This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I see that this page is now protected. Would an administrator please restore the <ref name="religion"> declaration which was lost in this edit and which has been missing since 23:51, January 1, 2007. -- Boracay Bill 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been unprotected, and I made this edit. -- Boracay Bill 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material not relevant to improving the article.

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- Boracay Bill 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It says 94% Christian, 5% Muslim, and 5% non-Christian non-Muslim. Something doesn't add up. dtfinch 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It does since you're always going to have some people who follow more than one religion (declaring one and following another later on in life) as well as statistical discrepancies. Taospark 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the 94% total is not consistent with the Religion in the Philippines article, where Christianity is listed as 90.3% of the population. The source cited in this article does not support the 94% number, while the numbers in the Religion in the Philippines article are supported in the CIA World Factbook reference. Thus, I'd suggest that the percentage of Christians in this article be changed to 90%, adding a reference to the CIA World Factbook. Jarbru ( talk) 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... The CIA Factbook says: "Religions: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1% (2000 census)". 80.9 + 2.3 + 2 + 4.5 is 89.7%. Presuming that "Evangelical" is meant to be taken as "Evangelical Christian" brings that up to 92.9%. A more recent take on this can be seen in the International Religious Freedom Report 2007, which says (paraphrasing) 80-85% Catholic, 6.8% El Shaddai (6M/89M), Islam 5-9%, Other Christian <5%. nationmaster.com says on this page : 82.27% Catholic, 5% Islam (146,613/89.5M); and says elsewhere: 82.27% Catholic, 10% Protestant, 5% Islam. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

El Shaddai is Catholic, if I may add... -- Howard the Duck 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Were is the section on the Armed Forces of the Philippines? Most nation's articles have a section that talks about their military, if only briefly. Contralya 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So how come theres no section in the history about language, writing system, social classes and culture before the spanish came. 142.161.169.75 07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Well theres a lot of that now, but i think that the influence of the indic civilizations is overemphasized in relation to the Spanish. Buddhism never established itself in Philippines and the idea that the cultural tendencies of India affect the average Filipino today are shaky at best. Compared to the overwhelming influence of Spain and Catholicism north of Mindanao, Indian influence is virtually nil. A better way to organize this would be to include a larger selection of the Austronesian tribes and their legends, values, etc. etc. that affect Filipinos today.

I had to trim down those Indian statements. It would make it appear that the Indian influences of the Philippines is widespread but if you think about it, the fact that it came via indirect sources, and arrived a long time ago mainly eroded those influences and are mainly nonexistent. -- Howard the Duck 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The 11th citation seems to be an editoral, and not an actual paper upon the P-A war. It would be far better to cite this section with a more scholarly work, as the editorial itself is fairly politically biased to an extreme. In addition, the 12 cite references "San Juan", to an unknown article by the same editorial writer. I am not disputing the fact, but the source damages the credibility of the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Glendower ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the letter f has been included in our alphabet, is it more appropriate to spell Pilipinas as Filipinas, besides the national language authority has been encouraging (as I have heard) the use of Filipinas instead of Pilipinas. J.J. Nario ilyk2learn 11:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino used Filipinas when the 2001-2006 orthography was in effect, and reverted to Pilipinas soon after (using the 1987 rules). The KWF's use of Filipinas in itself is very inconsistent and Pilipinas is still more common among government agencies. Moreover, the only dictionary that includes Filipinas over Pilipinas is the UP Diksyonaryong Filipino (only to be consistent with Filipino) and Filipinos the world over use Pilipinas over Filipinas. Given such, and since linguistic prescription is not always correct, I think it would be inappropriate. -- Sky Harbor 15:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Filipinas is Spanish while Pilipinas is Tagalized etc. -- Filipinayzd 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, this edit toggled me into nitpick mode regarding a paragraph which currently reads (cites elided):

“

The primary local stock market index, operated by the Philippine Stock Exchange, also hit a record high in June 1, 2007 while the Philippine peso is trading at around the PHP42 level to a US dollar, and is currently PHP42.79 as of November 09, 2007 making it Asia's best performing currency so far by appreciating by 14%, edging out the Indian Rupee. However, the strong peso does have disadvantages like "hurting OFW families, small businesses and new jobs".

”

• The Philippine Stock Exchange does not operate the primary local stock market index. According the PSE website, the PSE is "... a private organization that provides and ensures a fair, efficient, transparent and orderly market for the buying and selling of securities." It would probably be better to say that the PSE operates the primary local stock market and publishes stock market indices.
• The PSE Wikipedia article asserts that the PSE is is one of the two stock exchanges in the Philippines, and "... is split into eight indices based on a company's main source of revenue" (it would probably be better to say that the PSE publishes these eight indices).
• It is not clear to me which (if any) of the eight PSI indices listed in the Wikipedia PSE article is being referred to by the assertion in this paragraph that "The primary local stock market index, operated by the Philippine Stock Exchange, also hit a record high in June 1, 2007 ...", but I see here that the PSE publishes an index (apparently overlooked in the Wikipedia PSE article) which it calls the PSEi, and the PSE monthly report for June 2007 here said, "The PSEi climbed to a new all-time record high of 3,718.88 points on June 20." (vs. the June 1 date given in this paragraph), and this appears to show that the PSEi declined from this level to a low of around 2,900 in August and is currently back up to above 3,700.
• The assertion that "... the Philippine peso is trading at around the PHP42 level to a US dollar" needs dating in order to put it into context (and "currently" is unhelpful and meaningless for this, as "currently" in a Wikipedia article would refer to whatever unspecified date the assertion appeared rather than to the date on which someone might be reading the assertion. Ditto for "so far", which is used in this paragraph to date some currency conversion rate info which it contains).
• On a general note, I think this level of detail in this section is not useful, even if the detail provided is correct and is put into understandable context time-wise.

I'm just commenting and nitpicking here. I'll leave it to others more able than I to supply whatever fixups might be needed. -- Boracay Bill 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll be better if you remove that - as a matter of fact, the entire economy section should be cleaned up. It could do some spring cleaning. -- Howard the Duck 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We filipinos value friendship a lot & trust a lot. We are usually very hurt when betrayed. We also in general have a soft spot for the underdog. Usually when someone loses a game, a fight or almost anything relating to losing, we console the loser. Because of our common belief that "Nobody is perfect". We also have learn to always to laugh at our mistakes, not to take it seriously, This I like to share with all of you " When you make a mistake, always remember that it cant be that bad., there is always tommorow, learn from it, & laugh at it!!!!" We also have also bad traits like procrastination, like always putting things off for tommorow but not so much now, We have very close family ties & we respect our elders very much. We also have flaws like being too critical of a product & we are always late in parties, even sometimes in other affairs, but we are realizing our mistake now & laughing at it. We also always get in a fight very much in a argument because usually no one will concede who is wrong & the other is proving that he is right. We also usually forgive someone if he or she says sorry for his mistakes & becomes friends again. I like to add some more but I cant think of anything else to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultima weapon (FF) ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia convention and policy, any of the above that is added to the main body of the article must be backed up with in-line footnoted citations and published resources. At the moment, because these traits you're offering are generally considered ethnic stereotyping and based on opinion rather than scientifically backed fact, there are going to be various readers and editors who will end up removing your claims from the article as being prejudicial (even if many might agree with your summation). Also, I find it difficult for anyone to find reputable published sources to back each of these claims. -- Gerald Farinas ( talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello to all! Would like to suggest some updates to the section on administrative divisions. The latest data: 17 regions, 81 provinces, 136 cities, 1494 municipalities, 14995 barangays. The source is the National Statistical Coordination Board http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2007/13Nov_PR-200711-PP2-01PSGC.asp 125.5.36.66 ( talk) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)dnong 2007-11-27

 Done -- Howard the Duck 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For additional sub-section, I think this could help, Militant Labor in the Philippines. Thank you. -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This could help also as ref to culture and customs sections, Culture and Customs of the Philippines. Sorry pero hindi muna ako aapak sa article na to for sourcing, busy pa sa EDSA I. -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 07:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article is terribly looooooong already. If you can incorporate this to economy and politics section while removing some unneeded paragraphs it'll be OK I guess. -- Howard the Duck 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry HtD but I can't help for now. You know the collaboration drive right? I'm busy finding sources on EDSA I so I cant help. Maybe next time. By the way, the article isn't that too long. There are articles bout a city even longer than that of the Philippines. The second source might be useful on the Culture section. It lacks sources. Thank you. =) -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't know Google can let you read books... >:) -- Howard the Duck 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Google let me read their books.Hehe.=) -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One sentence in the lead section says, "The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country,[3] with a population of 88 million.[4]" Ref 3 is for 2006 figures from the World Bank, Ref 4 is for Census 2000 figures from the RP government, with projections for years beyond 2000. The World Bank source cited as Ref 3 gives a population figure of 84.59 million. It seems to me that Ref 3 figures should be used for both ranking and population, especially since the two figures appear within the same sentence.

Some of the infobox figures differ from the figures in the lead paragraph -- GDP and population are the ones which I have noticed, but I have not checked closely. The infobox gives supporting sources for some of its figures, and presents many figures without giving supporting sources. Where supporting sources are given, this is often done just in invisible comments. The sources cited in the infobox include RP NSO census figures, NSO projections, figures from http://www.mrdowling.com (???), and figures from other wikipedia articles (a deprecated practice). The lead section uses NSO figures/projections and World Bank figures.

This all seems pretty chaotic to me, but I'm reluctant to mess with it. Comments? -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've grown tired of anons changing the figures without adding new updated refs. I guess you can "mess around" with it, remove the oldest references and use the newest ones. -- Howard the Duck 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've redone the infobox and made some changes in the lead section, trying to regularize supporting sources and to cite the sources used. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this works. I am in the midst of getting an annulmeent for a Philippine woman and it has been 8 months and I assume everything is going well, I have no reson to believe that anything is not going along. The woman is as honest as can be, I have been with her for 1 1/2 years and been there three times. No particular questions, just seeing if any one has comments and also checking into this Wikipedia thing? Kurt, Also, feel free to contact me back and tell me how this wikipedia works? This seems cool. 71.67.191.27 ( talk) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 12-25-07

Hi!, this isn't the exact place to ask questions not related to articles or make personal messages( whos Kurt?). I (or anyone else who wants to)will be erasing this section soon. Please read this Wikipedia:Introduction. -- Jondel ( talk) 10:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he just wanted to express. hehe. -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he knows a Wikipedian. -- Sky Harbor 04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It does look like he knows a Wikipedian. Could it be that he's referring to Kurt Guirnela? --- Tito Pao ( talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. -- βritandβeyonce ^{( talk• contribs)} 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for Spanish being an official language? Josh ( talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

no and the reference used doesn't mention spanish... anyone know why we are keeping it in the article? harlock_jds ( talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

i looked over the archives and saw that spansih had been removed many times in the history of the article (as it not an offical language anymore). I'm taking it out. harlock_jds ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the situation goes like this: in the Philippine Constitution, Filipino and English are considered the "official languages" as far as official government communications are concerned ("Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis."). [1] However, there is also a provision for including Spanish and Arabic as somewhat supplementary languages for official communications. There are reasons for this: first, before the two World Wars, many legal documents were still written in Spanish. Second, Arabic is used by Filipino adherents of Islam, who come from diverse ethnic groups with their own languages and dialects (AFAIK, Arabic is one of the subjects being taught in the Mindanao madrasahs). Third, there is indeed a Spanish-speaking minority (albeit a very small minority). Fourth, Spanish used to be a required subject in Philippine colelges and university (and there are proposals to revive Spanish as a required subject). At any rate, I do not object to the removal of Spanish as one of the "official" languages, although there must be a way to accommodate the said provision in the Constitution in the article. Let me check on that.... --- Tito Pao ( talk) 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that, it is mentioned that Spanish and Arabic are officially considered the auxilliary languages of the Philippines. There's also a link to the main Philippine Constitution article, so I don't have to re-edit that part. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This "Spanish is an official language" always gets added on the article, I'm not surprised that it happened again. Maybe this are the same guys pushing for their Hispanic POV. Maybe they think Filipinos still speak had spoken Spanish. -- Howard the Duck 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In August President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced that Spanish would be reinstated as an official language of the Philippines by January 2008, and has asked help from the Spanish government to implement this plan. This will mean the reintroduction of Spanish as a required subject in the Philippine school system. During PGMA's visit to Spain last Decemeber, she confirmed this decision in front of Spanish and Filipino politicians, scholars and businessmen [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.45.225.50 ( talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both references say that "the Spanish language will once more be obligatory in the school curriculum in her country" but not that spanish is being reinstated as an offical language. harlock_jds ( talk) 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Classes began today and no Spanish classes were reported, nor was this reported to the local media (note that the 2 refs aren't from the Philippines.) -- Howard the Duck 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's the middle of the second semester (which usually begins in October-November and ends in March-April), and come to think of it, you can't just create new classes just when colleges are almost in mid-semester and when there's no way they have to restart a new enrolment process just for this class. I need to double-check on this, but I think that what was originally meant was that PGMA was asking the Spanish government for assistance in January (probably draft some plans, study proposals, etc.). As for new Spanish classes, I think we'll need to wait for the start of the new school year---in June 2008---to verify if, in fact, colleges and universities will offer Spanish as part of the core subjects. But, yes, I do agree that a constitutional amendment is necessary, as Spanish was clearly designated as an "auxiliary" language. In case it does appear that PGMA considers Spanish as an official language, I can't wait to hear of someone (probably Oliver Lozano? :P ) file a case in the Supreme Court for gross violation of the Constitution. Personally, I don't think it was a good idea including such information as official languages and flag specification in the Constitution itself, for reasons that deserve its own topic or post =P --- Tito Pao ( talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now the problem is although I've encountered this story before, I've never encountered it on the local press, TV, radio, anything, especially since it'll concern the language of instruction in schools all over the country (it is big news if you think about it). -- Howard the Duck 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think that you also have to consider that most news reports focus on certain aspects of PGMA's visit and glosses over (if at all) just the gist of what they (or their editors) consider as insignificant, including (I think) the issue about the Spanish language. If I'm not mistaken, most news accounts paid attention to the huge junket that flew with PGMA, and the statement of King Carlos that PGMA's government is committed to human rights in spite of the recent reports about the Army's involvement in the killings of journalists. (Or maybe that's because I'm reading too much of the PDI :P ) That's the same with TV reports, they also tend to focus on these issues and report less on, say, any new trade deals between the Philippine and Spanish governments and, in this case, the issue about the said reintroduction of Spanish in the education curriculum. (This kind of bias is why, among other things, I don't watch TV news from GMA and ABS-CBN, I tend to rely on print newspapers and other sources, wag lang ang Kapuso at Kapamilya :P )--- Tito Pao ( talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way for Spanish to be official...

...is only through amending the constitution. Now given the constitution is unamended in its 21 years of existence will show you how unlikely Spanish will be the official language, especially that it's spoken by less than 10,000 of the population, excluding Chavacano/Chabacano, which isn't really Spanish.

If the day comes the constitution is other amended or revised, and one of the amendments/revisions is the addition of Spanish as an official language, then that's the time Spanish can be added in the infobox. -- Howard the Duck 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The government would also have to promote and 'advertise it.

   -good for business, call-centers, etc
   -promote international interaction and understanding, specialy with Spanish America and Spain.
   -enable reading Noli, Malolos Constitution and other historical documents in the original.

• Allow some media in Spanish, e.g. Marimar,telenovelas,cartoons in Spanish.

(inter-paragraph comment) As I understand it, the government is inhibited by the Freedom of Speech protections of constitution from disallowing media in Spanish (or whatever other language). -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But there are lots of programs in Chinese both from overseas and for and by Filipino Chinese about Filipino affairs. -- Jondel ( talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Encourage it in areas with the creole, like Zamboanga and Cavite.

-- Jondel ( talk) 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Philippnes~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.170.212 ( talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the population figure from 82,498,735 (said to be 2007) to 76,498,735 (previously said to be 2006, but I've changed that to 2000) per the cited supporting source.

The recent change of some refs from <Ref name=IMF2006 /> to <Ref name=IMF2007 /> broke the associated reference in the References section since no Ref named IMF2007 was defined. The Ref named IMF2006 actually contains figures for years from 2005 through 2008, but the figures for 2007 and 2008 are estimates by the IMF staff. I've reverted back to the 2006 figures from the source named IMF2006. I have no idea where the figures which I've reverted from came from -- the didn't match the IMF 2007 estimate figures.

In the article text, I've changed the mention of a 145.64B(said to be 2007) GDP to the IMF-2006 supported figure of 117.562B(2006)

I haven't changed the rankings figures since a footnote in the infobox disclaims "Rankings above were taken from associated Wikipedia pages as of December, 2007, and may be based on data or data sources other than those appearing here.", and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources of verifiable information.

I've added a {{ cn}} tag after the recently-inserted unsupported assertion which reads "the population living in poverty fell down to 23.7 million in 2007."

I've added a {{ failed verification}} tag after the recently-added assertion which reads "It also grew the second fastest in the Southeast Asian region for that year and the fifth in Asia. It is also predicted tha t by 2020, the Philippines will be put in the line of wealthy countries and proclaimed as one of the developed nations.", since I was unable to verify that assertion in the cited supporting source.

I've added a {{ cn}} tag after the recently-added unsupported assertion which reads "Population growth rate in 1995-2000 is 3.21% but then dramatically fell to 1.59% for 2005-2010. There is also a government project will be underead namely "2 child policy" derived from the Chinese population control." (there's a typo in there which i have left uncorrected since I'm not sure what was intended). -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"...the Philippines is one of two predominantly Roman Catholic countries in Asia-Pacific, the other being East Timor." Consider changing it to just Asia and add South Korea (predominantly non-religious, but of all religions Christianity is dominant) or include: South Korea and just about every Pacific country (Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga etc.) . 40010 40010 ( talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The designation "Asia Pacific" is usually referred to areas close at " South East Asia" and some pacific islands. Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore. Korea is located at East Asian and is therefore not part of this area.

Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga are not Asian countries they are part of the Oceania/ Australasiacontinent. hope this clears things up.

Wait your right. Come to think of it i think it should be listed a South East Asia and not Asia Pacific which is too wide and yes Asia Pacific includes Australia.

"...population approaching 90 million..." and "...more than 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, the largest diaspora network in the world, about 11% of the total population..." would clearly imply 100 million, an error of 10%! please correct Scyriacus ( talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A diáspora usually includes first generation migrants. So the total population would only (at most) include the foreign labor pool, from this diáspora... in the demographics section is a statement that appears to cover this, saying that 9m filipinos live abroad as foreign laborers. — robbiemuffin  ^{page talk} 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Government Center in Eastern Visayas is not in Tacloban City, it is located in the town of Palo, Leyte. The town is next coming from the city going to the town of Tanauan in the east and going to Sta. Fe in the west of Leyte. Most of regional offices of various state departments are located here not in Tacloban City. However, some provincial offices of the state departments are located in Tacloban City.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.198.226 ( talk) 07:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines then became a fledging democracy until the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos led to his overthrow in the People Power Revolution of 1986.

The previous text is poorly written.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.132.3 ( talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

pardon me for that... i just wanna note that Chavacano is not a member of the asthronesian family but a Creole spanish, which is a member of the romance language and also an iberian language... and as a peoplo, its culture, really romance.thanks

I am a Chavacano speaker myself, and as much as I am ultimately proud of my native tongue, I disagree with the assertion that Chavacano is a "romance" language, much less an "iberian" language. Neither is it just an Austronesian language. It is both. Which makes it a "creole" language... or a mixture of two distinct stocks, in this case: Mexican Spanish (which in itself is already a creole of Old Castillian and Native Central American languages) and an indigenous mix that could best be described as SUG (from the SUG-buhanon and the Tau-SUG)...whereas "antiquated" Spanish words are used in almost 80% of Chavacano's vocabulary... its grammar and syntax are clearly SUG (both SUGbuhanon and TauSUG have the same grammar, syntax and sentence construction styles, and nearly 50% of both languages' vocabularies are common to both - in usage and meaning).

Chavacano is an evolved (and still evolving) "lingua franca" between the three groups that contributed most to its institutionalization - Mexicans, Cebuanos (Sugbuhanons), and Tausugs - the the former were mostly Spanish colonial troops who had the most contact with the natives, and the latter two constituted the two groups with the biggest populations living within the "pueblo" (both groups are assumed to have been converted to Catholicism - even the resident Tausugs, while the indigenous Subanen and the Lutaos - the original settlers of the area, either withdrew to the mountains or far out to sea, respectively). In these population group's search for a "commonly understandable" language, constant exchanges and intimate day-to-day contacts among the three eventually spurred the growth of Chavacano - which is Spanish colloquial for "bastardized", "illegitimate", "mongrelized" or "impure" - obviously a term drawn up by the ruling Spanish Peninsulares/Insulares class who are assumed to never have approved of it in the first place, thus the derogatory name. Jjarivera ( talk)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.235.217 ( talk) 06:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the Philippines should have a reference as being referred to as being the Pearl of the Orient, as this was a common reference to the Philippines during Spanish times (i.e. Rizal) and into the commonwealth of the Philippines in American times down to our modern times the Republic of the Philippines is still referenced as the Pearl of the Orient, and lately other places such as Penang, Malaysia and Macau in China are also called Pearl of the Orient but the Philippines has to also have a refence to this I think, there are even plate numbers from decades ago with Pearl of the Orient on them in the Philippines, not to mention books from spanish times referring to our string of islands - the Philippines archipelago, as Pearl of the Orient Seas. I believe somebody should look up to this as so many of our cultural heritage is being lost or usurped. I tried lookibg but i think the best place to look are old libraries, some links: http://www.ilab.org/db/detail.php?lang=es&booknr=350826212&ref=/services/highlights.php ; http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/ ; http://www.malaya.com.ph/jan28/livi1.htm ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila ; http://www.bookhaus.com/filipin2.html ; The Smithsonian Institute http://vcas.wlu.edu/VRAS/2007/Dillon.pdf  ; http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=104810 hope someone can fulfill this request, thanks 124.104.44.241 ( talk) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC) aaron l.

The Phlippines is a bi-lingual country but more than 180 languages and dialects are spoken in the archipelago, almost all of them belonging to the Borneo-Philippines group of the Malayo-Polynesian language branch of the Austronesian language family.

But Tagalog is our primary language. The other 180 do not really matter. 195.29.113.138 ( talk) 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comment should not be taken seriously. Arrogance or ignorance are common occurrences in the Wiki universe. Although I would call myself a Chavacano (this being my first tongue), my father is a Tagalog from Laguna/Manila and my mother is a Cebuana/Batanguena. So I have absolutely nothing against my fellow Tagalog compatriots, but NO Tagalog is not our primary language - Filipino is. Spoken in the Calabarzon and Mimaropa areas, and in Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Aurora, and in Metro Manila itself, Tagalog-speakers are actually shrinking! In its place, the growing number of native Filipino-speakers are fast replacing the language of their elders.

Tagalog is a language indigenous to the Tagalog tribe of Central and South Luzon. Tagalog migration brought the language to some of the outlying islands immediately south of Luzon. Tagalog expansion northwards is checked by the presence of large Ilocano and Pampango populations, while southward it is blocked by Bicol and the Visayas.

Filipino on the other hand is, in many ways, a creole language. It is a mixture of a multitude of languages both indigenous and foreign. It may have been based on Tagalog, but it has since evolved throughout the years, and to such an extent that for some "Filipino"-speakers, variants of Tagalog as spoken in Bulacan or Batangas have become increasingly difficult to understand. Filipino vocabulary has acquired a wide variety of words alien to Tagalog such as "silya" (Eng. "chair", Sp. "silla", Tag. "salumpuwit") or "kama" (Eng. "bed", Sp. "cama", Tag. "tulugan")... numerous other unwieldy and hard-to-master Tagalog words originally used in Filipino have since been set-aside in daily speech, in favor of modern-day equivalents, i.e. "datapwat/subalit/ngunit" to "pero", "silid-aklatan" to "librari", "pamunas" to "tuwalya/bimpo/trapo", and even the quintessential Tagalog greeting of "Mabuhay" has since been totally replaced by "Hi/Hello/Ei". Practically nobody uses "palikuran" and practically everyone prefers to go to the "CR" (abbreviation for "comfort room", a Filipino euphemism for "toilet"). Finally, there are no classical Tagalog equivalents to everyday words such as "kompyuter", "cellphone" (even "telepono" is Spanish), and "kalkyu" (which is the abbreviation for "calculator").

This is similar to the differences between Spanish and Chavacano. Although 80% of Chavacano's vocabulary is filled by Spanish words, nobody would still assert that Spanish and Chavacano are the same.

Tagalog and Filipino, too - although a majority of the words in Filipino may still be derived from Tagalog (some studies have even revealed that classical Tagalog has since been superseded by colloquial versions of Spanish and English in terms of usage) - are not the same.

It should be admitted though that among all languages native to the Philippines, Tagalog is upfront and center in the continued development of the Filipino language. Although the Filipino language was meant - by law - to grow and evolve through the acquisition of day-to-day words from Ilocano, Bicolano, Ilonggo, Cebuano, Waray, Maranao, Tausug, etc., the Filipino language, in reality, never really developed in this direction. It has done so through the heavy acquisition of loan words from Spanish and English instead! Thus, making the case for Filipino being a creole language even stronger (much to the consternation and alarm of the nativists and linguistic purists among us, of course). Filipino is the mestizo son of a Spanish father and a Tagalog mother, and schooled under an American tutor.

Of late, Filipino is more widely spoken throughout Metro Manila, and even in Central- and Southern Luzon than Tagalog. It is the language used by mass media. It is the language used by Government (together with English). It is the language used by show business (Business itself uses English for the most part). It has since become our "lingua franca", in many ways, the common means of communication between mutually unintelligible native languages.

One poignant example is the use of the Filipino language by the Moros of Mindanao. Muslim Filipinos, collectively called Moros, are composed of at least 12 main tribal linguistic traditions. In their frantic search for a common "ethnic" identity (to complement their already common "religious" identity) that would distinguish them collectively from the "Christian" tribes that constitute a majority of the Philippines' population, they have, ironically, taken to using Filipino - not Bahasa Melayu nor Bahasa Indonesia - as their own "lingua franca"! Maranaos, Maguindanaos, Tausugs and Yakans regularly converse between themselves, and even with Visayans, in Filipino. The Moros have systematically rejected Bisaya (which is the most widespread language among the Christians of Mindanao - esp. Cebuano and Ilonggo - whom the Moros regard as "the landgrabbers", etc.) as a communication tool between them. They have likewise rejected Hispanicized demonyms such as "Basilenyo" or "Cotabatenyo", in favor of "Taong Basilan" or "Taong Cotabato". The Moros, however, do not sit in "salumpuwits", they sit in "silyas" ...like most of us.

Fact is, Filipino is on the rise. And the most obvious victim of this rise is Tagalog. Visayans, Ilocanos, Bicolanos and so on have retained their distinct languages in their pure form because their members have skillfully become real bilinguals, thus making it easier for these groups to conserve their respective languages in their pure form.

Classical Tagalog as it was spoken in the 19th century, or even as late as the 1950s is obviously on the retreat. It is even projected to completely disappear by the time the pre-war generations have died off. This is so because Tagalog speakers find no need to be bilingual with respect to Tagalog and Filipino. They simply switched from classical Tagalog to Filipino.

So, as a recap: NO, Tagalog is not our primary language. Filipino is. And whereas most of the 180 languages are expected to live on beyond 2030, classical Tagalog, on the other hand, might go the way of Latin and ancient Greek. Jjarivera ( talk)

Please note the typographical error on the subject of the sentence. A spellchecker in the Editing Talk toolbar would be very much of help also.

More Power!

-- I heart Surgery ( talk)

I've fixed this and also reworded the sentence a bit. For spell-checking, if you use Firefox, you can turn on the "check my spelling as I type" option. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 01:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the article Philippines, Culture:

"... The kalesa a horse-driven carriage were a..." Nosebleed, hematoa... anyway, i've already corrected it; change it if there's still something wrong.

-- w/o wax, =p ( talk) 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Before the arrival of the Spaniards, the Philippine archipelago was collectively known as Maharlika, which may have come from the Old Malay language meaning "noble creation".

Have heard of this before though thought of it as apocryphal. Kindly share your references as I would very much like to find out as well.

Thanks.

-- I heart Surgery ( talk) 01:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, and this info doesn't answer your question, but a quick check turns up the following info:

• Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., p. 5, ISBN  971-642-071-4
  "Because it was the foreigners who named out country, some Filipinos have proposed new names for the Philippines. The Katipunan general, Artemio Ricarte, wanted to call us "Rizalline Republic", after Jose Rizal. Another name,"Maharlika", was proposed by former President Ferdinand Marcos, after his dream of making this nation great. Modern nationalists have objected to the present name of the Philippines because of its colonial connotation, so they want the name changed."

• Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990), History of the Filipino People (Eighth ed.), University of the Philippines, p. 102, ISBN  9-71-871106-6
  "Personal Motives—As proved by official records, some revolts were personally led by former barangay datus and marhilikas, as well as babaylans or katalonans ..."

Agoncillo also has some background info about Malay settlement of the Philippines in his "Before the Conquest" chapter.

My Tagalog-English dictionary says:"maharlikâ adj. noble; aristocratic. Syn. Mahál, Noble.
kamaharlikaán; mga maharlikâ nobility; people of noble rank ...;
pagkamaharliká n. nobility, meaning noble birth; noble rank. ..."

-- Boracay Bill ( talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey why did you guys remove that? I thought that Philippines actually did have a former name before the Spaniards came *sigh* by the way I am So SO in favour of changing Philippines' name. Our country is named after some Spanish King who doesn't even rule our country can you believe that?! It's like even though the Spaniards ran away from us they were still laughing at us because of this "mark" they left us. What I'm trying to say is we should totally change it so that it could give our own country it's own identity and style not a Spanish one, come on let's be original like our ancestors from Malaysia and Indonesia not be Spanish because we are not Spain we're Filipinos not Chinese or Spanish. Blueknightex ( talk) 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the Philippines collectively having a name before the Spaniards came doesn't have a legitimate reference. Why do you hate the Philippines so much? Much of our achievements in the arts were created as Filipinos, not Maharlikans or even Rizalinos! Pathetic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.22.205 ( talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sparked by recent edits which removed related material from this talk page, I googled around a bit and came up with this page, part one of a four part article by Nathan Gilbert Quimpo on Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism. Search for Maharlika for the relevant bits. The article cites supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it may feel good to have such an "exalted" name bestowed upon these islands before the Spanish named us after one of their most pathetic monarchs (Philip II started out with the biggest empire in the world, and ended his reign in ignominy, defeated by "the virgin queen" - his ex-sister-in-law no less - Elizabeth I of England - sinking his "invincible" armada in a hail of buckshot and cannonballs)...the contention that the Philippines was known as "Maharlika" then, is nothing more than a romanticized myth, spurred on by Marcos' spin-meisters and then by overly imaginative pseudo-historians.

"Maharlika" was not, and never was, a place name for the archipelago. It was a social class - the "nobility" of pre-Hispanic Philippines. Collectively, this class was renamed the "Principalia" by the Spanish...progenitors of Marcos's hated "oligarch" class of mid-20th century Philippines (ironically, Marcos hinged his "revolution from the center" on a campaign to rid the country of its oligarchy! And in doing this, he proposed to rename the country...in their honor?).

The entire archipelago was never united under a single ruler or empire until the Spanish, neither was there any one tribe native to the archipelago that exerted any sort of real political or military influence to neighboring islands, thus it would be quite improbable for anyone to give these islands a collective name then.

The natives, seeing themselves as being separate sovereign communities, could not possibly be expected to think of themselves as a single people back then, and thus would not have given their many islands just one name. By the time the Spanish arrived Luzon was oriented towards China (which called the large island Ma-yi or Lu-zong). In fact, the newly-established Bruneian-sponsored "Muslim Kingdom" at Maynila, was precisely a project of the Sultan of Brunei to get a piece of the lucrative China trade that made the Luzon empire (Tondo, Lubao, Betis, Macabebe) very prosperous. The Visayas, just a bit outside of the Chinese sphere, and still just a bit outside of the Muslim sphere, was a vestige of the defunct empire of Sri Vijaya (from whence it took its collective name). Mindanao, on the other hand, was decidedly oriented towards the Sultanates of the lower Malay Archipelago. Even then, the Philippines already had three main regions.

Religion-wise, whereas both Luzon's lowlands and the Visayas coasts were predominantly Hindu-Buddhist (again, vestiges of the Sri Vijaya and Majapahit influences) with a syncretist mix of indigenous animist and even ancestor-worship (which could be construed as having been acquired from the Chinese?), the western half of Mindanao was solidly Muslim. The rest of the archipelago had a variegated mix of indigenous beliefs and religious traditions untouched by Buddhist China, neither by the Hindu Sri Vijaya, nor its successor, the Muslim Sultanate of Malacca.

The Spanish mistook the Hindu-Buddhist natives of Visayas and Luzon as "Indians" thus calling the colony "Indias Orientales Espanola" or the Spanish East Indies, and its inhabitants "Indios". The Muslims, whom the Spanish called "Moros" from "Morroch", the latinized version of Morocco or Marrakech, were regarded as 'foreigners' which they fully intended to expel (much as they did just 30 years earlier from their own Iberian peninsula) from the "Indies". the Spanish were not alone in propagating this misnomer, present-day Malaysia was the "British East Indies", and Indonesia the "Dutch East Indies", despite both regions having been almost completely Islamized by the time the British and the Dutch arrived on the scene. On the other side of the globe, the "British West Indies", "French West Indies" and "Spanish West Indies" was likewise carved out of the Caribbean islands of the Greater and Lesser Antilles.

The native islanders of the East and West Indies however, never saw themselves as "Indians". This was just the Europeans not knowing any better and imposing what they thought were facts on these colonized peoples. Neither did the "Moros", then, ever see themselves as "Moors". None of them have probably even been to Morocco! Rather more correctly, the great majority of the islanders of Southeast Asia are "Malays" or "Malayo/Melayu" (which, curiously, in Tagalog means "far"...probably owing to the fact that the Malays did venture farther than any of the ancient peoples of Asia populating the Pacific, Australasia and even as far as Madagascar off the coast of southeast Africa).

The most accurate collective place-name therefore, if it indeed was regarded as such, would have to be "MALAYA" or to be more geographically precise "Greater Malaya" (Peninsular Malaysia can then be regarded as the "Lesser Malaya"). Although this name could not be limited to present-day borders of the Philippines... it includes all of the Philippine Islands, plus the Greater and Lesser Sunda islands of Indonesia (Indian Islands), such as Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Celebes (Sulawesi), Moluccas (Maluku), and farther on (although to a much lesser extent) into the Pacific island groups of Melanesia (Black Islands), Polynesia (Many Islands) and Micronesia (Small Islands), and even Madagascar. Jjarivera ( talk)

I understand Tagalog may be the "main" language, but don't be so ignorant to say that the other languages don't matter.

---> Maharlika should be the original name of the philippines, it does not matter how many achievements were accomplished using the word philippines, it wasnt the word philippines which reached that result but it was the person which by race and blood is a malay. not a spaniard. filipinos hardly has spanish blood even. so a name change is just logical. if filipinos want to succeed then they should break the colonial mindset programmed by the spanish. VOTE AND CALL FOR A NAME CHANGE! NO to the name PHILIPPINES! to this day we are paying tribute to spain! fight this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.17.191 ( talk) 21:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ( 76.195.234.110 ( talk) 03:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) According to historical and verbal statistics Spanish blood or mestizos contribute between 20 to 40 percent of the Filipino population and to denounce one ethnicity over another is just wrong embrace your history all of it ok. Viva Filipinas

---> give then full basis and reference that says so. here's a basis for you

"According to recent genetic studies sponsored by the Stanford University, about 3.6% of all Filipinos are partly of Caucasian descent. Among this 3.6%, it is not stated whether they are of Spanish or other Caucasian descent (though it is more likely to be Spanish, American, or British). " Your presumption of "20 to 40%" is WRONG and debunked. Genetics samples are taken by accurate methods such as needle insertions. let us correct a falsehood propagated by the spanish, i refuse to be a robot and embrace history that has been altered. and stop saying "viva" your not even spanish.. the word is "Mabuhay".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.18.66 ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment about the name debate as that seems not to be on topic, not discussing the article. I would say however that I would be careful about quoting any studies proving that X% are Caucasian. Caucasian is not a scientific classification but a social one. There might indeed be a study "sponsored by Stanford" but I doubt that the authors would have phrased it in that way. In general, I would be extremely skeptical of any reference to any such study. -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the "recent genetic studies sponsored by the Stanford University" mention refers to Cristian Capelli; et al. (2001). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania" (PDF). American Journal of Human Genetics. 68: 432–443. doi: 10.1086/318205. {{ cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= ( help), cited at Ethnic groups in the Philippines#Spanish and in other articles. This source asserts, "... Some European introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%–7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%)." -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Filipno and English are the official languages of the Philippines, but more than 180 languages and dialects are spoken in the archipelago, almost all of them belonging to the Borneo-Philippines group of the Malayo-Polynesian language branch of the Austronesian language family.

Please note the typo on "Filipino."

-- I heart Surgery ( talk) 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hello ,since junary 2008 the spanish lenguage is official in phlippines . if somepeople is incredulous here is a page where tell the new

http://herenciaespanola.blogspot.com/2007/12/ya-es-oficial-filipinas-volvera.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.12.167 ( talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says it's official that Spanish will be taught at schools, but it doesn't say anything about the language being an official language in the Philippines. If you insist that it is, then please provide the amendment to the Philippine constitution that actually states this. -- Edward Sandstig ( talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be official soon. We just have to wait and see. The Philippine government is working slowly on promoting it to the public. Some schools and colleges in the Philippines have Spanish already established in their curriculum. -- $antander 06:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RP population = 88.57M -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Es lo maximo!! esto es demasiado bueno que el español sea hablado como lengua oficial en las Filipinas. Muchas gracias filipinos por hacer crecer este idioma tan bello!.

Venezuela y todos los paises hispanos siempre estaran con ustedes!

Saludos desde Caracas, Venezuela -- 67.17.161.222 ( talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a part of the initial sentence which read: "; this is due in part to the lack of government statistical study regarding racial makeup in the Philippines." I cannot fathom what statistical info the government might collect, and from what reliable source. Such info is usually collected in a census, by asking individual people what they believe their ancestry to be. This strikes me as likely not a reliable source of info. There is some info available here. I also deleted the next sentence, which read: "The Philippine Statistics Department does not account for the racial background or ancestry of an individual.", since this only comments on the clause which I deleted from the initial sentence. I also reworded the remaining text a bit, removing some bits which I thought did not contribute useful info and toning down unsupported assertions a bit (e.g., changing "most Filipino mestizos" to "many Filipino mestizos"). -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we beef up the section "Administrative divisions"? Its stubby. Just a couple of lines there and a very huge list and and very huge image. Or, can we just merge it to a related section? How about Government? -- Efe ( talk) 09:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pinoys! -- Efe ( talk) 06:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This statement doesn't look right to me:

it is the only Southeast Asian country to share no land borders with its neighbors

What about Japan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, for example?

See e.g.:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mv.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.103.138 ( talk) 02:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Those countries aren't Southeast Asian. Asian, yes, but not SE Asian. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan in East Asia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in South Asia. They are not at Southeast Asia -- bluemask ^{( talk)} 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Mongoose. These are the regional groupings of Asian countries: East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East sometimes called West Asia.

Japan, China, Taiwan, Mongolia, North and South Korea are grouped into the East Asian region. Maldives, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. are grouped into the South Asian region.

Parts of the Russian Federation like Sakha Republic among others are in North Asia or the so-called Siberian region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.198.226 ( talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

S.I.N.G.A.P.O.R.E. -- Filipinayzd ( talk) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As of this writing in the Spanish wikipedia, it would seem like the main proponents of the Philippine revolution were Spanish speakers (how about the Tagalog, Cebuano and other speakers). I deleted this part but it gets reverted by Durero(spanish wiki). I'm going to try include other speakers but he prevents me from making other improvements, like the spelling of igorrotes=>igorotes. I expect he will revert it again anyway. -- Jondel ( talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Philipinas was on old Spanish and creolles dialects and the criollo Filipinas. The other name of the country becames from the old spanish-castilian and spanish-galician Philipinas.

_____

The Spanish speakers also referred to the Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Pampangos. Is there a need to distinguish the Criollos from Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Pampangos, etc.? The Criollos were also classified as Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Pampangos, etc. For example, Padre Jose Burgos was a Criollo but also an Ilocano native having been born there. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera is another Criollo but is also a Tagalog being a native of Manila. What Dureno probably means is that the Tagalogs, Cebuanos, etc. who instigated the revolutions were mostly Spanish-speaking having been educated in Philippine universities the least. Even Andres Bonifacio spoke fluent Spanish. Although FYI, Emilio Aguinaldo could barely speak Spanish and had to rely on his more educated adjutants like Col. Leyba and General Gregorio del Pilar in communicating with Spanish-speakers.

Source: A Question of Heroes by Nick Joaquin

        History of the Filipino People by Teodoro Agoncillo
        The Filipino Saga  —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
121.127.7.68 (
talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 

The part about E Aguinaldo proves non Spanish speakers were the main revolutionaries. Spanish was spoken maybe in the same way English is spoken today. My point is it would seem that non-natives/natively Spanish speakers led the revolution(Not!). Of course they would probably communicate w each other in Spanish (as with English or Filipino today)but not use Spanish natively.-- Jondel ( talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so criolos were part of the revolutionaries. -- Jondel ( talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An aside re Aguinaldo and Spanish

From the above: "Emilio Aguinaldo could barely speak Spanish ...". Do you happen to have a citeable source for this? This, if true, could be very significant. Note the info here regarding Aguinaldo and Pratt -- ""Aguinaldo knew but little English, Pratt knew no Spanish, so in their interview Bray acted as interpreter. ..." At this key point in Philippine history, Bray was interpreting between English and Spanish. You're saying that Aguinaldo was working in a language he barely understood through an interpreter into a language which he did not understand, right? Also note the last paragraph here. My gast is flabbered. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 01:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh I think Filipinos then, used Spanish the way Filipinos used English today. Few would use it natively but would use it formal situations. But yes get citeable sources. -- Jondel ( talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jondel,

The source is written above, "A Question of Heroes" by Nick Joaquin. He is a renowned historian in the Philippines. It's available in Power Books. Emilio didn't finish schooling and his business was into trading crops which meant he talked with Indios more than Spanish speakers. As gobernadorcillo of Cavite El Viejo though, he probably was forced to speak some Spanish but he probably spoke it awkwardly, not enough to be understood by fluent Spanish speaker.

Yes, I believe Spanish was spoken much like English is today, a second language to most, a first language to the Ilustrados. In fact, there was an instance that Andres Bonifacio said during a meeting "Yan lang ba pag-uusapan natin, kakastila-kastila pa kayo!" (Is that all we will discuss? You had to show off your Spanish!). So it means that during the Spanish Era, most Filipinos probably spoke it but only as a second language. Like today, the Spanish language was native to the Ilustrados but foreign to the masses. Much like how English is spoken by most today but is considered by many Filipinos as a second language and those who speak it are considered "hamboguero" or arrogant. Even the Noli Me Tangere gives us an idea how Spanish was spoken. Much like the role of English today. Native to some, a second language to majority. Jose Rizal could barely write in Tagalog and Marcelo Del Pilar defeated Jose Rizal as Editor-in-chief of La Solidaridad because Del Pilar had a mastery of the Tagalog language.

Over all, I don't think there is a difference between Spanish-speakers and non-Spanish speakers in the revolution. Emilio Aguinaldo barely spoke Spanish but his adjutant were creoles - Col. Jose Leyba and Manual Quezon. Gregorio Del Pilar is a Gatmaitan therefore a descendant of pre-hispanic nobility. The head of the Academia Militar was a creole named Col. Sityar but majority of the soldiers were probably native Tagalog or Pampango speakers. Andres Bonifacio is a native Tagalog speaker but his Katipunan is inspired by GomBurZa, who were creole priests executed at the height of the creole insurgencies of the 1800s after the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, which is a creole uprising. The creole uprisings have not yet been fully accepted by historians as part of the Philippine Revolution but it was the very reason for the founding of the Propaganda Movement and the Katipunan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.7.68 ( talk) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the sea of blue in this article brings to mind WP:overlink. Perhaps some of the superfluous wikilinks should be de-linked IAW that style guideline. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've placed {{ Contradict-other}} tags saying that this article appears to contradict the MIMAROPA and PALAWAN articles regarding which region contains Palawan province. Like those articles, this article reflects the impact of EO429, which directed the move from Region IV to region VI. Unlike those articles, this article does not reflect the impact of AO129, which directed that implementation of EO429 be held in abeyance pending approval by the President of its implementation Plan. AFAIK, no such approval has been either sought or given, but I haven't been paying close attention to this. One or more of these three articles should be updated so that they all reflect the current situation. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 09:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All the five eyewitness accounts of Magellan's voyage--by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, and Martín de Ayamonte--that contain references to a port named Mazaua, do not mention any island named Limasawa. There is no Philippine language that has that word.

In fact, the placename "Limasawa" is an invention of Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J. Combés published in 1667 a book on evangelization of Mindanao. In his story he narrates the sojourn of Ferdinand Magellan's fleet in Philippine waters. He states the fleet went to Butuan where a cross was planted on March 31, 1521. He mentions no mass held on that day.

In fact his Limasawa is not the Mazaua of Magellan. It is the isle Gatighan which is found at 10 degrees North latitude. In the story and map of Antonio Pigafetta, it is the waystation where the Armada de Molucca hove to late in the afternoon of April 4, 1521 where they caught one bat which they ate. Gatighan, like Limasawa, did not afford any anchorage.

It will be recalled Fr. Combés had no knowledge of Mazaua that was correct and factual. He in fact dismissed the account of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas who said the island-port was named Mazaua. Instead Combés opted for the garbled story by Giovanni Battista Ramusio who said the port was Butuan. Combés also dismissed the name given four years earlier by Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., for the same island. Colín's name for Pigafetta's Gatighan was "Dimasawa," an invented word, which was to signify it is not the Mazaua of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas where an Easter mass was held. Colín and Combés both adopted the story--garbled and awfully mistaken--of Giovanni Battista Ramusio that the island-port where a mass was held was Butuan.

If Limasawa and Dimasawa are misnomers for Pigafetta's Gatighan, who then said that Limasawa and Mazaua are one and the same?

The man who said Combés's Limasawa is Magellan's Mazaua was Carlo Amoretti who had not only not read Combés but had not read a single primary account of Magellan's voyage except the Italian manuscript of Antonio Pigafetta. He certainly did not read Ginés de Mafra's account which is the most authoritative on Mazaua. Ginés de Mafra was the only crewmember of the fleet who was able to return to Mazaua, in 1543, and stayed there for about six (6) months. He was part of the expedition under Ruy Lopez de Villalobos. His testimony about the port is precise. In any case, Carlo Amoretti said in his edition of the Italian Pigafetta which he published in 1800 that Limasawa may be the island named Limasawa in the map of Jacques N. Bellin and that both are found in latitude 9 degrees and 40 minutes as located by Pigafetta. What he did not know was that Limasawa is in 9 deg. 56 minutes North, and there are three readings for Mazaua: Pigafetta's, Albo's 9 degrees and 20 minutes North, and The Genoese Pilot's 9 degrees North.

What is most telling is the fact that Limasawa, as stated by the Coast Pilot, has no anchorage. Mazaua had an excellent harbor. Philippine historians and historiographers who have entered the discussion on Mazaua are not navigation historians and therefore this technicality has not registered on them.

It is lamentable that those who're engaged in this controversy do not take the pains to trace the word "Limasawa" to its very beginning, 1667 when it was first invented by Combés who knew nothing about Mazaua, and what he knew of it was absolutely wrong. And they should indeed trace the idea Limasaw=Mazaua to Carlo Amoretti who was ignorant of what Combés's Limasawa was.

To give readers a clear idea of the Limasawa story, here is a comprehensive discussion on what Fr. Combes wrote and his exact words:

Fr. Francisco Combés and his Limasaua

The word "Limasaua" first came into being in the book of Jesuit chronicler Fr. Francisco Combés, Historia de las Islas de Mindanao, Iolo, y sus adyacentes...Madrid: Herederos de Pablo de Val, 1667.

The occasion for inventing the word pertains to an incident in the voyage of Armada de Molucca, the fleet under Captain-General Ferdinand Magellan, in Philippine waters when the fleet was anchored at the island-port named Mazaua. At the time Combés wrote his 3-paragraph story of Magellan's sojourn at Surigao Strait he had no access to authentic sources, none of the eyewitness accounts with references to Mazaua had been published. All these were published much more than a century latter, the last one by Martín de Ayamonte saw print only 266 years after. Here are the dates of publication of the eyewitness accounts: Antonio Pigafetta,1800; The Genoese Pilot, 1826; Francisco Albo, 1837; Ginés de Mafra, 1920; Martín de Ayamonte,1933. This fact would impact on the version by Combés of an incident the real story of which he did not know. The repercussions of his distorted story reverberates to this day in the 21st century four centuries after Combés had written his thin story.

Indeed, his invented word, "Limasaua", is viewed ironically diametrically opposite of what he had intended it to mean. It's only now that his true meaning is being given critical analysis. Because of Combés's limited and distorted view of the episode--which is hardly understood by historians and historiographers at work on this incident--his invention is seen as pointing to Mazaua, the real port, which in fact Combés's "Limasaua" sought to negate.

"Limasaua" is not found in any of the primary or secondary accounts of the circumnavigation voyage of Ferdinand Magellan. It is not found in the languages of the area encompassed by the story of Magellan's sojourn in Philippine waters, e.g., Cebuano, Waray Waray, Butuanon, Tausug, Surigaonon, Manobo, etc. For that matter, none of the over 100 languages of the Philippines has that word. It's a pure invention.

The word is a combination of the prefix "Li" which has no linguistic origen in any Philippine language and "mazawa" which could only have come from the Spanish chronicler Antonio de Herrera, one of three sources of Combés. His two other sources were Giovanni Battista Ramusio and Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., whose name for the same southern Leyte isle pointed to by Combés was "Dimasaua," another neologism or invention. "Dimasaua" is made up of the Bisaya prefix "di" meaning "not" and "masawa" the placename given by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas for the island-port where Magellan's fleet anchored from March 28 to April 4, 1521. "Dimasaua" expressly signifies the island it points to is not where an Easter mass was held by Magellan, his men, and the Mazawans.

The reason Combés did not adopt Colín's "Dimasaua" is because his story does not contain any reference to an Easter mass happening on March 31, 1521. So his name does not negate a non-existing mass.

Both Combés and Colín wrote that Magellan's fleet anchored at Butuan, adopting the story of the Renaissance travel writer Giovanni Battista Ramusio. Ramusio's work was a hopelessly garbled Italian translation of the eyewitness account of Magellan's voyage based on the text of the Colines edition. The Colines edition is a French translation by Jacopo Fabri, in reality Jacques Lefevre. This was printed at Paris anonymously for Simon de Colines with the title Le voyage et navigation faict par les Espaignolz es Isles de Mollucques, and is believed to have seen print sometime between 1526 and 1536. The Italian translation of the Colines was published anonymously in 1536 probably in Venice? and by N. Zoppini? Its title was Il viaggio fatto da gli Spagniuoli a torno a'l mondo.

This translation came out anonymously as "Viaggio attorno il mondo scritto per M. Antonio Pigafetta...tradotto di lingua francese nella Italiana" in the 1550 edition of Primo Volume delle Navigationi et Viaggi...Venetia, gli heredi di Luc' Antonio Giunti, 1550. It appeared again anonymously in the 1554 edition of Vol. I. Only in the 1563 edition was the authorship by Gian Battista Ramusio asserted and printed. Volume I was further republished in 1588, 1606 and 1613. Volume I was translated into French in 1556 and published in two volumes at Lyons.

There are clearly differences in the editions of Volume I. Colín's version follows an edition that is represented by the English translation by Richard Eden. On the other hand, Combés' follows an edition represented by the English translation by Samuel Purchas. Eden's talks of an Easter mass, Purchas' does not mention any.

Here is the English translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J. of Combés' story of Magellan's sojourn:

"The first time that the royal standards of the Faith were seen to fly in this island [of Mindanao] was when the Archipelago was first discovered by the Admiral Alonso de Magallanes. He followed a new and difficult route [across the Pacific], entering by the Strait of Siargao, formed by that island and that of Leyte, and landing at the island of Limasaua which is at the entrance of that Strait. Amazed by the novelty and strangeness of the [Spanish] nation and the ships, the barbarians of that island welcomed them and gave them good refreshments.

"While at Limasaua, enjoying rest and good treatment, they heard of the River of Butuan, whose chieftain was more powerful. His reputation attracted our men thither to see for themselves or be disillusioned, their curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place was nearby. The barbarian [chief] lived up to our men's expectations, providing them with the food they needed...Magellan contented himself with having them do reverence to the cross which is erected upon a hillock as a sign to future generations of their alliance...The solemnity with which the cross was erected and the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by the natives following the example of the Spaniards, engendered great respect for the cross.

"Not finding in Butuan the facilities required by the ships, they returned to Limasaua to seek further advice in planning their future route. The Prince of Limasaua told them of the three most powerful nations among the Pintados [Visayans], namely those of Caraga, Samar, and Zebu. The nearness of Zebu, the facilities of its port, and the more developed social structure (being more monarchical) aroused everyone's desire to go thither. Thus, guided by the chief of Limasaua, passing between Bool and Leyte and close to the Camotes Islands, they entered the harbor of Cebu by the Mandawe entrance on the 7th of April 1521, having departed from Limasaua on the first day of that month."

Translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J., "Butuan or Limasawa?" in: Kinaadman, Vol. III, 1981, pages 4-5. -- Vicente Calibo de Jesus ( talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Una Grande Libre filippint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was fiddling around on Plainglobe.com today, and created this map, I've converted it to jpg format and uploaded to commons. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was surfing the web and I found a very informative site about the Philippines. It's definitely a very good country guide for tourists and students like me seeking helpful information. I think it should be included in the external links.

The site was http://www.philippinecountry.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.13.71 ( talk) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a distinct lack of proportionality in relation to the role of Islam in Philippine history.

Although there are many sources of information across the internet (for example: An excellent article here [4] by former Senator Santanina T. Rasul in 1999.

Clearly Islam was not proselytised in the usual sense as it encompassed a slow and non violent spread northwards towards modern day Manilla. The existance of Sultanates is notable as is the fact that when the Spanish invaded in 1521, the Philpinnes was arguably an Islamic country (not unlike geographic counterparts such as Malaysia, Indonesia and India, through to the Middle East which was a major centre of influence).

Christianity however was clearly proselytised and violently so. The response of the Muslims was consistent and continued into the American intervention.

This history clearly justifies more than 4 lines as it is crucial and highly relevant to the actions of the Spanish invaders who only 30 years earlier forced Islam from Spain.

Revisions required but must adhere to NPOV and with credible sources. Agoncillo is cleary widely used but massively un-credible due to his use of non-factual references (WIKI: "Agoncillo's works suffer from uneven scholarship throughout, especially with his use (or especially, non-use) of reliable historical sources".

Potential source list:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/politics/legacy_of_islam_in_the_philippines.htm (Senator Santanina T Rasul) http://www.slate.com/id/2112795/ (Brendan Koerner) http://www.jstor.org/pss/2756054 (confirming the disproportionate LACK of attention)

Further resources would be appreciated ahead of an amend. Avenger786 ( talk) 18:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's work on this. But Lets be encyclopedic and fully sourced(provide substantiable sources).-- Jondel ( talk) 21:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, we too would like a more comprehensive subset on Islam in the Philippines than what is already written. And then again, there already is a wiki article on that, right? Wiki readers should at least get a clear idea as to the extent of Islam throughout the archipelago before the Spanish arrived and colonized the islands in this article.

Even then, the information must be NPOV in that neither should this article be used to further certain myths about pre-Hispanic Islamic predominance in the Philippines. Contrary to the claims above, the Philippine was not (never was) an Islamic country even before the Spanish came.

A quick review of archaeologically proven history points to certain areas where Islam is regarded as the established religion, namely: Sulu (1380CE earliest), Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Central- (Maguindanao), Western- (southern Zamboanga Peninsula), and parts of Northern (Lanao) and Southern (Buayan) Mindanao, Southern Palawan, Mactan (in Cebu), Iloilo and the south bank of the Pasig in Manila (for less than 10 years).

The greater part of the archipelago worshipped a syncretist mix of Hindu-Buddhist (influenced by Sri Vijaya and Majapahit) and Animist belief systems. In fact, the Luzon Empire recorded by the Ming Dynasty in China had its capital in Tondo (Pasig River's north bank), and was allied with the Pampango confederacy of Lubao, Betis and Macabebe... these kingdoms were Hindu-Buddhist.

The Laguna Copperplate Inscription of circa 900CE, written in a ancient script that resembled sanskrit more than the indigenous "alibata", and spoke of a Lord of Pailah whose name - Jayadewa - is closer to Javanese Hindu nobles (of the Majapahit) than Muslim aristocrats (of the Sultanate of Malacca which took over from the Hindu Sri Vijaya).

Moreover, Raha Humabon (Rajah is an Indian royal title), King of Cebu, was Hindu-Buddhist (thus making the Spanish mistake of thinking that the native islanders were Indians - and therefore called "Indios" - more understandable. Challenging Raha Humabon's rule as the Alpha King was the young and brash Lapu-Lapu of neighboring Mactan Island. Lapu-Lapu was not a Raha nor a Lakan. Neither was he referred to as a Sultan nor as a Datu. He was simply Lapu-Lapu, Chieftain of Mactan. Some accounts aver that Lapu-Lapu was a recent convert to Islam, or was himself a Tausug adventurer who founded a colony of Muslim seafarers from "Lupa-SUG" (Land of SUG or Sulu) in the land of their kin - "SUG-bo"(North of SUG or Cebu). To claim therefore that Muslim conversion was done slowly and peacefully is yet another myth as we know for a fact that Humabon and Lapu-Lapu weren't chummy at all.

Neither were the triumvirate of Maynila, Raha Sulayman (Muslim King of Maynila), Raha Matanda (Sulayman's uncle, deposed and removed farther inland by the invading forces of Brunei's Sultan Bolkiah to a place called Sapa - now Sta. Ana), and Lakandula (King of Tondo, Emperor of Luzon or Selurung/Seludong). The prosperous Luzon Empire was decidedly Hindu-Buddhist, and the Muslim Sultan of Brunei sent an invading force to break its monopoly over the China trade in the islands. It was to be the sorry fate of this fledgling Muslim state in "Maynila" that no sooner had they gained this foothold in Luzon than the Spanish came and built their own "Intramuros" on the burned ruins of the fleeing Sulayman.

Even Mindanao, the self-styled "homeland" of Filipino Muslims was not completely proselytized into Islam. The Caraga of Agusan and Surigao fiercely resisted Muslim proselytization. The Subanen of the Zamboanga Peninsula, too, resisted forced Muslim conversion by the Tausugs and their allies, the indigenous Samas and Bajaos. The same is true for the T'boli of South Mindanao and the Tirurays, Higaunons, etc. spread throughout the rest of Mindanao. The rest of Northern Luzon and the Eastern Visayan islands's populations were never converted to Islam.

Even the avowed consistency of the Muslim response to the Spanish, to the Americans and to the present Philippines is a myth. The Lanao confederacy, having been introduced to Spanish cannonade by Gov. Gen. Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera in the 1630s, were on the verge of accepting Spanish sovereignty quite similar to the acquiescence of the populations in the northern islands. In fact, a Spanish fort was established on the shores of Lake Lanao in Dansalan (now Marawi) early on as a testament to their near acceptance and possible conversion. Spanish plans were thwarted however by Sultan Kudarat who, fearing that his power over these dominions would be greatly diminished, seeing the Spanish as real threats to his own existence as a sovereign, and rightly so, he urged his political allies to reject Spanish overtures just as violently as the Spanish proved to be only a year before.

Islam, too, cannot and should not be regarded as a religion indigenous to the Philippines. As everyone knows, this started in Arabia, founded by Prophet Mohammad, expanded his theocratic Arabian Empire across the middle east, overrunning the previously Christian areas of Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Asia Minor (Turkey) and North Africa (Carthage, Numidia, Tripolitania, Mauretania) to the west, and the Hindu-Buddhist regions of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, and the Malay Archipelago (Sri Vijaya and Majapahit) to the east. The Sultanate of Sulu was founded by a foreigner - Syed Hashem Abu Bakr - an Arab, born in Malacca. His descendants therefore are, strictly speaking, Arab mestizos. The same Hashemite Dynasty is regarded as the rightful Royal family of Sulu - the same as... King Abdullah's of Jordan in the Middle East - and therefore, a foreign royal line - in the Philippines up to this very day.

Having lived in Basilan all my life, it is amusing to note that as much as Christian Filipinos apparently fall over themselves claiming Spanish or American descent, flaunting aquiline noses and light skin... so too the Muslims - Tausug, Yakan, Sama, Bajao, Maguindanao, Maranao, etc. - who are equally proud of their Arabic "bloodline". Colonial mentality?

Fact is, the Philippines was the scene of two Empires meeting and roughing it up from the 1500s through the 1800s - nearly 400 years of incessant warfare. The Arab colonizers arrived earlier (1380), and they and their native converts (the Tausugs most prominently), proceeded to force the majority Hindu-Buddhist-Animist population into Islam (slowly, yes, but NOT peacefully). An Arabic aristocracy was established in 1450 in the form of a Sultanate, the first in the Philippines, and took the Arab Empire 70 years to establish it. A mere 71 years after this, the Magellan expedition arrived in 1521. 44 years after that, the Spanish colony in Manila was established. Ever since, the two foreign empires fought each other until 1876, when Jolo finally fell to the Spanish, signing a treaty (Treaty of 1878) officially recognizing Spanish sovereignty over the entire area. The Spanish eventually left in 1899 after having been defeated by the Americans.

The Sultanate then entered into a treaty with the Americans (Bates Treaty), again recognizing American sovereignty. They broke this treaty and proceeded to attack the Americans, who answered back with their own savage punitive attacks. The Battles of Bud Dajo are witness to American brutality. But then again, fact is, the myth that the Filipino Muslim Sultanates were never defeated by the Spanish nor by the Americans is just that - a myth...historical revisionism at its worst.

Also, wholesale (sometimes even having record 100% voter turnouts in some precincts!) Filipino Muslim participation in the Philippines' periodic electoral contests (Santanina Rasul herself was a beneficiary of this) likewise point to the acceptance by a clear majority of Filipino Muslims of the Philippine Government, even with its Filipino Catholic majority. They may have done so grudgingly, but you don't have to be a Muslim to have legitimate grudges about the system, right?

Finally, the 1987 plebiscite ratifying the Philippine Constitution was likewise resoundingly participated in and approved by Filipino Muslims, thus totally debunking any further Filipino Muslim claim that the Constitution does not matter to them because it isn't theirs. They approved it too, thus making them a part of Philippine society and a subject of its laws. Jjarivera ( talk)jjarivera

Any suggestions on how to improve that part? I'm open, too, if we'd agree on removing it, since this is going to attract edit wars and everyone will just include his/her university/college eventually. Besides, how do we actually define "reputable" in that context? The first four mentioned are already ok, IMO. Xeltran ( talk) 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how having this section improves the article. I would also agree to remove this part Mk32 ( talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that's one for the affirmative. Others? Xeltran ( talk) 07:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Support removal unless it is common practice for Wikipedia articles about current members of the community of nations to have such a section. I haven't checked, but I would not expect that to be common practice. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove the whole Education section. TheCoffee ( talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it, I'm removing first the "other reputable collegs and universities" section, no criteria for being "reputable" was ever presented aside from the rankings which only concern 4 universities. The section can still be improved, like what was done with Japan's article. I'm also removing the "elementary" and "secondary school" sections, because a link to the main article, Education in the Philippines was already provided. This section should be a preview only of the main one, wherein important bits of the one being previewed should be given. Xeltran ( talk) 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am editing the economy section on the grounds that it is not neutral POV. It says the following:

Despite the growing economy, the Philippines will have to address several chronic tasks in the future. Strategies for streamlining the economy include improvements of infrastructure, more efficient tax systems to bolster government revenues, furthering deregulation and privatization of the economy, and increasing trade integration within the region, and across the world

This clearly expresses the view that neoliberal policies (deregulation, privatisation, free trade, etc.) are good for the Philippine economy. This is certainly not obvious, and would be contested by many, on the basis that neoliberal financial institutions have contributed to the huge levels of poverty and inequality in the Philippines. Jma71 ( talk) 11:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons and motivations for editing this part of the article likewise shows your clear bias in favor of your own socialist/communist ideology, and is thus, in itself a non-neutral act. The Philippines as a republican and democratic state (read your Constitution!) is founded on principles which you obviously abhor. Tough luck! We do not view neoliberal financial institutions as having contributed to the huge levels of poverty and inequality in the Philippines. That is just your opinion. If the passage was written on the North Korea or Cuba articles then your socialist righteous indignation is clearly warranted. So just wait until the Philippines becomes a communist state...until then, that passage is just right. Jjarivera ( talk)jjarivera

Almost every other article concerning nations are protected to prevent frequent Vandalism. It should be applied to this article since its being vandalized and brutalized very very often.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 14:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed we have random vandalism from anon ip's and named editors trying to sneak in changes by going anon harlock_jds ( talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed also. I just noticed that the long-standing and stable lead section in this article has been replaced with shorter summaries. I hope major revisions like revising the introduction must be talked here first. Jordz ( talk) 06:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please state your comment at the page, not here. I'm just probing for opinions on a topic I know nothing about Power.corrupts ( talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The image File:Agila2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Nora bio6-2-.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this:

LOL~ I don't think I need to explain why, right? (On a lighter note, people who lose their phones become really depressed? LOL) Xeltran ( talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ever since the protected status was removed, violations and vandalism has plauged this article. Who had the bright idea of removing the semi-protection of this page? Someone should apply for the permanent protection of the Philippine article since it's too prone to random vandals.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A permanent one? Nah, don't think so. Probably a week- or month-long protection should do it. But since you're the one who suggested, hop on to WP:RFPP and file a request. Xeltran ( talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't because I dont know how to. Lol Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been semi-protected for one month.  :) Xeltran ( talk) 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw ( talk) 06:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)