Talk:Men in the Philippines

Objections to this article

This is a non-encyclopedic article that has major flaws which should have been addressed before it appeared in DYK.

• It's full of opinions and sweeping generalizations that, even if they were well verified, would still be opinions and sweeping generalizations that need to be presented as such.
• Helpful modifiers like “often portrayed as” and “traditionally thought to be” are almost completely missing from this article. In it’s current form, the article should more accurately be called “Stereotypes about Men in the Philippines” yet the word “stereotype” is completely absent.
• Many of the most outrageous statements made in this article are apparently based from material at “hubpages.com.” This looks like an extremely dubious source for the sort of statements presented here. In fact, this is a blog. If you click on “start a new hub” you will arrive at a three part process. "ONE: Sign up, Absolutely free and takes just seconds. TWO: Create a Hub, Make a web article quickly and easily. THREE: Make money When visitors to your Hubs click on ads." A blog in which sensationalist prose is used to attract visitors for profit is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia.

NB - Courtship in the Philippines is a “companion article” created by the same editor as part of the same DYK hook. I didn't scrutinize every sentence, but the general tone is entirely different. Phrases like “a traditional Filipina is expected…” put the statements that follow them into context. I have no major problem with Courtship in the Philippines. --Griseum (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The references are not sufficient to support the claims made in the article. One way to improve it would be to delete or dial down the questionable claims about the unique psychology of Filipino men and add factual information that is verifiable (demographics, health etc.). Possibly a better approach would be to move any useful bits to Culture of the Philippines or Demographics of the Philippines and delete the present article. 174.1.52.49 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is currently being improved to meet your concerns. - AnakngAraw (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that’s YOUR view. And of course, incredibly arrogant and egocentric as you are, you don’t realize, that your opinion is ALSO just an opinion and sweeping generalizations. In other words: If you hate how you are, first fix yourself. Then learn, that not everyone has to bow to your tiny view of the world. There is nothing wrong with this article. There’s also nothing wrong with you having your own views. What’s wrong here, is that you assert, that your very very personal views, are globally true for the whole universe. And what’s even more wrong, is that you strive to enforce your personal views over those of others, by acting as if your views were the true ones. In other words: Censorship and totalitarian control (by you). Of course, Wikipedia is at fault here, because it’s from its morally rotten core built to support this way of thinking. Otherwise you could make your view of Wikipedia, like everybody else, and nobody could even touch anyone else’s edits. Ever. And for that I hate you, and everything that you represent. Go to Nazi Germany, where this way of thinking was in big fashion. — 88.77.189.202 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Three tags added to the article were removed by article author AnakngAraw before any changes were made. Changes have since been made, and they look ok at first glace, but since 3 editors had a problem with the old version, I am replacing these tags until at least someone else reviews this. There is no harm with leaving a tag in place for a few hours longer than necessary. However the reverse situation, premature removal of the tags, effectively says "this article is okay now" even if it isn't. I would just review it myself rather than complaining but there has been tons of new material added, text is pretty dense, and I can't schedule the time to that immediately. --Griseum (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I had a chance to look at the article. Excellent changes have been made. The only part that really concerns me is the "Physique" section as that's still only referenced to the blog I mentioned. I’m removing the tags anyway although another editor might still object (later if not sooner). Maybe for that section you could say “according to one observer” (or similar) and then give a block quoted text. Policy-wise I don’t think there’s a difference, but to me that seems somehow a little more upfront about the fact that that particular info is from where it’s from (in a way I can’t quite express without rambling). Anyway, if you do use a block of quote, don’t be afraid to use ellipses (…) to leave out less relevant stuff. Thanks for making improvements. --Griseum (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Article has additional nice images too. - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippine society a matriarchism.

Indeed, Philippine society has assigned more freedom, power, and privileges to Filipino men than women with regards to participating in social affairs and activities.

It’s sad, that someone felt, he had to put men in a “evil” light again, because of his own social conditioned mind twists.
The whole text before that line did describe a man-woman relationship where the man is not even allowed to speak except when asked, and where she is in control. Indeed a fully-fledged matriarchism.
I don’t condemn social structures of communities. If they are happy that way, why not? (And indeed that means, that a patriarchism is just as much OK, if the people in in are happy that way.)
What I condemn, is that someone thought he had to put his own “modern” western sexist views in there. Such people should go back into the incredibly small box their thoughts reside in, and think – I mean really think! Think for themselves! – before they dare to write something.
— 88.77.189.202 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)