Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Filipinos

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

Total population

[edit]

The Total population figure asserted in the infobox has been undergoing changes recently. A few days ago, it was "~120 million", with no supporting source. Then, it was changed to 92,337,852 (2010 Census), citing that census. Now it says, 116 million, with "Combination of Filipinos living in the Philippines and Filipinos living abroad (OFW)" in a footnote which provides no verifiable support for that figure.

Here, I just edited the Overseas Filipinos article in an attempt to improve the assertions there abut the size of that population. My calculation there gives a figure for "Total Filipinos (2010)" of ~101.79 million. That does not include an estimated 3 million additional which this 2003 source (cited in the lead paragraph of this article) asserts were then working illegally abroad.

Unless sources are identified which support something different, I plan within the next few days to change the Total population figure in the infobox to agree with the "Total Filipinos (2010)" figure of ~101.79 million which is currently given in the Overseas Filipinos article. I will probably also add a mention of the additional 3 million reported by that 2003 source to be working illegally abroad over in that other article, and that may spark discussion over there which results in the population figure reported there being adjusted. Adjustments there might result in further adjustments here, but in any case these two articles ought to be kept in sync. Contradictions between articles can lead to messy resolution involving {{Contradict-other}}.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agila81 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC) The total population on this article has no source and is assuming that the entire population of the Philippines are Filipinos. How many millions out of the total population are of Chinese descent? How many of Spanish and/or white descent? How many are foreign tourists? etc. We are talking about the Filipinos of Austronesian stock, with brown skin, so the real figure is going to be quite lower than the exaggerated number displayed now. So even if there are 110 million 'Filipinos' around the world, about 100-105 million would be considered ethnic Filipinos.[reply]

Agila81 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, the Moros are citizens of the Philippines but are considered a separate ethnic group from Filipinos. However, they are included in the total population, and there are at least 5 million Moro. There is already a 'Moro people' article in Wikipedia. So in essence, the total number should be smaller than what is shown in the info box if Moros are taken out of this figure due to being a different ethnicity.[reply]

Agila81 @Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw. Total population in infobox with regards to Filipinos should be the brown-skinned Austronesian/Malayan natives that inhabit the country. However, the 100.9 million figure cited is from the latest Census results, and that number includes the ethnic Chinese, Spanish Mestizo, expats, non-citizen permanent residents and international tourists. So, subtracting these people, it would give a total Filipino population of around 96 – 99.5 million.Agila81 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

[edit]

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment about the RfC not being opened correctly has been challenged by several other editors. To my eyes there seems to be nothing wrong with the RfC. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. --T*U (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for consideration as being a Filipino

[edit]

Please treat this as the Discussion phase of WP:BRD.

This recent edit added citizenship and language requirements. No supporting source was cited. Here, I partially reverted that edit to remove these requirements. I haven't removed the ancestry requirement, but I observe here that this has the effect of asserting that some naturalized citizens of the Philippines are not Filipinos. It seems to me that this ought to be removed as well.

Adding the citizenship requirement would assert that people of Filipino ancestry who do not have Philippine citizenship (e.g., many Filipino Americans and others similarly situated in other countries) are not Filipinos. Adding the language requirement would have similar impact. I think both of these need discussion before being asserted here, and either a supporting cite would be helpful or a disclaimer that these requirements are "for purposes of this article" (or words to that effect).

If the mother tongue language requirement is to stay in, the issue of nomenclature raised by this edit needs to be discussed. Personally, I would favor Philippine language over Filipino language, but if a supporting source can be found for the requirements issue, that source may resolve the language nomenclature issue.

Please discuss. If no discussion develops, I'll also remove the asserted ancestry requirement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (and emotionally) I agree with the points you raise, Bill.
However, for Wikipedian purposes, I believe your changes are justified on the basis of removing (presently) unsourced material.
Members of my own family, although entitled by the provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines to be nationals of the Philippines are still currently denied Philippines passports - even though the Ombudsman has issued a directive saying that said denial is unlawful. This does not stop them regarding themselves as Filipinas (they certainly have the qualifying smile)! BushelCandle (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: Filipinos are the brown-skinned, Austronesian/Malayan natives that inhabit the country. Agila81 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My knee-jerk reaction after having read just your ping was that I should ask you whether that assertion is original research or supportable, and whether you feel that it is based on a neutral point of view. I see that your WP user page asserts that your main strengths are "strongly adhering to accuracy and neutrality", but that assertion strikes me as neither accurate or neutral. I don't know whether you intended this, but the assertion, as stated, could be interpreted as equivalent to an assertion that persons other than the brown-skinned, Austronesian/Malayan natives that inhabit the Philippines are not Filipinos. I am probably being overly literal and nitpicky about that. I assert that Philippine citizens are Filipinos regardless of their skin color or their country of residence, and I do not regard it as totally unreasonable for former Philippine citizens and even some persons of Filipino heritage who are not and never have been Philippine citizens to regard themselves as Filipino. I think that there can be, and that there are, separate and differing legal and cultural definitions of Filipino. I think that this article should clearly acknowledge that.
Looking back at my earlier comment which apparently prompted your ping, I see that it is from December of 2015 and relates to this edit by me. From my previous comment, I see that that my main concern was the inclusion of citizenship and language competence requirements in order to be considered Filipino for purposes of this article.
Looking at the current version of the article, I would opine that the final paragraph of the Late modern section, relating to citizenship, should be relocated to the lead section as the final paragraph there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]
RFC Closed - Gallery removed - It was decided here that Galleries shouldn't be in the infobox especially with Ethnic subjects. –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are issues with the infobox. A comment from an uninvolved user would be more helpful rather than edits wars nor reports to the admin notice board. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC) @User:PacificWarrior101, welcome to comment. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the issues, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ask User:PacificWarrior101. According to them, there are "personal preference" issues with the images. This seems to be unavoidable. Only human. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines and the gist of my comment was that discussion should commence here first and, only if it is unsuccessful or inconclusive, then move to other fora. BushelCandle (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thanks. That person is probably an inexperienced user so there must be good faith as well. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there rules for infobox galleries? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, there is! After a long discussion (mentioned in another section above) it was decided today(!!) that such galleries shall be removed from ethnic infoboes, see WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --T*U (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino ethnicity

[edit]

I've reverted this edit, the edit summary of which asserted that Filipinos are "not a single ethnic group". I see that the Ethnicity article defines that term as "a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences." That article also says, "Larger ethnic groups may be subdivided into smaller sub-groups known variously as tribes or clans". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos are NOT a single ethnic group!

They have over 150 different languages.

Come from many different races.

Many different cultures.

Most people at least classify the Philippines into 3 separate ethnicities between Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. My wife is an ethnic Hiligaynon.

Also, you cannot cite wikipedia!HeinrichMueller (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

[edit]

Haplogroup R1b is Western European. There is no way Filipinos have 13.33%!

That would make Filipinos 1/8th German/French.

My wife is Filipino, and according to her results from 23andme she is 00.1% European! HeinrichMueller (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 1/8th Spanish? --81.43.251.129 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

[edit]

The opening states:

"Filipinos (Filipino: Mga Pilipino) are a nation and ethnic group native to the Philippines that share a common Filipino culture and speak the Filipino language or one of the Philippine languages."

The majority of the population of the Philippines are not native to the Philippines. Native Filipinos account for a tiny percentage of the population.

"Filipinos are a nation" does not even make sense in English.

And "Filipino" is NOT an ethnic group. It is a nationality. Within this nationality, there are MANY ethnic groups and many cultures.

This needs to be changed, as it ruins the entire article. HeinrichMueller (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is vandalizing this. For example, I am a Filipino, but am of German culture, and German ancestry. The Philippines has MANY different races, cultures, and ethnicities. Saying that there is one race and ethnicity and culture is RACISM! HeinrichMueller (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

huang vs. wang

[edit]

This edit just caught my eye. Please see the discussion at Talk:Ma-i#huang vs. wang. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Zamboanga Peninsula

[edit]

The whole of Zamboanga Peninsula is NOT Cebuano "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippine_languages_per_region.png" The only area that are majority Cebuano Ethnic are Zamboanga del Sur and parts of Zamboang del Norte. whereas the Independent and Chartered City of Zamboanga is predominantly Zamboangueño Ethnic while Zamboanga Sibugay are comrpises of Zamboangueño Ethnic, Subanon Ethnic, Cebuano Ethnic and Ilonggo Ethnic, and that also includes those areas of Zambooanga del Norte near the boundary of Zamboanga City.

Hopefully the Map should be corrected! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Languages: Filipino vs. Tagalog, Spanish, Arabic, etc.

[edit]

These recent edits by an anon caught my eye. I don't want to get caught up in yet another tiresome Tagalog vs. Filipino language naming debate, but I thought I would mention this here. Also, it seems to me on the basis of Article XIV, Section 7 of the 1987 constitution that if the Spanish language is mentioned the Arabic language ought also to be mentioned.

SECTION 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.

Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

(emphasis added above by me) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanized caste system

[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It changed "other Spanish territories" to say " Spanish territories in Americas" in the lead sentence of the Hispanized caste system section. No edit summary was provided to explain the change and no supporting source was cited. The edited paragraph is tagged {{cn}}. I don't see any point in focusing there on Spain's American colonies; in fact, narrowing the focus of that sentence seems to put it at odds with the sentence which follows it. I have reverted the edit, per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. The edited paragraph needs a supporting cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

[edit]

This edit caught my eye. Out of curiosity, I checked the source cited and took a look at the article's edit history .

Source assertion ...; we also observed a modest amount of European genetic ancestry in individuals self-identified as Filipinos.
Initial insertion According to genetic study done by the University of California (San Francisco), Filipinos posses moderate amounts of European DNA coming from the Spanish settlers.
As edited According to a genetic study done by the University of California (San Francisco), Filipinos possess moderate amounts of European DNA coming from the Spanish and American settlers.

The link in the source citation goes to a copy of the cited source which only has the abstract viewable. I found the full text of the source viewable online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574246/. I don't fully understand the gobbledegook there, but I could not find support there for the ancestry history asserted by the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I took another look at the source and, as I understand it, the genetic information about Filipinos reported there came from saliva samples of 1,708 members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health care plan who self-identified as Filipino. It seems to me that this might not be a very good source to support an assertion about the genetic makeup of Filipinos in general. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos, for purposes of this article

[edit]

Following on this edit, I have changed "native to or identified with" to "native to or citizens of" in the WP:lead sentence of this article in order to remove the disagreement between the lead sentence and the WP:short description. Both "native to" and "identified with" are slippery terms, so this is a pretty slippery definition either way. Regardless, the two definitions ought to agree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Languages listed in the infobox

[edit]

This is a WP:BRD discussion.

  • This WP:BOLD edit by 89.164.136.128 removed English from the Languages section of the infobox, leaving "Primarily Filipino, and other languages of the Philippines" as its content, saying Neither widely or natively spoken.
  • I reverted this here, saying English is an official language of the Philippines -- so says the 1987 Philippine constitution
  • 89.164.136.128 undid my reversion here, saying It may be an official language of the country but this is the article about the ethnic group? The vast majority do not speak English even fluenty, let alone count bit as one of their native languages; it is taught as a second auxiliarily language; might as well add it to the Germans and Japanese people articles

At that point, I created this talk page section. I will let the unreversion stand for now, but I expect to reinsert English there in a few days unless persuaded otherwise by discussion to follow here. There is no user talk page for 89.164.136.128. I will create one and place notification of this discussion there, though I have little confidence that the anonymous editor involved will see that notice.

I don't have an axe to grind here, but I think that English belongs in the Languages section of the infobox. I note http://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Opinion-No.-14-05.pdf, which appears to be a 2015 opinion by the Department of Education on the topic of the K-12 education program in the Philippines (see also http://k12philippines.com/). In there, it says:

Aside from the Mother Tongue, English and Filipino are taught as subjects starting Grade 1, with a focus on oral fluency. From Grades 4 to 6, English and Filipino are gradually introduced as languages of instruction. Both will become primary languages of instruction in Junior High School (JHS) and Senior High School (SHS).

That reinforces my impression that English has a bit more relevancy in Filipino society than German and Japanese.

Also, though I do not currently live in the Philippines, I have spent a couple of recent decades in the country and I remember a number of prominent national and local newspapers there in English and don't remember seeing any in either German or Japanese.

Also, while living in the Philippines, I observed that many Filipinos who had never left the Philippines had a good English language conversational ability. My wife and I lived mainly in the Visayas. She is from Luzon and her main languages, in order of preference, are Ibang, ilocano and Tagalog; English was her fourth language. Her Visayan is limited to what bits of Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Romblon she picked up from contact, and she remarked to me that she often used English in day-to-day conversations with Visayan Filipinos because that worked better as a common language than Filipino/Tagalog.

Also, I note some assertions in the Wikipedia Languages of the Philippines article, including:

  • "While Filipino is used for communication across the country's diverse linguistic groups and is used in popular culture, the government operates mostly using English."
  • "Filipino is an official language of education and also the major language of the broadcast media and cinema, but less important than English as a language of publication (except in some domains, like comic books) and less important for academic-scientific-technological discourse."
  • and mention of "the prevalence of code-switching to English when speaking in both their first language and Tagalog."

Also, I note the following in a 2016 paper titled The Philippines, English, and Philippine English

Perhaps contrary to expectation as “shared” official languages, Filipino and English do not currently appear to be truly equal in the Philippines. In terms of volume, with some 58 million speakers, English is now more prevalent than any other language in the Philippines.Tagalog, in contrast, is used by only about 27 million Filipinos. Uneven sharing of status spreads further than sheer mass, however. English is now the primary language used in regards to government affairs, as well. For the most part, all new Philippine laws and other official court documents are written only in English. Additionally, English is the primary language used in education, business, media, and most other formal aspects of Philippine culture, with a majority of educated adults being bilingual in English and their native language or Filipino dialect.

For these reasons, it appears to me reasonable to include English in the Languages section of the infobox.

" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the IP in question but I propose a compromise. It shouldn't read either English nor Filipino as those are not native languages of the majority. It should only simply read "Langauges of the Philippines". You misunderstood the might as well add it to the Germans and Japanese people articles part I meant, you might as well add "English" to the Germans and the Japanese peoples' articles, as if those ethnic groups speak English widely as well. For all other similar articles only the universally spoken, or assumed to be such, language(s) is/are listed. German article for example does not list Low German, nor does the Japanese one list Ryukyuan languages. 89.164.195.248 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that more specificity than that is needed. template:infobox ethnic group/doc describes the expected content as "List of languages spoken by group.", leaving the question of what persons comprise the group open. This article defines Filipinos as "the people who are native to or citizens of the country", leaving the definition of "native to" open (generally, persons with citizen forbears are citizens -- who else is "native to"?). It doesn't look to me as if a solution is to be found by going down that road looking for specificity. As an aside, this discussion here has led me to dipute some related assertions in the Languages of the Philippines article, with discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered off point above when I got sidetracked into that other article. Generally, I think that English ought to be mentioned among infobox Languages here -- or perhaps Philippine English. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:55, 11 February 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) 19:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent twiddling of figures in a quote

[edit]

Here, I corrected a mismatch between a snippet quoted in the article from a cited source and a copy of the source cited that I downloaded via the provided link ([1]). The mismatch involved changes to some of the percentage figures thre. Apparently, that mismatch came from this anonymous edit. (the foregoing has been redone for clarity) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is fake information being posted?

[edit]

There’s absolutely no credibility or accuracy to this . “121]

From Latin America Edit There was migration of a military nature from Latin-America (Mexico and Peru) to the Philippines, composed of varying races (Amerindian, Mestizo and Castizo) as described by Stephanie J. Mawson in her book "Convicts or Conquistadores? Spanish Soldiers in the Seventeenth-Century Pacific".[122] Also, in her dissertation paper called, ‘Between Loyalty and Disobedience: The Limits of Spanish Domination in the Seventeenth Century Pacific’, she recorded an accumulated number of 15,600 soldier-settlers sent to the Philippines from Latin-America during the 1600s.[123] These 15,600 Latinos sent to the Philippines supplemented a population of only 667,612 people.[124] A 2015, Y-DNA compilation by the Genetics Company Applied Biosystems, using samples taken from all over the Philippines, resulted in a 13.33% frequency of the European/Spanish Y-DNA R1b which was likely taken from Latin-American soldiers who settled in the Philippines who had Spanish fathers and Amerindian mothers.[125]” Jason1993wa (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple references for this section. To substantiate your statement that this has "no credibility or accuracy" you need to explain why you think the references are either not reliable or why they do not support the statements made. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English

[edit]

if you want to cite the similarities and differences of Filipinos and Jpanese, which non-linear text are you going to use? 120.29.76.177 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them religions that you had listed as Christians were not.

[edit]

Look up the facts if what a Christian is. Very offending to call them christian. 98.27.222.50 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino

[edit]

Gumawa ng talata kungkol sa covid virus gumamit ang payak,maylapi,tambalan,inuulit? 58.69.123.232 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Filipinos have no foreign admixture" is a myth.

[edit]

I deleted a statement Austronesier restored saying that "While other studies show that the majority of Filipinos have no admixture and are only Asian in origin" since its' a widely debunked myth. First of all, a cursory look to ANY gentic testing site or forum in the internet will reveal that when Filipinos get genetically tested they show small amounts of European and even Native American ancestry.

Here's one sample: (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23218-G25-results-of-Pinoys&highlight=Filipino)

Here's another one: (https://www.reddit.com/r/AncestryDNA/comments/s4e7tx/most_filipinos_have_zero_european_dna_is_the/)

So, as a result of the public availability of genetic testing one now realizes that most Filipinos indeed have foreign admixture, just that it's only a small or moderate amount, a far cry from the statement that Filipinos have NO admixture at all. Also the PNAs study that is cited by that statement is WP:Undue because its' sample size is not representative. (90% of the participants were from tribal or Moro groups (who are collectively 30% of the population). The top ethnic groups in the Philippines (who are 70% of the population) were only represented by around 100 participants. Most of those ethnic groups only had 10 participants each, like the Bicolanos). So, 10 people were used to represent the Tagalogs who form 24% of the population, the same sample size of 10 people representing the Agta tribe who represent less than 1% of the population. By the population samples alone, one cannot deduct that it is truly representative of the Filipino population as a whole. Yes its' an excellent survey of ALL ethnicities, but it's not weighted according to the population groups of the Philippines.

User:Austronesier, I would like your input in this since we had a disagreement over this, which I would like us to resolve. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick to peer-reviewed academic sources like Larena et al. for this topic. Reddit and Anthrogenica have user generated content and are just as reliable of unreliable as WP (there are admittedly many smart posts at Reddit). You should also be careful about statistics from commercial ancestry sites, since their data will always be biased towards demographic strata that have the means to make such tests (which would probably exclude much of non-urban CDE and urban DE). And I wouldn't cite anything older than 10 yrs when it comes to population genetics because of methodological giant leaps that have occurred since then. But actually, you're right, the statement based on Larena et al. does not echo the content of the paper properly. I will replace it with something we can all (I hope) live with, by paraphrasing the original relevant text: However, we only observe significant population-level signals of European admixture in some urbanized lowlanders, Bicolanos, and Spanish Creole-speaking Chavacanos [...] Some individuals from Bolinao, Cebuano, Ibaloi, Itabayaten, Ilocano, Ivatan, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, and Yogad groups also presented low levels of European admixture [...] In contrast to several other Spanish-colonized regions, Philippine demography appears to have remained largely unaffected by admixture with Europeans. (emphasis added). –Austronesier (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, thank you. :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I apologize if was a bit blunt earlier, but that was because of your edit summary "Its' probably placed here to spite Filipinos and gatekeep Spanish ancestry". It can be sort of nakakaasar when you're getting passionate and write those hifalutin edit summaries, bro :D –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: I also apologizebe for being sembrono, I was just reading that reddit page for which I used the study cited therein as a source, and I was reading their conversations, of foreigners trolling Filipinos and the people trolling us were Latinos who said that Filipinos have no right to claim their Hispanic descent because it was so small vs the Latinos. So basically "Gatekeeping" and I brought that anger to this article change log.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't waste time in troll sites that promote wacky conspiracy theories. You might end up believing them.
Essentially, there is no merit in blowing up either non-indigenous descent or indigenous heritage for whatever reason. The common myth is that Filipinos are actually not fully Asian but somehow "mixed". Culturally, this is true for the great majority of Filipinos, and there is little merit in belittling Spanish/Mestizo heritage (and also Chinese!) as is so often done by left-leaning nationalist circles. But it's also a fact that the cultural transmission was only to a very small degree triggered by actual demographic shifts during the Spanish era. (If you look up to a Lifebuoy advertisement in the streets and then shift your glance to the vendor selling soap in the sari-sari store in the shadow of the ad billboard, the discrepancy becomes obvious.) These shifts mostly affected urban/adminstrative centers (and a few garrisons), but not or only marginally the broad rural population (regardless of whether they were lowlanders or "tribals"). –Austronesier (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Deleted Anthropology Study

[edit]

I would just like to take in consideration the possibility of returning the erased Anthropology Study here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipinos&oldid=1155096234). Since I was recently researching for studies on Filipinos in Google Scholar and just last April 2023, it apparently has been recently supported by the US Department of Justice(https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/306323.pdf).

If a government body has tacit support of this, I don't see any problem with this being in this Wikipedia article.

User:Austronesier (Please chime in your opinion since you were the one who suggested its deletion). What do you guys say of this?

User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (Come here Paisano since you requested I bring this up!)

--Charles Jayson Zaldivar (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Charles, thanks for inviting me here, yes I would do love to bring back the deleted section but I think we should explain why its deletion was unmerited in the first place. I originally put the section here in 2021 but that was before the US Government said that they supported the study. Its now 2023 and they fully disclosed that they funded the study.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Jayson Zaldivar: I have explained my rationale in the edit summary (admittely quite dense in order to fit the word limit)

I think we had this before. This study says NOTHING about the ancestry of Filipinos. It just lists the ratio of possible classifications for individual crania based on their morphological properties. I.e. skull A might be classified as Asian regardless of the actual makeup of their individual ancestry, skull B might be classified as Hispanic regardless of the details of their ancestry, etc. The ratio crudely matches the ancestral makeup of the Philippine population, but it's NOT actual ancestry.

Whether a study is privately or government funded is no criterion for inclusion in WP. The original text based on that study was in the section "Origins and genetic studies" where it obviously does not belong. Again, morphology-based forensic anthropology is not about tracing the actual genetic ancestry of indivuals, sample groups or entire populations. It's a tool to make a prediction about the ancestry of a decomposed dead body based on morphological features, clustered into "reference groups". Figures like "N% European" does not mean that the genepool of all sampled individuals comprises N% European admixture, but it means that N% are classified as "European" based on their morphological features (regardless of the exact degree of European admixture in their genome), while 100-N% are classified as something else (again, regardless of the exact degree of European admixture in their genome).
While this study is off-topic in the section "Origins and genetic studies", I have no strong opinion about its inclusion somewhere else in this article. However, we must keep in mind that the sample group is from the Manila North Cemetry. While there is no doubt that one can get very authentic lechon on the Laloma side of the cemetry, I don't believe that this sample of an urban population close to the center of power is representative for the population of the entire archipelago. Also, the study offers insights about a classification into reference groups that are essentailly based on racial essentialism, and thus IMHO not quite due for a modern encyclopedia (if the post-segregation US still considers this classification relevant, that's a matter of their choice, but not based on science). –Austronesier (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree we should move it to another section as it is an anthropology study not a genetic study. However there is a high degree of accuracy when using cranial classification and guessing race. [The Science of Guessing: Critiquing Ancestral Estimation Through Computer Generated Statistical Analysis Within Forensic Anthropology in a Real-World Setting ](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10445&context=etd)
Also, we may belong to the same human specie, and our differences really belong as a transition in a cline, however genetically there are different races really, as genetically, geographical groups who are neighbors, can be grouped into genetic clusters. (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-clustering-Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-plot-of-20-populations-from-1000_fig1_331592466) Though race is not essential it is still objectively measurable.--Charles Jayson Zaldivar (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it seems that this has gone enough a long time without action and since there are no objections from my two brothers Austronesier and Rene Sarabia, don't mind me if I change the format now, thanks for your critiques!--Charles Jayson Zaldivar (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Jayson Zaldivar: 12 days is a bit short of a time for assuming a "tacit" consensus.
"Race [...] is still objectively measurable" – this is a fringe view in modern mainstream physical anthropology. You will find no affirming mention of biological races in modern genetic papers, and many genetic researchers are not tired to point out explicitly that genetic clusters do not equal the abandonded concept of biological races. The piece of research that you want to add might be relevant in the US since phenotypical classification of indivduals is still practiced there and partially successful in Forensic Anthropology due to the long segregationist history of that country, but we cannot apply this on a global scale. So my objection still stands here.
You also have not addressed the fact that the sample was taken from a non-representative context (Manila North Cemetry, which was urban periphery at that time). The article is entitled "Filipinos", after all, so if you want a study that works on tenuous premises (viz. US-based race classifications), it should at least be broadly representative for the entire population.
I appreciate that you have put the information under a new header "Population Data", but now, the section "Origins" is gone! But obviously, the opening paragraphs and the subsections "Genetics" and "Dental morphology" have the intent to discuss the origins of the Filipino population.
Finally, as a side note: "Generalized Anthropology" is misomer when its content comes from forensic anthropology. Forensic anthropology is an applied subfield of physical anthropology that heavily relies on context.
I will remove the text once more and hope we can figure out by explicit consensus how we can include the study without giving it excessive weight. –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long length of time between your post and my reply as I am quite busy lately with my job at the government. Also, I know that race is non-essential and that all men are created equal, however if there is scientific consensus that actual different human species exist (Denisovan, Neanderthal, Homo Sapiens, and etc.) then I don't get the scientific consensus of how the scientific community accepts the existence of different human species but doesn't accept the existence of different races (And races actually belong to just one species BTW compared to species), this honestly sounds like Woke Leftist Identity Politics to me, but anyway my Centrist political leanings asides, I totally conform to the current Scientific Consesencus. @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: and @Joseph Solis in Australia: what do you think of the consensus we are now building?--Charles Jayson Zaldivar (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support your propositions bro. Dear Austronesier: "The measure of a mandible length, the thickness of a skull, the slope of the forehead, the shape of the eye socket, these mathemathical and physical measurements are all obvuously subject to context! Race doesnt exist! Sickle Cell Anemia genetics exclusively among Sub Saharan Africans, dry earwax exclusively among East Asians, complete lack of Male Pattern Baldness among Indigenous Americans, CYP19 SNP found in R1b Y Chromosomes of Western Europeans trigering high male height for Germanics! These are all tots not evidence for race! We are all the same! :)" Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm aside, he has a point, the sample size of only hundreds is too small, however it is offset by the fact that a professional had conducted it with both American and Philippine government contributions, we should study the methodology more closely to discern if its appropriate to this article.Charles Jayson Zaldivar (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCll

[edit]

epekto ng pagkakaroon ng NCII sa mga mag aaral 180.195.231.49 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Men in the Philippines" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Men in the Philippines has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 16 § Men in the Philippines until a consensus is reached. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filipinos&oldid=1250428085"