![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is the discussion phase a WP:BRD discussion.
I had made these edits to update some assertions re the percentage of the Philippine population which is Muslim. The percentages had been based on outdated sources, and I updated them to more recent info based on reliable sources from 2012. The percentage figure changed from "Around 6 % - 10%" to "As of 2012, around 11%". The supporting source I cited was the U.S. State Department 2012 IRF report, which says that the 11% figure came from the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, an agency of the Philippine government.
This edit changed the figure to "Around 5%", essentially reverting my change, and also removed other material, saying "Religion: updated religious distribution with accurate poll sources". The source cited after the revert is this globalreligiousfutures.org web page which apparently quotes from a 2010 Pew Research report (which, incidentally, says "5.5%", not "5%"). The 2012 edition of the relevant Pew Research report can be seen here. The data therein for the Philippines can be seen here. It still relies on information from 2010, and still says 5.5%.
Another source also cited in this section is this CIA Factbook page, which gives a 5% figure which it says comes from year 2000 Philippines census information.
I suggest that either the 11% figure from the 2012 vintage reliable source be used in the article or, if there is a WP:DUE concern with this, that both the 11% and 5.5% figures be given in the articles and that the supporting sources for the figures given and their vintages be explained in a clarifying footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
(added) A look at Demographics of the Philippines#Religion sent me back to that 2012 IRF report for a second look there. That 2012 IRF report does also say that according to a survey from 2000 by the National Statistics Office, approximately 5 percent of the population were Muslim. Also, I see that the Religion in the Philippines article says in one place that Muslims comprise 5% of the population (supported by the CIA Factbook, which bases that on census info from the year 2000), and says in another place that the Muslim population of the Philippines is estimated at between 5% to 9%,according to 2010 IRF Report. We need to come to a consensus about what should be said, and the contradictions about this between these articles need to be eliminated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
(added) Below is a table containing information about articles which I've found which make assertions re the percentage of Muslims in the Philippine population, what the various articles assert, and what supporting sources they cite. There may be other articles whch should be added to this table.
Article | Timestamp | Assertion re percent Muslim and supporting source |
Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Philippines |
02:43, June 14, 2014 | 5[1] | Mentions |
11:55, June 12, 2014 | around 11%[2] | ||
Religion in the Philippines | 16:31, June 7, 2014 | 5[3](lead section) | Citation badly positioned. Another cite better located to support this assertion is tagged ((failed verification)) |
5% to 9%[4](Islam section) | |||
Demographics of the Philippines | 07:32, May 27, 2014 | 5, 11[2] | Actually, the article says, "The U. S. Department of State International Religious Freedom (IRF) report for 2012, citing a year 2000 survey from the Philippines National Statistics Office, reports that 80-85% of Filipinos were then Roman Catholics, with 93% being Christian, and that 5% of the population was then Islamic.The 2012 IRF report also reports that an estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) in 2011 stated that there were then 10.3 million Muslims, or about 11 percent of the total population." |
Islam in the Philippines | 16:31, June 7, 2014 | 5 to 9%[4] | |
Islam by country | 22:13, June 13, 2014 | 5.1[5] | |
Christianity in the Philippines | 15:07, April 15, 2014 | 5[6] |
After looking at this, it seems to me that
I think that all of the articles in the table above need a look, and probably need some cleanup. I think that Religion in the Philippines should be the first article cleaned up, then this article, then the others more or less in the order listed above. I'll post a note about this discussion on the talk pages of all the articles listed above and will look for discussion here about this. Following on that discussion (or the absence of same, and if no alternative course of action gains consensus here), I'll probably WP:BOLDly begin cleanup editing of these articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
((main|Religion in the Philippines))
where that is not inappropriate. I think that the Religion in the Philippines article should also assert the 5-11 percentage range, but should discuss that more fully, should cite all the major sources at appropriate points in that discussion, and should chronologize the sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Following on the discussion above, I have WP:BOLDly starting editing these articles. See [1], [2] (more to come) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It is better to use sources that base their findings on polls rather than from organizations that only do estimates, especially when there is a high possibility of prejudice in their work, NCMF is a Muslim organization therefore it is in their interest to jack up their estimates to make an impression that there are more Muslims in the Philippines than in reality. I think the 5-11% range should not be asserted in all relevant articles as this the range is highly dubious and a gross overestimation of the actual Muslim population of the Philippines. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It is better to use sources that base their findings on polls rather than from organizations that only do estimates, especially when there is a high possibility of prejudice in their work, NCMF is a Muslim organization therefore it is in their interest to jack up their estimates to make an impression that there are more Muslims in the Philippines than in reality. I think the 5-11% range should not be asserted in all relevant articles as this the range is highly dubious and a gross overestimation of the actual Muslim population of the Philippines. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wtmitchell the source you insist on using have grossly over estimated the total Muslim population of the Philippines, the pew research poll that shows the 5.5 percent result is more consistent with reality than with the 11 percent estimate by a Muslim organization.
According to a survey from 2000 by the National Statistics Office, approximately 93 percent of the population is Christian. A large majority of Christians are Roman Catholics, constituting 80 to 85 percent of the total population. The 2000 survey states that Islam is the largest minority religion, constituting approximately 5 percent of the population. A more recent estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) in 2011 states that there are 10.3 million Muslims, or about 11 percent of the total population.
The NCMF being a government agency does not exempt it from being biased. while the US state department is only basing their information from other parties as well. A poll by the Pew Research is as of the moment the best source of religious percentage info on this matter. If you do more research you will find out that most Muslim affiliated organizations not only in the Philippines but in other countries as well have a tendency to overstate the actual number of Muslims living in a certain area to aid in their propagation efforts. Therefore Pew Research is the best Neutral source for Religious date on this issue. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The 10 million estimate by the NCMF is blatant distortion of facts and its sad that just because a recognized government agency is the one responsible for these fabrication the data they present to people is automatically considered as factual. If you look at the Population total of the Mainly Muslim region of the Philippines, the ARMM, it only has a combined population of 3.2 million, and the rest of the regions are predominantly Christian, so where did the additional 7+ million came from? This alone is a strong evidence that the estimates made by the NCMF is overblown and has a malicious intent at disinformation. Solarpiece — Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The number of Muslims in each of the countries and territories is calculated by multiplying the United Nations’ 2009 total population estimate for each country and territory by the single most recent and reliable demographic or social-scientific estimate of the percentage of Muslims in each country’s population, based on the conservative assumption that Muslim populations are growing at the same rate as each country’s general population. (A 2010 Pew Forum report will provide estimates of the differential growth rates of Muslim populations.)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Philippines and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
As many sources have been given above that indicate how unreliable estimates/surveys of this percentage are, the only sensible course is to identify the range of possible percentages. I agree with Wtmitchell that giving only the lower figure would be giving undue weight to it. I also agree with him that both the US State Department and the NCMF should be assumed reliable unless there is reliable evidence to the contrary. @Wtmitchell: as of this writing, Solarpiece hasn't edited since 19 June -- a whole week -- so he may have moved on. If not, though, I was slightly surprised at your mention of AIV? Wouldn't ANEW be nearer the mark? @Solarpiece: you're getting exceptionally detailed responses from Wtmitchell and all you seem to be saying in reply is that you consider Pew the best source. It isn't necessary to confine ourselves to one source; in fact, when different sources give numbers, it is far better to record this fact. I don't think it's tenable to say that Pew and only Pew should be cited. Stfg (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:E000:3FC0:20:6965:3213:772C:2AE8 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can I edit this article Philippines because I'm FILIPINO..
MihoKomatsu 20 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are the reasons why some recent image additions are ill-suited for this particular article, which is meant to give a broad overview of the country with carefully selected images used sparingly in order to retain its "Good" status:
Images that are appropriate/could be kept as compromise:
Of course I'm not the final voice on these matters and further discussion is open regarding the perception/relevancy of these images and their place in the article. I would just like to keep this article up to wiki standards of quality. Cadiomals (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
According To That Video Philippines or Republic Of The Philippines But We Have To Do Something To Change This Name From Republic to His Surname Because Due Of The Benigno Aquino III's Term Of His Madness As The President of this Country
Isn't True Or False? — Preceding unsigned comment added by National Names 2000 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
When other countries are mentioned in this article, like the United States, Japan, India, China, and numerous other nations, there should be hyperlinks to those articles. It is a glaring omission that someone has incorrectly decided that this article is deemed too special to have hperlinks to other countries' articles. And it cannot be changed by the reader because the article is locked. Can we get this changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm a registered user why cannot able to edit this article. PUNYETA Kobe Hyogo (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"ended with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 1991,[81][82] leading to the withdrawal of U.S. forces and transfer of Clark Air Base in November 1991 and Subic Bay in December 1992 officially to the government, ending the basing of American military forces in the country" The senate of the philippines rejected the terms of the bases agreement therefore ending the stay of the u.s. bases in the country.
FROM NEW YORK TIMES:
PHILIPPINE SENATE VOTES TO REJECT U.S. BASE RENEWAL
By PHILIP SHENON,
Published: September 16, 1991
The Philippine Senate voted today to reject a new treaty for the Subic Bay Naval Station and to end an American military presence in the country that has lasted nearly a century. But President Corazon C. Aquino effectively extended the American lease by calling for a national referendum on the base's future.
In a vote of 12 to 11, the Senate adopted a motion to spurn the new treaty, which would allow thousands of American troops to remain at the base for another 10 years. The current treaty on Subic Bay, the largest American military installation in the Philippines, expires today.
"The treaty is defeated," the Senate President, Jovito R. Salonga, announced in a solemn tone after the vote was taken this morning in a show of hands. The decision was greeted with applause and tears in the chamber. Anger Over Compensation
The 11 senators who voted in favor of the new treaty were 5 short of the two-thirds majority needed for ratification.
The vote reflected a view among many senators that the compensation package offered by the United States was too small and, more broadly, that it was time to end an American military presence that began when the United States acquired the Philippines by winning the Spanish-American war.
In voting to spurn the new treaty, Senator Agapito Aquino, brother-in-law of the President and younger brother of her slain husband, Benigno S. Aquino, described the decision as "the dawn of our nation's birth." Ending an 'Adolescence'
"It is a vote for a truly sovereign and independent Philippine nation," he told colleagues in a speech on the Senate floor. "It is a vote to end a political adolescence tied to the purse strings of America -- a crippling dependence."
But Mrs. Aquino's call for a referendum under the terms of the Philippine Constitution has the effect of extending the deadline for an American departure by at least several months, and quite possibly for several years.
Invoking the rallying cry of "people power" that she used with such success in ousting President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1986, Mrs. Aquino proposed in a televised address Sunday night that "we take the issue directly to the people."
"Once again people power is being called upon," Mrs. Aquino said. "As in 1986, we seek the direct expression of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. Now, as in the past, every one of us must participate in an exercise that gives added substance to the democracy we have established."
The referendum could not be held until late this year or in 1992. Mrs. Aquino's move is expected to set off a series of time-consuming court challenges by lawmakers and others who assert that the Constitution permits voters to overrule a vote by the Senate on a regular law, but not on a treaty. U.S. Stand Called Flexible
While the Bush Administration indicated last week that it would start an immediate and irrevocable withdrawal from Subic if the Philippine Senate vetoed the 10-year treaty, Western diplomats said in recent days that the American position was actually far more flexible, and that American troops would probably remain at the base until after a referendum. Interim arrangements for compensation to the Philippines were unclear.
The base, home to more than 7,000 Americans -- servicemen and women and civilian workers -- is a major refueling and repair station for the United States Seventh Fleet.
While its strategic value has declined with the end of the cold war, Bush Administration officials say that replicating the functions of Subic Bay at installations elsewhere in the Pacific would cost several billion dollars.
Clark Air Base, a sister American installation on the central Philippine island of Luzon, was abandoned this year after it was smothered by volcanic ash released by nearby Mount Pinatubo. Possible Election Issue
Beyond its implications for Philippine-American relations, Mrs. Aquino's call for a referendum on the future of Subic Bay will doubtless have a broad effect on domestic politics.
She may well have created the principal issue in next May's general election, including the vote to pick her successor: whether the United States should be allowed to continue to place troops and weapons, including nuclear weapons, on the soil of a former colony that in many ways has yet to emerge from the American shadow. President Aquino has insisted that she will not seek re-election when her six-year term expires next year.
The new 10-year base agreement rejected today had been hammered out this summer between the Bush Administration and the Manila Government.
. Washington offered $203 million a year in compensation, far less than was originally sought by Manila. Some of the Philippine lawmakers had demanded that the treaty be renegotiated.
Mrs. Aquino, aware of opinion polls showing that an overwhelming majority of Filipinos support the treaty, is refusing to acquiesce in the Senate's rejection of it. The Philippine military also strongly favors the treaty.
At stake are the jobs of tens of thousands of Filipinos who work at the base or in related jobs, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars that the Subic Bay installation injects into the strapped Philippine economy each year.
Acknowledging on Sunday night that Senate rejection of the base agreement was "likely," Mrs. Aquino said that she would invoke a section of the Constitution that gives voters the right to overturn legislative decisions in a national referendum.
Under the Constitution, the signatures of 10 percent of the nation's voters, or about three million Filipinos, are needed on petitions authorizing a referendum.
Many senators disagree with Mrs. Aquino on the question of whether a treaty vote in the Senate, as opposed to the Senate's vote on a regular law, can be overturned by referendum.
The constitutional differences will probably have to be sorted out in the Philippine Supreme Court, a process that could take several months. It could even delay a referendum until after the general election in May, when new senators, including some who may be more receptive to a base treaty with the United States, will be selected. -------------------- U.S. Supports a Referendum
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (Special to The New York Times) -- American officials welcomed the effort by President Aquino today to win approval of the base treaty through a referendum.
Richard H. Solomon, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in an interview, "We support her efforts."
Exactly when the current agreement ends is, from the American perspective, a complicated question. The Philippines has said it expires on Monday. The United States disagrees, saying the earliest possible date is Sept. 16, 1992.
The Military Bases Agreement was signed in 1947, eight months after the Philippines became independent of the United States. An amendment adopted by both nations in 1966 says it "shall remain in force for a period of 25 years from September 16, 1966, after which, unless extended for a longer period by mutual agreement, it shall become subject to termination upon one year's notice by either government."
The Philippines gave such notice several months ago. State Department officials contend that the notice could not properly be given until Monday.
ONE of the major disagreements was on the custody of american soldiers who committed crimes on philippine soil. like in the current VFA agreement, custody of american personnel remains with the u.s military, regardless of the crime. Many protests were held regarding this. examples of the various crimes committed included a marine who broke a dildo inside the body of a teenage prostitute. because of ignorance, the underage prostitute did not seek medical assistance until it was too late and she died of sepsis. the american involved was never prosecuted and was sent back to the u.s. before the philippine gov. could intervene. (citations cannot be given because philippine newspaper archives are not online).
Currently October 2014, a murder committed by a marine under VFA is under investigation.
OLONGAPO CITY, Philippines (UPDATED) – The US Marine suspected of killing transgender Filipino Jennifer Laude was a no-show at the start of the preliminary hearing on the murder case on Tuesday, October 21.
US Private First Class Joseph Scott Pemberton failed to appear at the preliminary hearing at the Olongapo Hall of Justice, where family members of Laude were accompanied by their lawyer, Harry Roque, as well as Laude's German fiancé, Marc Sueselbeck.
Pemberton was represented by his lawyers, led by Rowena Flores, who said the subpoena served on their client did not require his personal appearance at the preliminary hearing.
Olongapo City Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos, however, told the US Marine's legal counsel that Pemberton should attend the next preliminary investigation on October 27.
Delos Santos said Pemberton's attendance in the probe will "give a very good example on the willingness on the part of the United States to comply with the [Visiting Forces Agreement]."
She told Flores: "On the 27th, Mr Pemberton should be with you…. I'm directing you to make him appear before us."
Flores told Delos Santos that she will confer with Pemberton, but the city prosecutor said: "I don't take any more arguments…. It is his right to be informed. But you are the one knowledgeable in Philippine law. So do not tell me that you don't exert any influence by explaining to him what would be the best thing to do. From now on, I don't want to listen to 'I'm going to ask him.' No. You have to compel him."
Asked by Flores what the prosecutor's office would do if Pemberton refuses to appear, Delos Santos said: "You will get an order from me later on. His non-appearance will get an order from this office. That's mere speculation. As you said you will confer with him. What if he wants to appear?"
During the probe, Delos Santos emphasized that the prosecutors will not touch on the issue of custody outlined in the VFA. Instead, the panel will focus on the criminal aspects of the case.
The subpoena issued last week by the prosecutor's office provided Pemberton 10 days to study the murder complaint lodged by Laude's family against him and to submit his counter-affidavit.
Flores said her client would avail of the 10 day period, but added that they may opt not to submit a counter-affidavit.
The preliminary investigation will proceed regardless if Pemberton submits his counter-affidavit.
'Disadvantageous' for Pemberton
In a press briefing, Delos Santos affirmed that Pemberton can waive his right to avail of the preliminary investigation to submit his counter-affidavit.
She also acknowledged that this may be a strategic move on the part of the defense.
"That's tantamount to a waiver on his part to present his evidence in the preliminary investigation. Maybe their strategy is, we will just present him in court. So they are now prepared for his defense in court," Delos Santos said.
But she said this can also be "disadvantageous" for Pemberton because he cannot refute the evidence presented by the complainants during the preliminary investigation.
"That's why we have to conduct additional investigation just to make sure that what the witnesses for the complainants are telling us by way of their affidavits are all true. We will know for sure if it's true or if there are lapses, because their testimonies will be very important in the event that Pemberton will not file a counter affidavit."
Probe possibly 'easier'
The city prosecutor is tasked to determine if there's prima facie evidence to file murder charges against Pemberton in court.
Following the hearings, the prosecutor can either bring criminal charges or drop the case.
Delos Santos said that while the required period for the preliminary investigation is 60 days, this can be shortened or extended, depending on factors like the available evidence.
"The required period is 60 days, but subject to the agreement of parties. We could expedite, we can shorten, we can also extend. We have to be reasonable. If the available evidence needed by the prosecution is not yet in, like the forensics, we don't have to make haste," she said.
On November 5, prosecutors will conduct an ocular inspection in Ambyanz Disco Bar and Celzone Lodge – the two places where Laude and witness Mark Clarence Gelviro (known as Barbie) met the suspect on the night of October 11.
Laude was found dead hours later in the bathroom of Celzone Lodge.
Delos Santos said the ocular will allow prosecutors to connect the witnesses' statements with actual evidence.
She also said that if Pemberton does not submit a counter-affidavit, the preliminary probe will be made easier.
"There will be nothing to refute. We will just validate and assess the evidence," she said. – Rappler.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.78.55 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alfred2995 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Etymology part: should be "The Philippines was named in honor of..." rather than "The Philippines were named in honor of..." which is currently written on the page.
Just grammar issues, no need for sources. 120.28.218.66 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
are you a joke. a misspelled word not a request? how daft.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
pubilshign" with CTRL+F on this page, I couldn't tell what misspelling you were referring to, so I assumed your edit was vandalism. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the hyperlink that's on 'American pop cultural trends'. It opens up some page on 'Popular Culture'. 'Popular Culture' doesn't necessarily mean 'American pop cultural trends' Jordanlegarde (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - I don't normally agree to such requests, but that link was very tenuous - Arjayay (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I read the article and made a huge amount of corrections in terms of spelling, accents, punctuation and form. I also rearranged images to make the layout more pleasing to the eye. This article is fairly well written but it could be improved. I think it has some nice photos and some great maps.
I have a few comments:
1. How could the people of the Philippines or any country around the world allow the Marcos to escape after all the nasty stuff they did? How could the U.S.A. allow the Marcos to stay in Hawaii? It doesn't make any sense.
2a. The "Politics" sections says "The Philippines has a democratic government in the form of a constitutional republic with a presidential system. It is governed as a unitary state with the exception of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which is largely free from the national government."
Why does the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao have special autonomy?
2b. Not too long ago, the "Politics" section had an image of Benigno S. Aquino III in an elegant but simple dress in front of the seal of the country. It was a nice photo. I don't know why it was removed and replaced by the image of the president in yellow.
3. I am debating whether the table in the "Administrative divisions" section should probably list areas with the proper Spanish accents such as La Unión, Taclobán, Pagadián, Cagayán de Oro and Butuán.
4a. The "Wildlife" section says "It is one of the ten most biologically megadiverse countries and is at or near the top in terms of biodiversity per unit area".
First of all I don't like "megadiverse" and I don't even know if it's a word because the "mega" prefix is improperly used. Secondly, I don't like the expression "is at or near the top" because it's not clear what is the top and if it's at the top or near the top (it can only be one). Third, "megadiverse" and "biodiversity" are somewhat redundant. This sentence should be rewritten to something like "It is one of the ten most biologically diverse countries in the world".
4b. The "Wildlife" section says "The Philippines has among the highest rates of discovery in the world ...".
Discovery of what?
4c. The "Wildlife" section says "The Philippines lacks large predators, with the exception of snakes, such as pythons and cobras, saltwater crocodiles and birds of prey, such as the national bird, known as the Philippine eagle, which scientists suggest as the largest eagle in the world."
Should it be "is the national bird"?
5. The "Economy" section says "Goldman Sachs includes the country in its list of the "Next Eleven" economies[214][215] but China and India have emerged as major economic competitors".
"But" should create a contrast by describing The Philippines. The use of "but" in this sentence does not work so the sentence should be rewritten.
6. The "Communications" section says "On March 29, 1994, the country went live on the Internet through a router serviced by PLDT to a Sprint communication's router in California via a 64 kbit/s connection".
The sentence just doesn't sound right. I don't like the use of "to".
7. The "Tourism" section says "On January 6, 2012 it launched a new slogan named "It's More Fun in the Philippines"[276] and ranked third in world's best marketing campaigns according to Warc 100."
I think this sentence should be rewritten by removing "and" and breaking the sentence in two parts. The part on marketing just doesn't sound right.
8. The "Demographics" section says "The 3.21% population growth rate between 1995 and 2000 decreased to an estimated 1.95% for the 2005-2010 period, but remains a contentious issue".
The use of "but" in this case does not work well and "contentious issue" is somewhat disconnected from the first part of the sentence.
9. The "Health" section says "the country is still a low-HIV-prevalence country with less than 0.1% of the adult population estimated to be HIV-positive".
Low HIV prevalence compared to what?
10a. The "Education" section says "There are a number of foreign schools with study programs".
Study programs are mentioned but it's a somewhat vague statement.
10b. The "Education" section says "In 2004, madaris were mainstreamed in 16 regions nationwide, mainly in Muslim areas in Mindanao ...".
The use of the verb "mainstreamed" with "madaris" does not sound good. The sentence should be rewritten.
11. The "Sports" section needs a better introduction.
ICE77 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
((edit selckljajncn a m am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:180:D:5103:F41C:46EC:D7D3 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "newsroom":
((citation))
: |contribution=
ignored (help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.14.61.177 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the lead section could be further improved?
I mean paragraphs three and four to me look like they should belong in a history section or subsection instead of in the lead. If at all necessary to be in the lead, could be further condensed.
Reijiro (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There needs to be a correction regarding the "Classical States" entry on the Confederation of Madja-as. Although the entry cites the American colonial era-Blair as basis for this entry, it must be noted that the respected scholar William Henry Scott, in his dissertation which has become the basis for the book, "Pre-Hispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History" (1992 Edition), has debunked the so-called Confederation of Madya-as as found in the so-called Maragtas Code, which he has proven as most likely a forgery by an antique collector named Pedro Monteclaro. If anything, the Maragtas Code, alongside the fabled Code of Kalantiao (also a fake) is at best a collection of legends and folklores in the Visayas. Further, it must also be noted that there is no convincing proof that the entire Philippines became under either the Madjaphit or Srivijayan empires. In other words, it must be requested that the Confederation of Madja-as be removed from the list of Classical States of the Philippines because it never existed.
Here is the entry that needs to be corrected: "The Kedatuan of Madja-as was founded following a civil-war in collapsing Srivijaya, wherein loyalists to the Austronesian Datus of Srivijaya defied the invading Chola Dynasty and it's puppet-Rajah called Makatunao and set up a guerrilla-state in the Visayas islands. Its founder, Datu Puti had purchased land for his new realms from the Aboriginal Ati Hero, Marikudo.[1] Madja-as was founded on Panay island. It is an island named after a destroyed state allied under Srivijaya, the kingdom of Pannai which is located in Sumatra. The Rajahnate of Butuan in northeastern Mindanao attained prominence under the rule of Rajah Sri Bata Shaja,[2] who was from a Buddhist ruling-class governing over a Hindu nation. This state became powerful due to the local goldsmith industry. It also maintained commercial ties and a diplomatic rivalry with the Champa civilization. The Kingdom of Tondo was ruled over by the Lakandula dynasty and the kingdom grew wealthy via the exclusive trading-rights of Chinese goods which they marketed in Southeast Asia. This was granted to them by the Ming Dynasty." [3][4] Also, the Rajahnate of Cebu[5] was led by Rajamuda Sri Lumay, a monarch with partial Tamil descent. This state grew wealthy by making use of the inter-island shipping routes within the archipelago.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandemo07 (talk • contribs) 03:05, May 4, 2015
autogenerated3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).((cite book))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I request for the deletion of this entry about the Philippines under the subheading on "Classical States:
The Kedatuan of Madja-as was founded following a civil-war in collapsing Srivijaya, wherein loyalists to the Austronesian Datus of Srivijaya defied the invading Chola Dynasty and it's puppet-Rajah called Makatunao and set up a guerrilla-state in the Visayas islands. Its founder, Datu Puti had purchased land for his new realms from the Aboriginal Ati Hero, Marikudo.[1] Madja-as was founded on Panay island. It is an island named after a destroyed state allied under Srivijaya, the kingdom of Pannai which is located in Sumatra
This entry must be deleted since it misreads the book it cites as a source for this entry. Even the book that it used a s a source - William Henry Scott's Pre-Hispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History - has debunked the existence of a Madja-as/Madyaas Confederacy (see Scott, 1992 edition). Thank you very much! It must also be noted that sources before Scott's work took for granted and took as gospel truth the accounts and articles that seem to accept the historicity of the Madyaas confederacy for a long time until Scott's work came into the picture disproving both the Madyaas folklore and the fake Code of Kalantiao. Also, as a matter of historical record and fact, the Philippines was never directly under the control of the Srivijayan and Majapahit empires. Thank you so much!
Nandemo07 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
template. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
03:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)The correct usage of Filipino/a is as follows:
Filipino (masculine noun)
Filipina (feminine noun)
Filipino (adjective, m. or f.)
Example:
Imelda is a Filipina.
Imelda is a Filipino citizen.
Explanation: The English language does not require gender agreement for noun-adjective combinations. (And we are talking about English here, not Tagalog.) An analogous situation is blond (m. noun), blonde (f. noun), and blond (adj.).
Grammar-Cop (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
A proposal for an update:
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the spanish alternate name of the "Republic of The Philippines" which is "Republica De Las Filipinas"
103.14.62.26 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Filipino - People of the Philippines Pilipino - Language of the people of the Philippines 98.221.129.142 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed references to the new Negros Island Region (NIR) being called Region XVIII. There are several reasons for this:
First - Within Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), there is no specific mention that Regions can be renamed (no doubt this is because they are not like other LGUs).
Second - in same Act: SECTION 13. (g) The change of name of any local government unit shall be effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political unit directly affected.
Third - if the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII then there should be an official issuance to that effect (either executive or legislative).
Given that (to the best of my knowledge) there has been no plebiscite, executive or legislative issuance proclaiming that the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII, the "XVIII" numerical designation is not part of said region's official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwai94 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Regions labelled with an acronym does not necessarily mean such regions have special status. All regions are administrative with the single exception of ARMM. Although, NCR is unusual in that there are no provinces within it.
If NIR was officially Region XVIII then that could cause some confusion to those not familiar with Philippine administrative divisions. Where are regions XIV, XV, XVI and XVII? Maybe this is why no official numerical designation was included in EO 36.
Furthermore, even though NIR is the 18th region to have been created that does mean it will necessarily be Region XVIII. For example, NCR was the 13th region to have been created but it was never called Region XIII (which is the designation given to Caraga, the 16th region to be created). In fact, soon after the NCR (or Metropolitan Manila as it was known as back then) was created, it was called Region IV with the existing Region IV (Southern Tagalog) renumbered as Region IV-A. You can read for yourself in PD 879.
Some sources claim that NIR is now officially Region XVIII. If anyone knows of official documentation changing the name to incorporate "Region XVIII" into the region's official name then please show me and I will gladly retract on the subject.
In conclusion, it is without prejudice that I have removed references to Region XVIII in preference of the official name although a reference remains on the NIR page to Region XVIII.
David A. Short (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC);
I am beginning to wonder what is actually meant by Negros Island Region is now officially Region XVIII. It could in fact mean one of two things:
First, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially the 18th region (a reference to the region's creation).
Second, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially Region No. 18 (a reference to the region's numerical designation)
Given this ambiguity, it is possible that the original statement is being misinterpreted. Either way, without either an executive or legislative issuance, the name cannot officially include Region XVIII.
David A. Short (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC);
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.150.215.15 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)