this term to describe "people from the Philippines" despite the spelling not strictly being English. Regards, Javier

Fi versus Pi

That's very informative. To add to the previous query however, please clarify the use of Filipino and Pilipino. Is there really a significant difference? I was told Pilipino refers to the person and Filipino refers to the national language.

Filipino may also refer to the people, the 1987 Constitution refers to the "Filipino people," the preamble starts "We, the sovereign Filipino people...". --Howard the Duck 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reads like Government Propaganda

Some of the sections read like they were written like informercial pamphlet written governmental propaganda written to make the country look amazing and great for foreign investing, some it's actually more ludicrous than effective. This should be an encyclopaedia. The reality is that this country is extremely poor and commits several human rights abuses with children in prisons, cages, et al. In article it looks like a powerhouse speedlighting at 6% growth on way to surprise the world as the most mangificent Asian tiger - A load of governmental BS if you consider the pornographic debt their budget issues. Just saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.112 (talk • contribs) August 21, 2006 at 23:12.

Edited for tone, still needs some work, and definitely citations for some of the claims would be nice. I'm not sure about what you said about children in prisons and cages though, or about saying that "this country...commits several human rights abuses" To my knowledge this is limited to some vigilante groups, some member of the military and police and some members of rebel groups. --Edward Sandstig 00:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See the Adding references section, above. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To unknown: Of course you're not going to put your name, so we don't know who you are. You're not Filipino, are you? And also, it is incorrect for you to say "the country has committed several human rights abuses", because it is the government and rebel groups that do these abuses, and neither the government nor rebel groups represent the whole country. Also, neither is the country "extremely" poor. Many other countries in Africa and Asia are much poorer, although I'd hardly judge a country on how "poor" they are, unlike you. The question is, why are you "just saying" this, anyway? Since as you say, this is an encyclopedia, if you wanted to propose changes, you would say them in a matter-of-fact-way. But you didn't. From the confrontational and offensive tone and wording of what you said, it seems you have some other reason for saying what you said. Maybe...to insult? Just saying, too. Besides, it's not even the government which edits this article, so obviously you're wrong in assuming that it's "government propaganda". Not nice.

202.73.162.190 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Concerned Filipino

As a concerned reader I want to add new information about the cheating of the elections. The Tribune (www.tribune.net.ph) quotes Escudero:

Rep. Francis Escudero, who was also present at the same forum, expressed apprehension at the possibility that Malacañang would again engage in its dirty tricks, threaten and scare the witnesses and their families to get them to recant their affidavits.

“When the time comes, everyone who wants to testify against Mrs. Arroyo are immediately taken into custody, bought off to recant their sworn statements, and with them even coming up with accusations that they had been forced by the political opposition to manufacture testimonies,” Escudero said. (5. September 2006)

By the way, we cant be sure if its true that it is the government who abuses human rights so it is wrong to say the "because it is the government and rebel groups that do these abuses". So far, we have no evidence that the government really did. And one more thing, for the sake of the country's image we cant say that the country is "extremly poor", You may say it in a more polite way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.109.224 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 17:19(UCT).

This should go at Philippine general election, 2004. --Howard the Duck 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Largest city - population or land area?

When you say largest city don't you normally refer to population rather than land area? Might still be worth noting that Davao City has the largest land area in the article itself, but for the infobox we may as well follow how the other Wikipedia country articles are structured. --Edward Sandstig 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, only QC should be there. --Howard the Duck 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Green Revolution

Any idea on how to deal with it? --Howard the Duck 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I initially thought that the user was using the link as a reference, but it takes you to a page to purchase the book. I've removed the link to the book and instead found some statistics on IRRI's website which can be used to back up the rise of production during the 70s. I've temporarily removed the sentence about the Philippines being a net importer as well since it'd feel pretty incomplete to say that without explaining the reason(s) why that's the case. We need either someone who's read the book in question to summarize the reasons why the Philippines is still a net importer, or a summary based off of a different source, preferrably online. --Edward Sandstig 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag of New Spain

Can I add it? Lest I be accused of anti-nationalist again... --Howard the Duck 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to add it in the History of the Philippines article. --Edward Sandstig 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --Howard the Duck 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thrid Largest Christian Nation????

I read this in the Religion Section... "The Philippines is the third-largest Christian nation, after the United States and Brazil."

I'm highly suspecious about that claim... we're only the 12-13 largest nation depending on who you ask but the United States and Brazil aren't the only big countries with big Christian populations.

92% of the Philippines is Christian.. that would be 76.4 million people (out of 83 million) that are Christian.

However including the US and Brazil... is Mexico, the 11th largest country: 95% are Christian making it have 101.65 million people (out of 107 million) that are Christian.

Even the Demographics of Russia suggest 58% of its populace are Russian Orthodox. That calculated out would be 83 million people.

Prehaps our intent was that the Philippines is the third largest Catholic Nation after Mexico and Brazil... however with illegal immigration into the United States as it is... perhaps the Filipino would be the fourth largest.

Definitely not the Christians' 3rd though. Someone please verify with me on this. PhilipDM 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We are at the process of adding references (see #Adding references above.) If we get to cite this we will be fine. --Howard the Duck 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Lets select the pics that should be added. Especially at the Economy section. Lets have a representative, one for Luzon, one for Visayas and one for Mindanao. Lets stop the Metro Manila-centrism. --Howard the Duck 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But i dont see any mindanao pics in there - insanedrivers

Because I can't find a suitable, freely-licensed image (the Zamboanga City CBD was the best that I saw) --Howard the Duck 04:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by 203.164.50.111 switching places of Spanish and Chinese in regard to mestizos

I'm referring to the edit by User_talk:203.164.50.111 where he switched the place of Spanish and Chinese in the sentence about mestizos.^[1] Could it be he meant to emphasize that the term mestizo isn't often used in modern times to refer to mixed Chinese-Filipinos where the term Filipino-Chinese (or Fil-Chi) is generally preferred? --Edward Sandstig 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it, IMHO, it doesn't affect as much as we perceive it to be. how about a linking to Filipino Mestizo though? --Howard the Duck 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Philippines was New Spain

The Archive of the Indies in Seville and Madrid states that During the colonial period, Filipinas was also called Nueva Espaňa (New Spain). All the Territory who were part of the viceroyalty of New Spain was New Spain itself. Philippines was New Spain. -- Gonzalo 2:34, September 20, 2006 (UTC)

That's why I removed the phrase "via Mexico", it is too confusing. "A Spanish colonial rule..." is simpler, direct to the point and more accurate. --Howard the Duck 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Military?

I see no reference of the miitary of the Phillipines --Johnston49er 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i guess everyone's lazy to do the military part... better check the Military of the Philippines- insanedrivers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.109.224 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 17:19(UCT).

I didn't realise there was a military of the philippines. Must be easy to over-look. Wanderer 15 Nov 06

What are you talking about? Like 25% of the population are retired soldiers! Do you ever leave the house? (Joke.)203.131.167.26 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in intro about ethnicity

Natsirtj^[2] recently replaced the paragraph that read:

The Filipinos came from Austronesian-speaking peoples, but there are also some Filipinos of mixed descent, known as mestizos, through intermarriage with the Spanish, Chinese or other nationalities.

With a direct copy-paste from the Philippine Department of Tourism's own website:

The Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish, and Arab blood. The Philippines has a population of 90 million as of 2006, and it is hard to distinguish accurately the lines between stocks. From a long history of Western colonial rule, interspersed with the visits of merchants and traders, evolved a people of a unique blend of east and west, both in appearance and culture.

I've edited the paragraph somewhat so that it doesn't violate any copyrights, and removed the obvious marketing speak. I'm considering removing the paragraph altogether though since the articles already getting too long and it seems more appropriate to deal with ethnic origins in the demographics section. Thoughts? --Edward Sandstig 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence is too long. The shorter sentence is also more accurate since contemporary anthropologists largely think that orginated from the original Austronesian speaking people from Taiwan instead of the people migrating from other parts of Southeast Asia. Then there's also the problem of copyright.--Chicbicyclist 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Austronesian Origin in History section

How come the condensed history section starts with the settling of Palawan then suddenly jumps to Magellan? Nothing happened between the two events? If I recall correctly, a very important thing happened. Well, two, actually. First, the Aetas reached the Philippines more than 10,000 years ago. And most important of all, the great expansion of Austronesians from Taiwan settled northern Luzon and gave rise to the majority(more than 90% of the population) of Filipinos today. It should at least be mentioned in a short sentence at the very least.--Chicbicyclist 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple changes by the same author, suggestion

Guys, I've noticed a number of authors making multiple edits in sequence. If you're not sure how something might look, I'd like to suggest you use the "Preview" button before committing your changes. :) --Edward Sandstig 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation

Who deleted the "the Philippines suffers from overpopulation due to a high birthrate"? It must be government propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.212.52.10 (talk • contribs) October 1, 2006 14:19 (UCT).

Cite sources and it will be posted. Disputable statements will be removed while uncontroversial are tagged with {{fact}}.

And no, I don't work for the government (I doubt if anybody here does). I even suspect some here are opposed to the government, lol. --Howard the Duck 13:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Philippines really overpopulated or is it just propaganda intended to blame poverty on one specific source? I understand overpopulation has more to do with available resources than population densities, but in the case of the Philippines the resources are available... if you can pay for it. Thus the problem appears to be more of income distribution than one of overpopulation. Growth and birth rates seem to be in line with many of the country's neighbours. --Edward Sandstig 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the Philippines is indeed overpopulated but such statement need a reference/source to prove it... and I don't think the Philippine government would attempt to vandalise Wikipedia... not in our knowledge anyway... Philippines has a problem not just in total population but also in population growth rate, birth control, etc... -- peads 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation is a relative thing. Sure, the Philippines is about the size of the American state Arizona but about twenty times as dense, but Japan is way denser and it hardly has the same problems. We can hardly cite overpopulation until we see some hard data, and this would be nearly impossible to research. The problems are the same as they would be with a quarter of the population: poor education, poor medical care, and poor jobs. The governmental organization here is poor, but when they get involved they usually screw things up worse (i.e. coding days). Those problems are way worse then overpopulation, which really only affects traffic. And the traffic sucks. 203.131.167.26 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Extension of Geography

I think that the Geography tab on the Philippines needs to be extended. What about the Flora and Fauna of the Philippines? Climate? Resources? If anyone could add them to article, it would be very helpful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninestrokes (talk • contribs) October 6, 2006 17:34 (UCT).

Government Propaganda

What hell is it with people and government propaganda? Maybe they are government propaganda!!!! Pinoy Pride!!!Australian Jezza 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the Arroyo government would mess at Wikipedia. And why people here say this is govermnent propaganda. Most of the editors here aren't even connected to the government. Please assume good faith. If you have a conflicting source, you can add it to the article with citations. --Howard the Duck 10:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a dictionary, folks. I don't think Arroyo would bother messing with an article that will be predominately read by Non-Filipinos. Remember - if you don't have an Internet connection over here you pay by the hour, and Filipinos prefer not to blow that money on online encyclopedias. I don't really blame them. 203.131.167.26 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Musicians

Does anyone know of any famous Filipino Musicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis1345 (talk • contribs)

Category:Filipino musicians --Howard the Duck 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest city

Just a reminder: Largest city refers to the city with the biggest population, NOT the city with the largest land area. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)