Talk:Philippines/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Philippines. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

I added sepak takraw in the first line. I really wanted to add at least a paragraph but my coconuts won't let met,.,. nyahah and a question, if you would kindly answer I will really appreciate it:

Is wikipedia affiliated or related to answerquestions.org?

w/o wax, =p (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to raise an edit here. Anyway, the native name of the country should be italicized according to WP:MOSTEXT. The source for the country's motto should remain. No need for an "English:" field to be placed near the anthem. Spanish is not anymore an official language, and is not currently taught in schools neither is it widely used. (I don't have a comment on the ethnic groups part but I'm leaning on the previous edit). And obviously, the Philippines drives on the right. I don't get it why the editor is "removing NPOV statements" because as per WP:NPOV, NPOV clauses must be instead placed.

Oh well, that's it for now. Xeltran (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard Spanish will be taught in schools again. But I don't want to make a strong point of it. Just wait and see. If it will not then so what.--Jondel (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Read that news, too, but since it isn't (for now at least), let's not place it there. Besides, it still isn't an official language (again). Xeltran (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK ^_^ Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When you compare the Philippines' lead section with that of other countries such as America or Russia youll find that it's very very short and so we need to expand it. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The last peer review deemed that we should add a "Military" and "Foreign Relations" sections into the article in 2005. Now, here we are at 2009 and still there are no "Military" and "Foreign Relations" sections in the article. It's about time we add these two subsections into the article so that we could reapply this article for peer review and finally make the Philippines a featured article. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article lacks sufficient sources and some references are out of date. Like the IMF GDP projection used as reference for the article; that projection was dated at 2007, there has been a 2 year lapse since then. Likewise the population projection was also published in 2007. In addition to these, various subsections have very few references!!! We should change this by finding adequate referencing and expanding the bibliography

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

The current inadequate skimming of the Philippines' article of the remarkable complexity and tapestry of Philippine history and ethnic identity doesn't give justice to the volumous information and data about these two subjects. In my school library alone 1/4 of the whole library section is filled with data concerning the unmatched historical and ethnic diversity of the Philippine archipelago. So I would like to propose edits of these two subsections. Outlined below is my proposal for the edits.

History Sub-section proposed Edits Instead of dividing the history subsection into ridiculously simplistic sumarizations manifest in the current representation into "Pre-History, Colonial Period and Contemporary era" divisions. I propose a format similar to that of the article Spain and Malaysia {history subsections} were the actual Eras and Epoches are enumerated instead of being lumped together. Thus the Subsections will be greatly more expanded and informative.

Ethnicity Sub-section proposed Edits Ethnic identity in the Philippines is really complex, the country is home to at least 10 indigenous ethnic groups: the Bicolano, Ibanag, Ilocano, Ivatan, Kapampangan, Moro, Pangasinense, Sambal, Tagalog and Visayan in addition to that, there are also 6 recognized aboriginal races: the Badjao, Igorot, Lumad, Mangyan, Negritos and Tagbanua. This is furthermore complicated by the historical admixture of Americans, Arabs, British, Chinese, Japanse, Indians, Mexicans and Spaniards whose varying degrees of miscagenation is underestimated or not given justice to.

I propose that the ethnicity subsection be further subdivided into Sub-sub-sections with the topics: 1)Indigenous Ethnicities, 2)Aboriginal Tribes, 3)Mixed-Raced Groups (Chinese mestizos,[Mestizo de Sangley] Spanish mestizos, Mexican mestizos etc.] and 4) Immigrant Populations (Pure unmixed foreigners in Philippine soil: like the historical criollos). In order to account for the complexity of Philippine ancetry.

I will do all these while citing sources from good books (down to page itself) and websites proving it.

I hope you all accept my proposed changes since it's logical and imperative that we expand the subsections and hopefully regain the status of the Philippines as a "Featured" article for this.

Truly Yours, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Must keep all information straight to the point and merged all written information into one section to balance the article so that the reader do not get confused. The History and Ethnic group section is perfect. There is no need to keep on adding NPOV when in fact the Philippine government do not have any records of the number of mestizos living in the philippines. Most of these are infact estimates provided by vague International studies. The official numbers of all types of mestizos living outside or inside the Philippines is unknown. The minority of mestizos are infact descendance of the original Spanish, Mexican or American settlers who settled in the islands during the colonial period. However, modern day mestizos, today, can be descendance of any foriegn bearer. Thank you. AlvarezQz 19:34, February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding using the article to PROVE perceived TRUTH, citing sources supporting article assertions (possibly neglecting to showcase contrary assertions and to cite sources supporting those contrary assertions), please refer to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPV. Generally, we shouldn't make judgements regarding truth or falsity. WP articles should reflect reliable sources and, where those sources conflict, should reflect all sides of the conflict following the policy enunciated by WP:WEIGHT. Regarding scholarly sources being trumped by the asserted lack of official governmental records, I don't think so. Regarding subdividing the History and Demographics subsections of this article and adding lots of detail, refer to WP:SS#Basic technique and WP:SPLITTING. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw suggested changes. The race and ethnic issues of the Philippines are complicated and that should be better reflected in the article. Currently, it strikes me as too racial a discussion and not delving into the different ethnicities and nationalities enough. One more point: "American" is a difficult term to use. Be careful with it. Most Americans, such as myself, don't think of themselves as American by nationality or ethnicity. American is a citizenship, not a nationality, ethnicity or race. Americans think of themselves as German, Polish, African, Mexican, Filipino, etc. Many Filipinos in my experience, on the other hand, think of "American" as another ethnicity, another nationality, parallel to "Spanish" or "Chinese". Many also, again in my experience, think of "American" as "White". Are Fil-Ams "Americans" then? It might be better to talk of countries instead of people, i.e. use "America" over "Americans". I did just make some minor changes to the section; I hope that I didn't step over any line. --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Metal deposits in the Philippines are estimated at 21.5 billion metric tons, while non-metal deposits are projected at 19.3 billion metric tons.^[1] Cobalt, silver, gold, salt, copper, nickel,^[2] and iron are the main mineral resources that are significant in the Philippine economy. Among these minerals, nickel ranks first in terms of deposits and size.^[1] Among non-metal deposits, the most abundant are cement, lime, and marble. Other non-metals include asbestos, clay, guano, asphalt, feldspar, sulfur, talc, silicon, phosphate, and marble.^[1]

As if that's our only resource.--23prootie (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The religion section needs some attention paid to it, specifically teasing out the percentages of Protestant Churches and others that come out of the Christian tradition but are not universally considered Christian. For instance the Philippine Independent Church and the United Church of Christ are clearly Christian and maybe Protestant depending upon how you define Protestant (must they come out of the Protestant Reformation which the Philippine Independent Church did not?). On the other hand, the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Iglesia ni Christo are not considered Protestant churches and often not considered Christian but they clearly come out of the Christian tradition. Or perhaps "Protestant" here means "evangelical" and that is what the 5% figure refers to. Plus there is one too many ands. --Bruce Hall (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I corrected the spelling, grammars and words on the article. If you want this article to be promoted into the featured status articles in Wikipedia, i suggest that we need to keep the information plain and simple, such as used formal written information and proper reference or notes, without providing personal point of view or other issues. Thank you for your co-operation. DCrhD talk 21:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sana naman matuto ka munang mag-Inggles bago ka mag-edit kasi arang baluktot yang sinabi mo. Please be concise and specific on how and why the article needs to be revised. I am simply confused by how you speak. It is rather un-grammatical. What irony!--23prootie (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also confused of how you speak, anyways lets not get into that. The article is heading towards the right direction. A few more good edits will get this article featured in the featured list, such as the Wikipedia:featured article. We hope for alot of good edits in this article. We just have to make sure proper written information are used in sentences to make it easy to read, and refrain from "favoritism" or political views such as Wikipedia:NPOV, advertising Wikipedia:weasel words or Wikipedia:no original research, or other. It's all about educational purposes. Thank you for your co-operation. User:DCrHD talk 17:36 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, please don't describe my editing as "favoritism" since you too could be faulted with such error., or maybe you have forgotten of the "Spanish colony American colony" ekek you had previously. --23prootie (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Kindly review your captions and edits before submitting (specifically grammar issues). It does get confusing. Thanks! Xeltran (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I find this caption too wordy: "The University of Santo Tomas is a department of education institution that serves academic programs. It is among the oldest, and notable Universities in the Philippines."

LOL, that's too much, I think. Let's make it more concise. I suggest removing the "department of education" bit since all universities are academic in nature in the first place. Don't forget that the "oldest university" title in the Philippines is also being contested by University of San Carlos, and the capitalization of the next words are just plain wrong. I'm changing it to "The University of Santos Tomas, one of the most notable universities in the Philippines." There, that's neutral, I think. Xeltran (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Add your comments here.--23prootie (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article was perfect. The history section is long and complicated. There is alot of information from different point of view. I think the article should be plain and simple. I think all that information you have written is way to long and it belongs in the further reading article History of the Philippines. Thank you. DCrhD talk 9:28 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Define "perfect"? First of all, I did not add too much information in the history section. Most of the information there has been there before, nothing new. The only thing I did is to divide it into several sub-sections instead of the US-Spain focused ones previously present there. Call me gaya-gaya but FYI I just copied that from the history sections from here and here so stop the ka-ekekan cause it's doing no good.--23prootie (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hindi gumana yung una mong ginawa kaya ngayon gumawa-gawa ka ng bagong kuwento baka sakaling lumusot. Ewan ko ba sayo, kung iniisp mong gagana yang mga kuwento-kuwentuhan mo sa kin, eh mag-isip ka muna di kita palalampasin. Basahin mo kaya muna yung nakasulat sa yugto tungkol sa kasaysayan ng iyong amo bago mo baguhin ito. Halata namang pareho iyon sa ginawa ko. Hindi porke di mayamang bansa tong bansa namin puwede mo na kaming apihin. Kunin ninyo yang pera ninyo at isaksak ninyo na lang iyan sa lalamunan mo. Transaltion: I would like for you to discuss your edits here before reverting any of mine. Thank you and have a nice day.--23prootie (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: I reverted, and corrected most of your edits because its POV or you have used weasel words. Some of your writing skills are wrong. That is why, i have been doing alot of editing, and corrected most of your writing errors, and spelling etc. Thank you for your co-operation. --DCrhD (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you a robot or a five-year-old cause you seem rather strange for a real person. Broken record.--23prootie (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey do you even know how to write a proper writing skills. I'm sorry, but its poor. You can't even write a proper sentence or paragraph. And also, this not a forum, anymore violation and i will report you to the administration to resolve these issue. -- DCrhD talk 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look, the article's protected because of disputes. Anyway, why don't we ALL review our content before submission. Look, everyone's susceptible to mistakes...so there. And, please, don't just revert edits without a consensus, that's just plain wrong (yes, speaking from experience, my edits have been reverted as well, even though I knew these were correct). Xeltran (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I highly suggest that the terms "Superstition" and "Folklore" be avoided as they can be perceived as derogatory particularly the practitioners of such beliefs.--23prootie (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that superstition could be construed as derogatory, but folklore is not, at least in my opinion, for as much as that actually matters.--Vercalos (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge of superstitions(no mater how irrational) helps to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to cross-culture resentments. Folklore is folklore, what is derogatory about it?--Jondel (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The derogatory thing about that is how it is phrased. The original looked more like this:

Philippine traditional religions are still practiced by several aboriginal and tribal groups, often syncretized with Christianity and Islam. Folk religion and Shamanism remain present as undercurrents of mainstream religion, through the albularyo, the babaylan, and the manghihilot.^[3] Meanwhile, Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese folk religion, are dominant in Chinese communities.^[4]

I took time with care and consideration to try to include that section without offending the beliefs of indigenous peoples. So pelase judge which is better.--23prootie (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraphs should be readded or replace existing paragraphs since they tell the most important chapter of Philippine history. The relevance of these paragraphs has been discussed [[1]], where it has reached consensus and adding them might clarify [discussion].

"The Philippine Revolution began after colonial authorities executed three priests, Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (known as Gomburza), who were accused of rebellion. ^[5] This would inspire a Propaganda movement, organized by patriots José Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar, and Mariano Ponce, to write a newspaper, La Solidaridad, demanding political reforms. The failure of this organization led Rizal to return to the Philippines and establish La Liga Filipina. After publishing works such as Noli Me Tangere, and El Filibusterismo, he was exiled to Dapitan, where he met Josephine Bracken.^[6] He was executed on December 30, 1896, on charges of rebellion.^[7]

"Andrés Bonifacio, meanwhile, established the Katipunan in 1892 that sought independence from Spain.^[8] After the Cry of Pugadlawin, Emilio Aguinaldo, challenged his position as the leader, splitting it into two factions, the Magdiwang, and the Magdalo. Aguinaldo was able to take control of the leadership from Bonifacio, who was executed afterwards, and establish a revolution in El Viejo, Cavite, leading to the formation of the Republic of Biak-na-Bato.^[9] A ceasefire was agreed at the Treaty of Biak-na-Bato, which led to the revolutionary leaders to depart for Hong Kong, in exile, ending the revolution on May 17, 1897.^[10]

File:Manuel Quezon inauguration.JPG

"The Spanish-American War began in Cuba in 1898, and reached the Philippines after the United States fought Spain in the Battle of Manila Bay. After returning from exile, Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence from Spain in Malolos, Bulacan on June 12, 1898, and established the Primera República Filipina or the First Philippine Republic the following year. Meanwhile, the islands were ceded, together with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, to the United States for $20 million dollars, during the Treaty of Paris. This would lead to the Philippine-American War which led to Aguinaldo becoming captured on March 23, 1901. The war (along with the Moro Rebellion) would continue until 1913, producing more than 1,000,000 casualties."

--23prootie (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons video should be added:1946-07-15_Philippines_Independence_Proclaimed.ogv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scewing (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

After 1902 war, officially ending in 1913, did americans stay in Philippines until the beginning or end of world war II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.167 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is "Yes". General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), was forced to retreat to Bataan. Manila was occupied by the Japanese on January 2, 1942. The fall of Bataan was on April 9, 1942 with Corregidor Island, at the mouth of Manila Bay, surrendering on May 6. The Philippine Army continued to fight the Japanese in a guerrilla war and were considered auxiliary units of the United States Army. Several Philippine military awards, such as the Philippine Defense Medal, Independence Medal, and Liberation Medal, were awarded to both the United States and Philippine Armed Forces. (see History of the Philippines (1898-1946)) Some Americans eluded Japanese capture and continued to resist (e.g., Wendell Fertig). See also Military history of the Philippines during World War II. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} A whole paragraph has been erased for no justified reason. It was the second paragraph in the Colonial Period section, after the paragraph ending with "and administered directly from Spain from 1821 to 1898". A consensus was reached for this deleted paragraph after a long and productive debate [2] and I request that this is respected. This was the consensus paragraph:

• Spanish rule brought political unification to an archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar^[11]. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid. During that time new crops and livestock were introduced, and trade flourished. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco travelled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese pirates, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish ^[12].

I kindly request that this paragraph is reinserted, and that no changes are made in the future without a discussion on this Talk Page. Thanks. JCRB (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Castillian Spanish is being taught as a subject in some schools and universities. Castillian was reinstated as one of the official language of the Philippine Constitution back in 2007, by President Gloria Arroyo.[3][4][5] --Uchrgseous (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Source #4 discusses steps to improve Spanish education by reintroducing it into the school system. Although as an added requirement, that does not mean that it is in an official language
• Source #5: I didn't see anything there than discusses Spanish in the Philippines. Is there a specific date? Because all of the information there is recent. From what you wrote, it's in 2007.
• Source #6: Same as number 4. Just because it is being introduced as a preferred language in universities, that does not mean that it is recognized as an official language.

I'm aware of the efforts of Spanish being reinstated as a required language but not as an official language.

Do you perhaps have a link to the change to the constitution or an article that discusses Spanish being reinstated?Elockid (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply:None at present, there hasn't been any news about its recognition as an official language of the country as of 2009. --Urchrgseous (talk) 15:44 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchrgseous (talk • contribs)

With regards to Jose Rizal, Emilio Aguinaldo, and Andres Bonifacio, I feel the need to include them in the article with more than one paragraph since it was their decision that led to the establishment of the nation in the first place. With regards to the muslim community in the country, there have been reports that say that they may have been underrepresented and under-counted so i think that should be addressed here.--23prootie (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)--23prootie (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be put in the Languages section of the Philippines column, as a separate Auxiliary languages section under the Recognized Regional Languages. Right now its all the way at the bottom of the Philippines column, and I think the change I proposed is more appropriate. Anyone agree? Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a good idea. If it's a language recognized in the constitution in any way, then it should be acknowledged in the languages section and not solely as a note. But it should be it's own category such as "auxiliary languages", instead of regional languages. If I'm correct, the Recognized regional languages section really pertains more to the languages indigenous to the Philippines. Spanish and Arabic are not indigenous to the country. Elockid (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. I've tried to edit it though, and it never seems to come out right. If anyone would like to do it that knows how, that would be great. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article XIV Section 7 of the constitution (see here) says

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.

As I read that, it designates the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the regions and says that Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis but does not give those languages any special designation.

The info about Spanish and Arabic could be put into the infobox via an ugly hack by appending <!--begin hack--></td></tr><tr class="mergedbottomrow"><td colspan="2">Voluntary and optional languages</td><td style="vertical-align:middle;">[[Spanish language|Spanish]] and [[Arabic]]<!--end hack--> immediately following <ref name="About"/>.

Also, the line reading
|auxiliary_languages = [[Spanish language|Spanish]], and [[Arabic language|Arabic]]
is not supported by {{infobox country}}, and should be removed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that; than it should be edited, with Spanish and Arabic listed as "Voluntary and Optional Languages", and it should be in the Languages section of the column instead of a footnote of the column. I would try to edit it myself but the article is still protected from editing for some reason. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll unprotect it. Less edit-warring please YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

THE MNLF/MILF, ARE NOT PEACE KEEPING FORCES, THEY HARBOR ABU SAYYAF, AND JEMMAH ISLAMIYA....MNLF/MILF ARE INVOLVED AND PILLAGING CIVILIAN VILLAGES...RAPING NON MUSLIM CITIZENS...ENGAGED IN KIDNAPPING AND ILLICIT DRUG TRADE....THESE ARE TERRORIST GROUPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.24.161 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this person... I'm from Mindanao, back in 2000, my city was almost overruns by the MILF rebels... when the military counter-attack... they used innocent Muslim civilians as a shield... is that what you called "Peacekeepers" ... don't forget about the bombings in Mindanao... its not just Abu Sayyaf.. peads (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Two words. PEACE. DEAL. Deal with it, the bombings are ancient history, hopefully for everyone's sake.--23prootie (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talking about bombings.. last Sunday (5th of July)... in my home city at Iligan... don't forget Cotabato... you still call them PEACEKEEPERS?--peads (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't peacekeepers, but the opposing forces aren't either. The section needs to be entirely rewritten. See below. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"keeping the peace" as oppose to "peacekeepers". Seemingly similar but different terms.--23prootie (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If the army has secured the people's defense, why does the Guide to the Philippines conflict article cited refer to the 'conflict' in the Philippines and the article not? All this talk of security and defense is straight out of an army handbook or a military briefing. No wonder the Islamic side of the conflict now wants their forces to be in the article as 'peacekeepers' too. This section needs to be brought into line with other nations' pages; the armed forces is the armed forces, it is not necessary to mention their role, let alone massage it. Now, their role in recent history is another matter. But this article is so far keeping very quiet about that. Anarchangel (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's an article that addresses the conflict. It's Insurgency in the Philippines. That article is in really bad shape and is in serious need of help. I would do it but I'm currently not in the mood. Anyway, the tone of the article is clearly written to appease the other side given that the government is currently in peace talks with them. Besides, as far as the Moro people is concerned, the two major groups do provide security for them, otherwise they wouldn't enjoy local support. And explain how the section became "an army handbook or a military briefing"?--23prootie (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention, the Insurgency article. Re: 'Explain': The tone was not neutral. A few words that were non-neutral have recently been removed. See Japan and similar articles for more neutral phrasing. The remaining language, such as "successful security provided by", although much improved, still has phrasing that an agency promoting its services would use. Neither was the bit about the Moro neutral, but at least then, it was balanced with regards to the military forces; now it is defenders mentioned, but no mention of what they are defending against. A brief summary of the history of the political and military struggle in the Philippines needs to be mentioned in the article; it is long standing and an intrinsic part of Philippine history. Insurgency in the Philippines should have its own section; open conflict has been going since the 1960s, with the roots of resistance going much further back; it is inappropriate for "Insurgency" to be slipped in as an altered-text link in a sentence about something else. I hope to be able to do more work on this and the Insurgency article. Anarchangel (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is not active in keeping peace in Midanao... I'm from Mindanao myself... my city was almost overrun by this rebels twice since 2001... last weekend, they detonated a bomb near the port in Iligan City.. last April, they bomb the largest industrial bridge of the same city... thats not maintaining peace... and the article is not about to appease the rebels... think about the victims and the families they ruined... would they agree to this article?... those rebels might think that what they are doing in Mindanao, such as bombing and terrorizing innocent civilians are legitimate since they are recognize in wikipedia as peacekeepers/peace-makers --peads (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is the Philippine government considers their insurgency as legitimate. That's why they are currently trying to forge a peace deal with the MILF. It's not about what happened in the past, it's about what's happening now. Things have changed, that's already eight years ago and people are either sick and tired or apathetic of all the fighting. Besides the MILF is not as cohesive as it should be and seems to be fragmented so it is difficult to prove whether their leadership actually had a hand or not.--23prootie (talk) 19:02, 9 July (UTC)

I rewrote the section to state what these groups claim to be doing. I also avoided highly scandalous terms like "terrorist" or "peacekeeper" so please don't add them. --23prootie (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not just 8 years ago.. it happen last year... and how about last Sunday bombings.. you can't just ignore those recent events...--peads (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If your so passionate about your view then maybe you should edit Insurgency in the Philippines, where you could put all the full details about the events happening there. This article is not about discussing the political implications on the war in Mindanao, but rather about giving a general overview about the country. Two or three sentences may not be enough or fair in describing the situation. So if plan to add every single detail, then edit away.--23prootie (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that the two things Filipinos are well-known for seem to be lacking from the article.--23prootie (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? And which rock did you come out from?Xxxriainxxx (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange that we have a photo of Quezón but he's not mentioned in the history section. Sca (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Philippines is not an asian country. Firstly we are of spanish decent but we are located in south asia just like how mexico is located somewhere in south america! we are a diverse country but we are orginally from spain or of any latin family.

Philippines is not an asian country. Firstly we are of spanish decent but we are located in south asia just like how mexico is located somewhere in south america! we are a diverse country but we are orginally from spain or of any latin family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneyeforyou (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{{untrue}} --Bluemask (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? According to Stanford, check Ethnic groups in the Philippines, a small percentage of the population have varying degrees of European ancestry. So most Filipinos are not of Spanish ancestry. The Philippines isn't located in South Asia by the way, it's located in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, Mexico is not in South America, it's in Latin America or North America. And how is the Philippines not an Asian country? Elockid (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Philippines are a country filled with people of both Spanish and Asian decent. The official call should be that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders not Asian. It is in the same boat as Samoa, Guam, and Tonga! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Offtrail19 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit this article or I'd fix it myself, but I've noticed that there are a lot of instances of a comma incorrectly being used before the "and" when only two nouns are being connected.

For example:

Multiple ethnicities, and cultures are found throughout the islands.

should be:

Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands.

If someone decides to fix this, all I ask is that you don't remove commas in cases where there are three or more nouns, since those commas are in fact correct, and greatly help readability. ^_^ KenobiwanX (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The manual of style appears to be followed for the most part, but the article could use a good, thorough copyedit by someone familiar with English grammar. I've been fixing a few of the more obvious things, but it would help if additional people could provide more eyes on it. The lead section is also a bit short, and should be expanded. Please see WP:LEAD for advice here. One other issue: "This would inspire a Propaganda Movement in Spain, organized by expatriate patriots" -- what exactly is an "expatriate patriot"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See 'citation needed' tags in article. Also, it would help if full citation information was added to references -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved -- even for sources that are websites. Include as much information as you can, so that if the link disappears, the information can still be attributed to the source and can be verified through offline means if necessary.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most of the major topics are covered, but there are a couple of areas that need additional work -- see the 'dubious' tags in the article, and the notes attached to them. I would recommend moving the 'education' subsection out of 'demographics' and into its own main section, as it doesn't really fit with demographics too much. I would also recommend adding more about higher education institutions. This statement, "The general pattern of formal education follows six stages" seems to be a generalization, and not cited. One issue here is that grad education and adult education are not part of formal education and, in fact, optional.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The 'international relations' section seems to be a bit "overly optimistic", covering mostly positive relations with other nations. For example, it cites "optimistic" relations with middle eastern countries, but doesn't go into details on any issues that might be there. I think this could be expanded.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Recent edit warring resulting in page protection by Yellowmonkey on July 7, 2009. I would like to see this article's page protection removed to see if the edit warring truly subsides, because there still appears to be some recent comments on the talk page that could result in more issues.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There appear to be copyright issues looking at the file description for the El nido.jpg image. There is no copyright tag on Jeepney Benz.jpg. There is a personality rights warning tag on the image Sepak takraw.jpg.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As an additional comment, and I wouldn't hold this up at GAN, but I find it curious that the infobox has an entry for which side of the road citizens drive on. This seems rather minimally notable, if at all,... Really strange? But, I guess editors are just going with the infobox, so there,... ;-)

Overall, I think the main sections contained in the article are good, and there's a very good framework. Editors are doing a good job in sticking with the manual of style. However, due to the rather poor quality of prose and intense copy editing needed, as well as the page protection currently in place, and the numerous image issues, I don't think the article meets the Good Article criteria and cannot be listed at this time. I'd like to see page protection removed for at least a month or two before reconsideration for GA, to make sure that the article doesn't degrade into a serious edit war. In the meantime, I would recommend focusing on the copy editing and citation issues.

As an additional note, I likely would have put this on hold instead if it wasn't for the page protection currently in place. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with removing the page protection is that the article is vandalized often. Last recent unprotection history

Also based on the number of protection logs for the article, unprotecting it does not some like a good idea. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why not just revert the edits when you suspect vandalism? Is it because the users are so self conscious of their online image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.179.231 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw because the user has not provided a proper research study or any academic studies based on the history of the Philippines. Please use common-sense and see the History of the Philippines. The early history of the Philippines was both indigenous and islamic, since the indigenous villages at that period especially in the central and southern regions of the Philippines was ruled by the datus, rajahs and sultans. The Negritos and other northern tribal groups, however, was never influence by islam, instead they were animist tribal groups. Boxedor (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new titles for the history section. They are general yet descriptive at the same time. ;)--23prootie (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should include in the economy section or whatever section you like about Davao city, Cebu city and Quezon City listed as top Ten Asian City of the future by fdi magazine where Davao is listed at no 10, Cebu at no. 8 and Quezon City at no. 7. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.151.184 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected again due to edit warring. Protecting admin recommended to fix some dispute on this article, it may be the reason why there is an edit war. We wish that an admin will help fix these.--JL 09 _^q?c 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now read through the article a couple of times and it appears to be at or about GA-level. As such, I will not be "quick failing" this article. I will now continue with a detailed review. As this is a comprehensive article, its going to take several days to review it. Its also worth noting, that at this stage I will be mostly reporting "problems". This does not imply that the article is bad: the first stage is to identify problems (and if necessary get them resolved) and the second stage is the review comments and sentencing. Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Etymology & History -

• These two sections appear to be generally compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Politics and government -

• Generally OK. However:

• Ref 62 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. [ca. 2009]. "Japan's ODA Data by Country". http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/data/01ap_ea02.html. Retrieved 2010-01-05.) appears to be a dead web link, and

– Updated reference. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• there is some WP:Overlinking, for example there are multiple links in this section for Cold war, War on terror, provinces (and possibly others).

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

....Sorry for the delay; I will restart the review tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An apparently-comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There is a bit too much WP:Overlinking. I've removed some of it during my review, but more could be taken out.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this arrticle GA-status.

Congratulations on producing a comprehensive well-illustrated and referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I AM APPEALING TO EVERYONE WHO HAS GREATER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORKAROUNDS IN THIS WEBSITE. WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME TOO COMPLICATED FOR ME TO ADD(OR REMOVE) INFOS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO EDITING THE PAGE ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES TO REMOVE THE MENTIONING OF "CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN" AMONG THOSE RESTAURANTS MENTIONED ALONG WITH MCDONALDS AND KFC,THAT APPARENTLY HAVE THEIR OUTLETS HERE. ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT CALIFORNIA PIZZA HAS A BRANCH HERE, I THINK THERE IS ONLY 1 BRANCH IN THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO, AND NOT THAT POPULAR AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER AFOREMENTIONED RESTAURANTS TO BE MENTIONED. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ADDED ON THE LIST AS A PROMOTIONAL GIMMICK AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES. IF CALIFORNIA PIZZA LIKES TO BE KNOWN IN THE PHILIPPINES THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE AN ADVERTISEMENT(ASTOUNDINGLY, I HAVENT SEEN ANY OF THEIR ADS) AND LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE. I HAVE ALREADY DELETED THAT RESTAURANT BEFORE AND SURPRISINGLY SOMEONE POSTED IT AGAIN AND EVEN PLACING IT FIRST BEFORE MCDONALDS. I WILL BET MY LAST CENTAVO THAT SHOULD YOU COME TO THE PHILIPPINES, ASK ANYONE HERE IF THEY KNOW SUCH RESTAURANT AND OUT OF 100 RESPONDENTS ALL OVER MANILA, ONLY 4 WOULD PERHAPS KNOW IT, WHEREAS IF YOU ASK THEM IF THEY KNOW SHAKEYS, PERHAPS 80 WOULD AFFIRM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmedina (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't taglog not really a Filipino language? I thought it just was a general term to sum up all of the different Filipino languages.^[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeaga (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

there are more cebuano speeking people than tagalog. please do more research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.132.190 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You must put up the ethnic groups on the templete to prove multiple ethnicities. And then write up the percentages of the many ethnic groups to. Template for other languages

• /interlingua
• /summarized -Please leave this here. This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data.--Jondel 02:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Matthewprc's edits: Rewording necessary. Introduced phrase in location that leads one to attribute to wrong source. 3.6% applies to European genetic information only. Term mestizo as stated in source applies to Chinese as well. Genetic evidence is not the sole or even the main reason for the belief.

Previous consensus during 2006 among Wikipedians then already established the usage of the term "AUSTRONESIAN", NOT "MALAY" as more proper for the article. Filipinos aren't a Malay people, nor do they belong to the Malay race. The use of the term "Malay" is confusing, misleading, and grossly inaccurate.- Matthewprc 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC +8)

How so, the Philippine government itself uses the term, so it would be bizarre not to include it.--Reincarnata (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Philippine government itself does not use the term "Malay". In fact, it stopped using it since the early years of the Marcos Era. Individual ministries (e.g., Tourism) use their own terminologies (e.g., Indo-Malays) but in the end, it really doesn't matter whether the term Malay is used in an official sense - what matters is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should NOT be used to propagate falsehoods at all. Filipinos aren't Malay. Filipinos are Austronesians. - Matthewprc 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC +8)

JCRB's edits: We've been over this a few times but to point to a factual inaccuracy San Carlos and Ateneo de Manila were not universities at the time the Spanish left. The first in Asia public education system bit I think is notable enough to include but a source is probably required.

Buhay Tao's edits: Confederation of Madyaas is suspect. Akeanon does not seem to be a reliable source.

Gintong Liwanag ng Araw's edits: Referring to Mai as "Sinicized" seems misleading.

Distal24's edits: GA and FA reviewers generally dislike small fragmented paragraphs and there is an expressed wish by some editors to send this article to GA or FA eventually.

— Lambanog (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Archeological Research in the Philippines, 1951-1983*]. Ronquillo, Wilfredo P. Manila. National Museum of the Philippines. Retrieved on February 1. 2010. Mentions Panay. I rest my case.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little busy so will look at this later. Whatever it says though there are still other sources that contradict the Confederation's existence. The Confederation will thus still remain suspect. There is no need to include a doubtful account which in my view will weaken the credibility of the article. Lambanog (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with exclusion is that it implies that no civilization existed on Panay, which is not actually the case since there has been archaeological evidence that (at least) one did. I will not push for the exact article to be written on the page,I will, however, insist on a link be placed towards it so that people will have in idea type of culture did or did not exist there and that they have the freedom to assume whether it was real or not.--[[User:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]] ([[User talk:Buhay Tao|Buhay Tao (ᜊᜓᜑᜌ᜔ ᜆᜂ)]]) (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Scott 1984:98-99), cited in the article, mentions the "Confederation of Madiaas." (Scott's quotes) in Chapter 4:The Maragtas. On p. 99, Scott says, "the 'Maragtas', therefore, gives no reasonable grounds for supposing the existence of any prehispanic 'Confederation of Madiaas.' " Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of his work was published before the discovery of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, so we can never be sure if his hypotheses are accurate. What we could be sure of is that, prior to the artifact's discovery, there was "no reasonable grounds for supposing the existence of any prehispanic" around the Manila Bay. --Reincarnata (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The LCI article dates its discovery as 1989. I'm not a historian and have only read a few of Scott's publications. One of his books which I do have is William Henry Scott (1992), Looking for the prehispanic Filipino: and other essays in Philippine history, New Day Publishers, ISBN 9789711005245.. That book is a collection of Scott's earlier essays, but Milagros Guerrero speaks in his Foreword to that 1991 book of having spoken to Scott "... the other day". The lead essay in the book titled, Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino: Mistranslations and Preconceptions, is a paper read at the 12th Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia in Hong Kong in 1991. The William Henry Scott (historian) article says that he was still publishing right up to his death (1993), with one publication mentioned there dated 1994. My guess is that it's a stretch to conclude that he was unaware of the LCI. I'm guessing that Scott probably said something about the LCI somewhere, but I'm not equipped to research that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, William Henry (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 971-550-135-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) speaks favorably about Visayans, including Panaynons, so I doubt that Scott explicitly stated that no civilization existed in Panay. My guess is that he wrote only about the lack of validity of the Code of Kalantiaw, not the lack of culture on the island.--Reincarnata (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While looking at Scott 1992, pp. 8–11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFScott1992 (help) while commenting in the previous section, I noticed that the second paragraph of the WP:lead says, "In prehistoric times, Negritos became some of the archipelago's earliest inhabitants. They were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples who brought with them influences from Malay, Hindu, and Islamic cultures.", and that Scott says, "... There are problems, however, with accepting the wave migration theory as part of Philippine history", going on to characterize it as a speculative rather than factual theory—a hypothesis to be tested. After a few pages of discussion, Scott says on page 11, "Finally, the most serious problem with the wave migration theory is that it is 50 years out of date. A half century of scientific research by archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists and linguists has produced a wealth of data unavailable when that grand synthesis was created before the War. The synthesis is therefore accepted by no Philippine anthropologist today; the hypothesis has been tested and found wanting. The History of the Philippines (Before 1521) article (which this article presently appears to contradict) has some more detail on this. It looks to me as if that portion of the lead needs a bit of rewriting. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I came upon that criticism but I wasn't able to read the full account and an alternative wasn't presented. What should be said in its place? The concept of coming in waves and what exactly it refers to is also blurry. I seem to recall reading for example that some who fled from Srivijaya established communities on Philippine islands. In simple terms that is a wave of migration akin to Southern Vietnamese fleeing when the communist north took over but it's an open question whether that kind of political impetus would fit the kind of wave model Scott was thinking of when he was making his comments. Maybe it is not Beyer's Wave Migration Theory but it would seem accurate to say it was a wave of migration nonetheless. The term "successive waves" is already hyperlinked to the article "Models of migration to the Philippines" to help address concerns. I'm open to hearing what a better description would be. Lambanog (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is the most discussed, most controvertial and most acitivity filled article in the whole hiistory of wikipedia. It has underwent countless revisions and 9823128638912637813276 x 10Nth power number of edit wars and revisions and has seen collaboration by a bazillion editors and have survived repeated vandalism. Undoubtedly this article is the most improved article of 2009 and to all of you who have participated in its ups and downs, you know fully well that I speak the truth. Which means the current classification of this article as a C class makes it woefully underrated. Its high time the wikipedia admins at least have enough pity to throw us bread crumbs and appreciate our overwhelmingly underrated efforts by upgrading this to good or featured article status or the very least fulfill their promise to review this article (Which they never did)

Discuss, how correct my ranting is. 58.71.29.98 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the article is not stable, there's still disputes and such, means that it isn't quite close to being a featured article yet. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article, as a whole, is fairly stable, the only section that has serious problems is the "History" section. A quiet "war" is currently going on between the Pro-Third World/nationalist/indigenous faction (Lambanog, Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, & 23prootie) and the Pro-West/Americanist/colonialist faction (JCRB-Elockid-JL 09 triad, Wtmitchell, & Matthewprc), and unless there is a truce, I doubt that the "war" would end.--Reincarnata (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Lambanog is not on any side. Lambanog has agreed and disagreed with these so called sides. What was left out was User:Orsahnses who was also involved in the history section. More pro-third world, absolutely hates the US and very nationalist. If there really are sides, then it would be this: 23prootie and socks along with Orsahnses and socks as the banned editors who still edit war, cause disruption, and get the article protected from everyone else, Gintong on one side, Lambanog on another, then the rest which are 5+ editors. There are some that you left out. The fact of the matter is that the legitimate editors who are still allowed to edit Wikipedia have disputes that we're working out, but the persistent sock puppetry that escalates the disputes no matter the justification is one if not the driving force that is preventing the article achieving FA status. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are probably a couple of areas yet which can still be improved but on the whole I think GA is already attainable. Aside from edit warring concerns and a couple of unreliable sources that still remain I don't see much difficulty. FA would be much more speculative. Alt text is lacking and standards have recently been made more stringent. I'm not sure some of the current FA country articles would pass reassessment. There is also currently another Philippines related article undergoing FA reassessment. I'm thinking it would be better not to feed the FA reviewers too much content at one time from common editors until a favorable outcome has been reached for the first. Lambanog (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to archiving most of this talk page? It's already 241 kb long and guideline says archiving talk pages 34 kb long is okay. If no objection or comment on which sections to retain I will perform a combination refactor and archive in around a week's time. This section will be deleted at that time. If consensus can be established quickly we can go ahead before then. Is the RfC still active or is it over already? Lambanog (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I beleive it is about time the talk get's archived, (up to the point of the "REVIVE THE REASSESMENT FOR FEATURE STATUS OF THIS ARTICLE! DAMN IT!..." rant), most of the discussions are already settled so there is no need to include them. I also believe that there will be no more progress in the RfC section as some editors (particularly the Elockid-JCRB-JL 09 triad) are unwilling to discuss it peacefully by convincing other editors (rather than using dirty tactics such as blocks).--Reincarnata (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how you bring in 23prootie, as he was never part of the discussion JCRB, JL 09, Gintong, Lambanog, and I were having or the discussion after that. The account itself was never part of the discussions but his IP socks were. Quack quack, already reported and hiding behind proxies isn't going to help much. Using blocks to block a banned editor is not a dirty trick. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike you, I actually read what was written above, and the name of the user was there so I just inferred. Anyway, the blocking of a user is contextual, and there should have been reason for it to be justified in the first place. To me the implementation of the policy for the sake of implementing it is fallacious, and, besides, regardless of it being legitimate, that does not keep it from being malicious.--Reincarnata (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed "The country is currently working with the United States through a visiting forces agreement[6][7] with the intention of ending the insurgency in the Philippines".(refs converted to inline links here) to read "The country is currently working with the United States with the intention of ending the insurgency in the Philippines", removing mention of the VFA agreements. Those agreements have nothing whatever to do with the purposes behind the visitation of forces but, instead, relate to procedural details regarding treatment of individual members of the visiting forces during their visit. My understanding is that the justification behind the U.S. forces visiting the Philippines grows out of Article 2 of the Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines). I've also removed the sentence which followed, "The Philippines also has a similar agreement with Australia facilitating military cooperation.[8]. That agreement does not relate to military cooperation but, rather, relates to the status of visiting forces. Also, my understanding is that this RP-Australia agreement, signed on 31 May 2007, remains unimplemented because it has not yet been ratified by the RP Senate (see this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice the date format in the infobox was changed to the more internationally used format DD-MM-YYYY. Thing is the Philippines is one of the minority that tends to follow the American format of MM-DD-YYYY. Is there any objection to the change? Lambanog (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why, the format is different from the French one for example. Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thing is the Philippines is one of the minority that tends to follow the American format of MM-DD-YYYY." Actually, both formats are used in the Philippines. Since this article is in English, MM-DD-YYYY is used. In Filipino, the format DD-MM-YYYY applies then. -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to this section per se but it isn't standardized and seems to have been inserted to promote a certain organization. The Institute for Economics and Peace is not well-known. Even the inclusion of Transparency International on that list I find disputable although its index may well be the most aptly named. Rankings of this sort tend to be based on current fashions and perceptions. 15 years ago I would have thought the Philippines ranked too high on some of the rankings of the time. Currently I would say it ranks too low. Such a list attempts to assign a number to a variety of factors taking on a role similar to financial prognosticators. Citing the numbers these rankings are supposedly based on directly is better. Financial analysts that cover companies and stock prices have a poor record and while possibly worth a citation here and there they wouldn't deserve an entire section devoted to them on an article about a company. Without a clearer consensus I will be removing this section later. Lambanog (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not useful and the articles the user has been adding rankings to has been removed/reverted. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lambanog; hello again, Elockid.

I first saw the table hours ago in the Dominican Republic article, and concluded it was OK. I even thanked the user in an edit summary. Still, I wondered whether the table should be converted to prose.

But I have to disagree with you, Elockid. Your saying that it's been reverted made me think that I should revert it, too. So I checked about two dozen articles to which the user added the table just to make sure of what you said. I found out that it was kept in all of them. (I do have a vague feeling that it was removed from one; I didn't think to write down the results, because I thought it would be easy to remember that the result was 'kept' time after time.)

In any case, Lambanog gives food for thought. SamEV (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As an update, Cptnono (talk · contribs) has gone ahead a reverted most of the additions of the table per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Institute for Economics and Peace. That's not what I mean about my second statement. Grr, I have to learn to explain better. What I meant that other editors have the same idea as Lambanog and have gone ahead and removed the table. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I backed off a bit from the trees in order to get a look at the forest. That led me to the International rankings of the Philippines article, where in these edits I corrected a bunch of errors turned up by reverification. Such articles have potential problems even if the info they report does accurately reflect what the cited sources say in that most of the information is potentially dated. Most of the List of countries by ... pages have this problem in spades (and a lot of WP articles use those wikipedia articles as a source of support for content—improperly, AFAICS, but I digress ...)

Backing off a bit more to get a look at the overall lay of the land, I have to say that I disagree with making judgments about whether information should be included based on subjective evaluation by individual wikipedia editors (otherwise known as original research) of whether the numbers are too high or too low. The lead sentence of WP:V, one of WP's five Core Content policies, says,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.

This is IMPORTANT (excuse the shouting). It bears repeating, and I repeat it a lot.

Re the subject section, I think that it should stay in, should report some rankings, should cite verifiable reliable sources outside of wikipedia in support of what it reports, and should include a {{main}} link to the International rankings of the Philippines article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Elockid, you're right, he has.

Bill, you're right. It shouldn't be about whether we think the rankings are accurate, but whether they're notable. We can see that all these rankings are already deemed to be notable enough to have their own articles, and there are articles about the rankings of countries. On that basis, I plead for keeping the information, however it's presented (table, prose, otherwise?). SamEV (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately what "we" think is what goes in the article; that's a simple fact. Please don't try fooling anyone to the contrary. Objectivity independent of subjectivity is largely a mirage. Now for the matter at hand should the section be included? One can say it provides useful information. On the other hand one can say it is subjective opinion. Purportedly these ranking are based on objective criteria but the rankings themselves are really dressed up opinion. Depending one which ranking one chooses to include one can manage to offend any part of the political spectrum. If one wants the most objective part of the rankings it is best to simply cite the facts directly. That is still influenced by our subjective biases as editors but it is purer than the processed rankings churned out by the various vested agencies and interest groups adding their own spin. The five pillars have been brought up. WP:N and WP:V have been mentioned already. Curiously WP:NPOV wasn't. It also applies. Absent a WP guideline or policy on the matter one can only conclude their inclusion is entirely optional. I'm somewhat ambivalent on the matter but favoring deletion simply because it is a potential controversy magnet. If the article is deemed too long it is the first section that should go. A better alternative in my view is a link in the See Also section to the more specific article since it exists. Lambanog (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noted HDI is already included in the country infobox. Repetition of the fact both times in box charts. The second instance should be removed. That will also leave the WEF factoid as the sole item in the section. If the ranking info is to be kept better it is worked into the article. I will remove the section in a days time if there is no more discussion. Lambanog (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You say everything's subjective. Yeah, fine. I have no problem with that. That's not the point, though. I'd say the Wikipedia policies allow subjectivity in the facts, just so long as it's a reliable source's, not our own. And yes, WP allows us myriad subjective decisions in other regards, including the atomic bomb of subjective decisions, WP:IAR.

When it comes to deciding what goes in an article, it comes down to such things as relevance, notability, reliability, space, presentation (which is where NPOV comes in; presentation also includes the literary quality of the content); and maybe other considerations that don't come to mind right now. I'm sure there's a policy or guideline page somewhere that details it.

Well, I've nothing more to say. You see, I'm rather ambivalent, too. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looked at this due to the apparent conflict among sources. Cenwin88lee is correct when pointing out Singapore and Hong Kong had higher per capita GDP than the Philippines; however, Singapore wasn't independent until 1965. Hong Kong technically speaking wasn't a country then and probably still isn't one now. I find it interesting speculating on how the two would have compared vis-a-vis Manila back then. Malaysia or perhaps more accurately its precursor the Federation of Malaya was largely level with the Philippines in terms of GDP per capita until about 1960 when it pulled solidly ahead. Many other Asian countries in the Middle East, however, had higher GDP per capita. Despite this, to say "the Philippines was the second wealthiest country in East Asia at the start of the 1960s" would be technically correct. The caveats dilute the pertinence of the statement but not entirely. I will probably reinstate a version of it with some modification. Lambanog (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"After World War II, the country was for a time regarded as the second wealthiest in East Asia, next only to Japan."

Well, if one is talking about sovereign countries, then that would be true, since Singapore and Hong Kong back then were not sovereign countries but occupied by a war mongering foreign invader.

Back then, it was -> 1. Japan 2.Hong Kong 3. Singapore 4.Philippines

But by 1965, it was -> 1.Brunei 2.Japan 3. HK 4. SG

The Singapore govt and the media worldwide talks about Singapore being poor and semi starved back then. But really, Singapore was already one of the richest states in Asia.

In 2009, amongst the whole of Asia, the richest states are -> 1. Qatar (number 3 richest in the world) 2. UAE 3.Japan 4.Brunei 5.SG 6.HK

So it seems like the richest East Asian states have not changed much. Brunei and the Middle Eastern countries dont have an advanced economy/society. Their high GDP per capita is due to their massive oil reserves. But Dubai and Qatar are developing an advanced market based economy fast.However, they will still require at least 2-3 decades to catch up with Korea, Japan etc. Not that that is a problem. These countries can just keep drilling and selling oil, they dont need a market based economy, unless their oil runs out.

Amongst advanced free market economies, it is a race between Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong in Asia. The rest like South Korea and Taiwan are at least a decade or two behind.

The gap between Japan and Singapore is extremely small. Hong Kong is a bit further behind but can catch up anytime.

It will be interesting to see how things develop in the next decade.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the article might have too many pictures and comes off a little busy making some of the text in some paragraphs appear cramped. I will use this section to store some photos while I experiment with picture layout. If there is a preference for certain pictures on the same subject over others feel free to make such feelings known. Lambanog (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I notice that the panoramic image in the Geography section expands the screen width greatly. I've never liked that in any article. Do you know whether a way exists to make such images display in a smaller, but expandable default size? I mean something that allows you to expand the image to the current size on the article page, without having to go to the image page; IOW, again, something like a dropdown menu. It seems to me like a concern others would share and which would have been addressed by the tech people by now. SamEV (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "expands the screen width greatly". The photo can be reduced in size so that scroll bars don't show up if that's what you want. As for hiding the image, I think the current format is more dramatic and eye-catching, a collapsible image kind of defeats the point in my view, but I can understand it if people would prefer removing this wide photo and using the photo of Mayon and the Chocolate Hills instead for a more consistent format. Any other opinions from you or anyone else on how this should look? Lambanog (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that the image should be hidden. I mean instead that it would be nice if the default image size didn't add scroll bars, achievable by either displaying only part of the image (for ex., the left half, or the right half, or maybe the middle of the image?), or displaying the whole image but in a small size (as you mentioned), with the full image to be viewable by clicking a button that would expand the image right there on the article page, sort of like a dropdown, except it would be a sideways dropdown. AFAYK, is there no such collapsible system for images at all? Because I think I might propose this to the techies, if there isn't.

I like wide images, just not the scroll bars that come along with them. SamEV (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be dependent on individual user browser and platform selection. The template as currently parameterized here specifies a width of 1060px. I've found by experimentation that the scrollbars disappear when that number is changed to:

• for a 1280x768 screen resolution using firefox 3.0.18 on Ubuntu linux 8.04LTS: 1053px
• for an 800x600 screen resolution using firefox 3.5.8 on WinXP: 588px
• for a 1024x768 screen resolution using firefox 3.5.8 on WinXP: 810px
• for an 800x600 screen resolution using IE 6.00.2900.2180.xpxp_sp2_rtm.040803-2178 on WinXP: scrollbar not present at 1060px
• for a 1024x768 screen resolution using IE 6.00.2900.2180.xpxp_sp2_rtm.040803-2178 on WinXP: scrollbar not present at 1060px

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So the whole image is visible by default on your screen? SamEV (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "by default". On the various screens of the various systems and system settings I've described above, the whole image is visible on those systems and with those settings with the px width settings I've described. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to say this another way. It appears that some browsers (e.g., IE6) Fit an oversize image neatly into the article window of a WP page without showing scrollbars. Other browsers (e.g. firefox) show a partial image with scrollbars. AFAIK, it is currently beyond the control of editors of individual WP articles and beyond the control of coders of templates such as the {{wide image}} and {{panorama}} templates to discover the user's screen and window characteristics and/or to adjust the image display so as to display the image without scrollbars for those users where the specified px width for that image would cause the image to be oversize for the window width of a particular user. Javascript coders can twiddle this stuff (see e.g., this), but javascript cannot be embedded within wikitext. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I got that.

Bill, by "by default" I mean 'when you arrive at the article'. The improvement I envision would allow users to see part of the image at first ("by default") and to press a button to scroll the image. But the beauty is that they need only press the button again and the bar goes away.

Thanks. I'm out. SamEV (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Choco Hills.JPG

There's nothing wrong with them in the History section. Please allow their inclusion. It looks a hell of a lot better. --Truflip99 (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not against them in principle, but there have been issues with them. The history section has been contentious and has had a tendency to expand in proportion to the rest of the article posing length problems. Articles are recommended to not go over 100kb and this one is already 130kb. Subheadings tend to encourage more additions. Even if people were to agree to subheadings though there are issues with the ones you introduced. As commented in an edit summary pre-arrival isn't a proper word. Colonial while generally used could also raise some POV concerns. World War II, Independence, and Martial Law is unwieldy and I'm not sure if it is capitalized correctly. There was an earlier use of subheadings that in my view made more sense. If subheadings are to be restored those earlier subheadings would be my preference. Lambanog (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of bringing this article up for Good Article Nomination. Any issues or comments that anyone sees that should be addressed before doing so? Lambanog (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Emilio Aguinaldo lead a secret society called Katipunan, during the Philippine and Spaniards time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerter 111 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a mistake in the article, where it states that the Philippines are "Situated on the northwestern fringes of the Pacific Ring of Fire[...]". Looking at the map at the top of the Pacific Ring of Fire page, it would seem to me that it's smack-dab on the western edge, not in the northwest (which would, in fact, be Japan). Shouldn't this be changed to, "Situated on the western fringe of the Pacific Ring of Fire[...]", etc? --Midnightbrewer (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Philippines lies slightly north of the equator so maybe northwestern is defensible but I think I agree western makes more sense. I will change it. Lambanog (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

most of your ethinicity in are not ethinic classification of the Philippines, but language divisions. the ethinic classifications of the philippines are Dark (Malay and or Hindus), Hispanic, Chinese, Whites, Australiod (Aetas), Others... 203.56.241.103 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When one is talking about Whites (Caucasian) and Australoid, I get the feeling one is already using racial categories. From my understanding ethnic divides more finely along linguistic and cultural lines therefore a term like ethnolinguistic. Still I will look at the matter further and if you can provide a source to clarify your point that would be helpful. Opinions from others would also be welcome. Lambanog (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Elockid, I noticed you restored the link on megadiversity. I removed it previously because it was (1) in the lead (2) it seems to mention the Philippines only tangentially and isn't the focus of the work. As a summary the lead doesn't need to be cluttered by references, because if it is well written, everything touched on in the lead will be expounded on in greater detail in the body of the article where all the necessary references should be found. References take up space and should be avoided if not required. The fact that the Philippines is only shown in passing in that source also means it doesn't highlight the significance of the Philippines' megadiversity. For example going by the chart in the source one may think the Philippines ranks outside the top five in terms of megadiversity which lists Australia as number one in terms of endemic species. It's an Australian paper so it's not surprising that would be the perspective taken. If one was to look at it from a Philippine perspective, however, it might be of more interest to factor in the size of the geographic area and thus look at the subject in terms of density of megadiversity. From that point of view I think the significance of the megadiversity in the Philippines is better illuminated. By the way the citation does not follow the style implemented in other citations. Lambanog (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation entry for Zoilo Galang was recently reformatted. Note that even if it does follow the cite template the output is "Galang, Zoilo M., ed (1957)." The previous entry even if unconventional produces the more correct "Galang, Zoilo M. (Ed.). (1957)." The output of the cite templates is optional and not very consistent. Lambanog (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I did the reformatting, I guess I ought to explain. That would have been this edit, where I changed "|author=Galang, Zoilo M. (Ed.). " to "|editor=Galang, Zoilo M. |editor-link=Zoilo Galang". The documentation on how to use {{Cite book}} was being flouted there, I don't know about "more correct" or what standard of correctness you have in mind, but the creative and nonstandard use of the author parameter there produced a citation not consistent with the formatting of the Selected Works on Southeast Asia citation (the one other citation in the article produced by {{Cite book}} which used editor paramaters). See WP:CITEHOW re consistency of citation style within an article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are deficiencies and illogical inconsistencies in the implementation of the cite templates. Usually it is recommended to follow one of the major citation styles e.g. MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, etc. I've been roughly trying to follow the APA guidelines with some modification but there are cases where it's been unclear so I had to use some discretion or went with the cite template's output. In cases where where I've noticed it is clearly illogical or conflicts with common sense, I've intervened or dispensed with the template altogether. The difference in the case you describe is that Liefer is the author and the others are editors. In Galang's case he is the editor of a primarily edited work. Between the two the Liefer example instead of Galang's should be changed. The templates are meant to be a useful aid, but they are not entirely correct, and their use is optional as is stated in the criteria for featured articles. I'm making my comments here on various changes so that if I should update them later you and others are not left unawares as to the the reasons and at least have an idea why I made the changes. Lambanog (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice Jc Altura has repositioned some images. According to MOS:IMAGES, text between two images that face each other should be avoided. I also think as much as possible images should not displace headings from their left alignment since it looks unattractive. I will probably revert some of the changes Jc Altura made for the mentioned reasons. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DragosteaDinTei's recent addition like Jc Altura's squishes text between two pictures and is not recommended per MOS:IMAGES. Image basically duplicates the role of another city skyline shown in the section and thus adds little. Caption is pretty long too. I plan to revert it for the stated reasons. Lambanog (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

  I'd appreciate if somebody could post this GNP Table below for the benefit of those who just happened to drop by for a quick information lookup.
  i also think that for an ever-changing data, like GNP, updates is much easier with tables.

thanks.

Economic Growth[15]
Year	% GDP	% GNP
2001	3.2	3.4
2002	4.6	5.2
2003	4.7	5.6
2004	6.0	6.2
2005	5.0	5.6
2006	5.4	6.2
2007	7.3	7.8
2008	3.8	6.2
2009	0.9	3.0
* Computed at Constant 1985 Prices
** Source: NEDA

LestatB (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Regards.

i am relatively new to Wikipedia so sorry if I have gone about this the wrong way.

This claim concerns me.

As far as the cited article is concerned, the specific references to the 'West' that I can find are as follows: "Malls with Western shops are found throughout metropolitan Manila" "Wealthy people lead western [sic] lifestyles. They travel abroad frequently and pride themselves on the number of Westerners they have as friends" "Newer buildings in Manila range from standard multistory offices to Western-style gated housing areas for the affluent"

Unfortunately none of this is provided with any indication as to what is considered Eastern and what is considered Western.

I can't find any information about what this web-site is, who it written by, and would welcome more information about it's reliability. There is a bibliography but I am suspicious of claims such as 'Wealthy Filipino people [...] pride themselves on the number of Westerners they have as friends' without anything other than a general bibiography.

I wonder what is the usefulness or validity of this kind of distinction between 'Western' or 'Eastern' cultures? Is that what the article says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Happiness (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The United Church of Christ is different from the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. While the two are related pursuant to their being protestant, both are distinct and separate entities, governed by two different congregational bodies. The former is based in the United States, while the latter is based in the Philippines. In view of the foregoing, the United Church of Christ in the Religion section should be changed to the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. 121.97.59.70 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone wants to use a picture of the University of the Philippines to represent Education in the Philippines. I think a picture of the University of Santo Tomas is better. UP has a good claim to being the best university in the Philippines and is the flagship school of the national government. On the other hand UST has impressive historical significance being arguably the oldest university not only in the Philippines but in all of Asia and is still a top school nationally. As a private institution run by an ecclesiastical order it is also as representative of education in the Philippines in general. Also the picture of Philippine General Hospital gives double representation to UP which runs it, and by extension, the government. For these reasons I will revert back to the UST photo. Comments welcome. Lambanog (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a shot of our President in this article? We had one for his predecessor on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rit99 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous picture of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was in the international relations section and was one in which she was at the Davos Conference. If a suitable picture is available of Ninoy it can be included but I am loath to include one just for the sake of doing so if it unbalances the image layout of the article or is unattractive. The current politics section does not have enough space to accommodate two pictures and between a picture of Malacanan and Ninoy I would favor Malacanan since it is a more neutral representation of the institution of the presidency—the politics in the Philippines is already too personality driven. Lambanog (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the Malacanang picture looks good, I would be more in favor of having the current president gracing that section. It seems to be more appropriate. --Truflip99 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I move that this line be omitted

"underlining the institutional weaknesses of its constitutional republic in others."

the composer of the introduction paragraph is somewhat "exposed" to the on-going debate of the charter change I believe this should remain "Neutral" and not show the intent for charter change that we should leave to the people.

To the composer, Prove your claims of "weakness" . JoshuaCruzPhilippines (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding Edsa II make the statement pretty self-explanatory but if one needs commentary here's an article: 'People Power II' Doesn't Give Filipinos the Same Glow. Lambanog (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The United States bequeathed to the Philippines the English language and an affinity for Western culture.Philippines had been a spanish colony for almost 400 years. Philippines had been a christian country and it had a western culture before the arrival of the americans. The English Language was a legacy of the colonial education system imposed by USA but Philippines shares many characteristics with the hispanic countries, for example the last names of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorre222 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Philippines already had a Western Culture before the arrival of the Americans: a central governement, Western-style laws (based on Roman law), a Western type of territorial organization (the provinces and the municipio), Western-style universities such as USC and UST dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries, or Ateneo de Manila (19th century), Western-style schools such as San Juan de Letran and Santa Isabel in Intramuros, Western-style hospitals, orphanages and charities, not to mention railroads (the oldest being Manila-Dagupan), telegraphs, telephone lines, the printing press, the Western calendar, the Latin alphabet and a Western language: Spanish, the lingua franca until the early 20th century, and of course Christianity. 83.50.254.101 (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be no longer related to the point of this discussion page section, which had to do with the suggested removal of specific phraseology which is no longer present in the article. I haven't dug back into the article's history re the removal of the statement at issue in this discussion page section -- there may or may not be a need for further discussion focused on improving the article in this area. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)