![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
149.88.139.62 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
PLESE EDIT THE PRESIDENT, THE NEW PRESIDENT IS rodrigo duterte.
Who says that "Spanish influence was minimal in the region of Zamboanga.? Zamboanga is just as hispanic as any other Spanish-colonized areas in the country and it is reflected not only in their dances, but in their arts, language and culture as well. I mean, have you seen the Zamboanga Traditional dances? some of them are no different from the traditional mexican traditional dances. You can check one of those dances here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOOGoaQRak0
La Jota and Habanero are also some of the popular dances during the Spanish colonial period there.
Please correct the inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.48.151 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Contemporary History" section of the article it mentions Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. It says, "From January 15 to 19, 2015, January 15 to 19, 2015, Pope Francis stayed in the Philippines for a series of publicity tours and paid visits to the victims of Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)." As you can see, it repeats the phrase "January 15 to 19, 2015." Please remove one of these instances. Thanks!
Djthompson114 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Miss Universe 2016 will be held in Mall of Asia Arena, Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines as Miss Universe 2015 Pia Wurtzbach's request. With the host, still it's Steve Harvey who hosted Miss Universe 2015 and co-host Miss USA 2015 and Miss Universe 2nd runner up Olivia Jordan as she volunteered about willing to be Steve Harvey's co-host. Miss Universe 2016 Date 30 January 2017 Presenters Steve Harvey Co-Host Olivia Jordan Venue Mall of Asia Arena, Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines Broadcaster Fox 112.211.87.184 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Can the Philippines truly be considered a liberal democracy, especially when all the extrajudicial killings are taken into account? Josh (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, according to a study by University of Birmingham et al. that can be opened at [1], more than 2 million hectares in the Philippines have been subject to international land deals.
Hence I would like to add a subsection on international land deals to the section on the economy.
Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit and the edit previous to it caught my eye. These are the latest two as I write this of a series of edits which boil down to this, and which include one reversion of an edit by another editor. I'm no expert but, FWICS via a bit of googling, this looks to my inexpeert eye as if it might be correct (see e.g., [2], [3], [4]). It seems to me, though, that a point like this juang vs. wang business might benefit from a clarifying footnote with supporting cites. I have not added such a footnote because I don't have enough topical expertise to feel comfortable doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... Please see Talk:Ma-i#huang vs. wang. I think this discussion ought to proceed there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 43 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
"During this period, the economy was known as the "Tiger Economy in Asia", with an average of 6% GDP growth rate.[170]" this is misplaced this happened on president Benigno Aquinos term not on her mother's or Pres. Fidel Ramos — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDorkLord (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This one guy keeps repeatedly removing an image of bulol and will not discuss his reasons. I think it's a nice and illustrative image, what are your thoughts? Palosirkka (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting...
The NCMF did not said that Muslims are only 3% of the country's population.........source: http://www.ncmf.gov.ph/ PLEASE DON'T MAKE SOME BIASES FOR RELIGIOUS STATISTICS...BE HONEST AND BE EQUAL!!!but then
I have tried to reduce extreme WP:SANDWICHING by diminishing left-right staggering and moving images to more closely align with apposite paragraphs but some seem intent on repetitively negating my work.
Here are some selected highlights from the advice at MOS:IMG:
Extended content
|
---|
An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader. Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images. It is not possible to place a |
Nonoyborbun seems to think he can ignore this advice and serially revert other editors regardess - all the while refusing to engage in dialogue. How should this be resolved? By simply invoking WP:3RR and getting him blocked? Or is there a better way? BushelCandle (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've been engaging in an edit war with this Nonoyborbun guy, should I continue on? He seems like a bot. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Rivertorch, alright then, but what about Nonoyborbun? Is he also legal for getting blocked? - Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Because he's been known to delete images without any explanation whatsoever. He seemed a silent editor. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Bring this up at wp:ani already. - Alternativity (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the editors of the Philippines article has done a good job in constructing and editing the article to be of such good quality that it needs to be reviewed to become a featured article. Remember, this article was once a featured article before incessant and chaotic edits made it fall from grace. So anyway, it's about time it regained its featured article status. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Here, I've named a ref name=screwed-up-cite
. Problems extend beyond the screwed up cite itself, but the cite itself is confused about the source it is citing.
The link in the cite is a dead link, but the cite mentions Project Guttenburg and a book titled A History of the Philippines. There is such a book ([5]), but its author is David P. Barrows, not William Henry Scott, and that book does not contain the text quoted in the cite. The quote appears to be the garbled version of a note which appears in Scott, William Henry (1984). Prehispanic source materials for the study of Philippine history. New Day Publishers. p. 148 (Note 19). ISBN 978-971-10-0226-8. That note is very similar to note 23 which appears on page 8 of the other source cited just previous ([6]). That note reads
The fact that Chief Kamayin's name is transliterated by the Chinese characters for "excellent," "horse," and' "silver" led Berthold Laufer in his 1907 "The relations of the Chinese to the Philippines" to list horses and silver among the Pangasinan gifts (Historical Bulletin 1967 reprint, Vol. 11, p. 10); this error was carelessly copied by Wu Ching-hong in his 1962 "The rise and decline of Chuanchou's international trade" (Proceedings of the Second Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia, p. 477), whence it passed into more than one Philippine text, but was not repeated by Wu himself in his later works.
Laufer also refers to a Philippine embassy led by a "high official called Ko-ch'a-lao" whom no other scholar has been able to locate and whom Beyer identifies as a "Chinese governor appointed for the island of Luzon" (op. cit.,
loc. cit.).
As I read this, Scott is saying here that the transliteration of Kamayin's name led to a misunderstanding of Philippine history to the effect that that horses and silver had been exported to China.
These two quotes appear to refute rather than support the article assertion saying
In northern Luzon, the Wangdom of Pangasinan under Wang Taymey, exported horses and silver to China, the Kingdom of Ryukyu and Japan.
I'm not a historian, but I think I've got this right. If I do have this right, it needs to be corrected.
Some other WP articles about the Philippines may have similar problems. See search results from https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=638&q=%22The+fact+that+Chief+Kamayin%27s+name+is+transliterated%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw:, please see above and this diff. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There's a related issue at Warfare in pre-colonial Philippines, which says "About 5 to 10 percent of the forces typically used in battle were cavalry." The section cites a paper by Scott, but the Scott paper cited does not seem to mention either horses or cavalry used by forces of indigenous polities from the Philippine archipelago. I was going to do more reading to validate my suspicion that the section is a hoax, but if someone else wants to take action , having already done reading in relation to this page (Philippines), that'd certainly be welcome. - Alternativity (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I was giving some thought to why the phrasing of the prehistory section seems to come in from out of the blue. And then I realized, the reason the shift into that section is so abrupt is that the article is discussing history without the benefit of geological or geographical contextualization. Perhaps we should move up the section on geography? There are a bunch of tweaks that I feel would significantly improve the prehistory and early history sections; I hope it's okay to start by tagging concerns, and then correcting them as soon as I can refer to more definitive texts? - Alternativity (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you change the population census for the philippines which of October 16th is currently 105,381,863 G-Unit92 (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I take issue with this edit by Keroscene777, which replaced several images, added others, and instituted a gallery format at the bottom of two sections. The stated rationale for the changes is problematic. While I am sympathetic to the plight of people who rely on income derived from tourism, it is the purpose of Wikipedia to cover topics in a neutral, encyclopedic manner—nothing more, nothing less. That said, I think that some of the changes improve the article, so I hesitate to revert. Per WP:GALLERY, if the galleries are to remain, the images need to be individually captioned. But I don't think is necessarily desirable to keep them, especially the architecture one, since we have a separate article about the topic. I'd be curious to know what other Wikipedians think. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please define "encyclopedic manner"? All I added was a more cultural photos. I don't see any "Un-encyclopedic manner" about that. Does "encyclopedic manner" mean putting un-photogenic photos? I know I over added photos, and I apologized about that. But will you please reconsider my edits? I saw some Wikipedia articles for other countries. And it very well gives justice to their cultures, art and history; Paintings that portray Japanese culture for example. In the same manner, I added the Tampuhan (painting) of Juan Luna in visual art section of the article for example. Because it very well portray the cultural and historical side of the Philippines; the woman wearing a Maria Clara gown of the Filipina women, With the background of the historical Bahay na Bato architecture(Interior) with all it's Ventanilla and Capiz windows. It depicts very well the Philippine culture during the 1800's; The Climax era of the Philippine history where most of the Philippine hero lived and it is where the Philippine republic was born. I'm very sorry for any inconvenience, but please reconsider using my edits. thank you.User:Keroscene777 (talk) 3:34 6 November 2017 (UTC)
" The Manila galleons, the largest wooden ships ever built, " The galleons are not even on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships Maybe this needs further elaboration or should be cut? -David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.64.74 (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Unitarian)) to ((Unitarianism|Unitarian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2017
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.wssinfo.org/documents/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the WRONG land area of 300,000 sq. km. The correct land area is 343,448 sq. km. as stated on the National Government Portal of the Republic of the Philippines (https://www.gov.ph/about-the-philippines)
This exact figure of 300,000 sq. km. was probably taken from the CIA "Factbook" which is outdated. 240B:252:820:5500:20CF:F4A0:95CD:E21B (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adam Hegazy33725 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The http://phnews.wikia.com is more on Philippine News and any volunteers willing to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.123.151 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Estimated Philippine Population for 2018 is at 107 million from 100.9 million in 2015. I think we should change it now. Reference is below: http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/03/18/ph-population-to-reach-107-million-by-end-of-2018 --Joshua121595 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(({population_census))}
parameters in the infobox. The article infobox currently has empty (({population_census))}
parameters which are not supported by the infobox template as currently implemented. The infobox template currently has (({FR_total_population_estimate))}
parameters which are neither documented there nor used by the article. I'm not what the FR_ stands for or sure how those parameters are intended to be used.![]() | This edit request to [[:[Philippines]]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dilsetum0 (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done:No identifiable request.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thumb cxxxx ssadasdasdasadaasd hjj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.226.6.154 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
make the first mention of The Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society link to the corresponding Wikipedia page Nootherhell (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:E404:7D45:E988:B906:72AC:DCB2 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph, could you add the additional information that it will be part of the pacific island countries as well as south east Asia, in 2020 due to the census change. 82.8.75.148 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this would make more sense as there are woman who are considered Filipina and men considered Filipino. Is there a way to start a category and have them all moved under lets say for eg. Category:Australian people of Philippine descent. Is this the right section for this debate? C0c0nutzg (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Here, I have removed " of conquest by US military force" as a characterization of the Philippine-American War. The supporting source cited immediately following this deletion is Constantino, R (1975). The Philippines: a Past Revisited. Quezon City: Tala Pub. Services. I happen to have that book, and I do not find support for that assertion therein. It might be a matter of interpretation, but the support, if present, ought to be somewhere in the page range of 293-300, and I just don't see it.
I suspect, though, that this assertion was put into the article as original research, without reference to or support of outside sources.
Checking back, I see that it apparently came in in this edit by @BushelCandle: , under implied support (actually, rather, explicitly claimed support by placement) of that aforementioned pre-existing cite which does not support it. The edit summary of that edit says, "copyedited opening section and also emphasised that the Philippine-American war was a war of reconquest and bloody". This is WP:original research, which is disallowed by policy. Also, the term "reconquest" ("re-conquest" in the edit) is an oversimplication ("re" of what conquest by whom??) open to WP:POV interpretation. Also, and I think this is an important point, a general article titled "Philippines" is not the place to get into this level of contentious detail; read WP:Summary style.
"re-conquest" became "conquest" in this edit by @Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw: (edit summary: "Fixed typo") and , as I said above,I have removed this characterization. Please, please keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in mind while editing.
Perhaps it is useful to explore differences in viewpoints about characterization of the Philippine-American War, but this is not the place to do that. Also, the viewpoint differences explored ought not to be viewpoint differences between WP editors but, rather, viewpoint differences expressed by reliable sources, as required by WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
THIS WAS PROBABLY THE TIME WHEN FILIPINOS LEARNED TO PLAY BASKETBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.158.226.122 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.173.49.124 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2001:56A:72AE:5100:7C78:1191:F9D0:EB4D (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this is code changes Mahima v 123 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
--- What followed here was an extensiv copy&poaste from some coffee article ------ --- not related to the article, considered trolling, and deleted --- 2019-01-26 (please can someone do this the official way ?)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Philippines is composed of 7107 islands which is separated into three main islands called as Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Bugang14 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This sentence: "An unknown percentage of irreligion in the Philippines because there is no official statistic of it but it may be form as high as 20% of the population." seems to be screwed. I think what it wanted to say may be "There is an unknown percentage of atheists or people who do not confess to any specific religion, estimated to be up to 20%, whose status can not be clarified since no statistics exist." I also think the word 'irreligion' sounds discriminatory, and should not be used. Consider correcting the article.
This unsupported edit (one of a series) caught my eye. It said "soothed over a conflicting statement" in the ES, and revised this earlier change by me. I have again revised this portion of the article with this edit, this time using content from the Campaigns of the Philippine–American War article, slightly reworded, and this time citing the source cited there. There appears to be a disagreement between myself and @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: regarding the chronology here. My understanding, based on the online and paper sources I have seen (some of which are not cited but are mentioned in the edit summary of my most recent edit of this article), is that U.S. forces supplanted the short-lived Republic of Negros long before (not subsequent to) the defeat of the First Philippine Republic. Unfortunately, most of my paper sources on Philippine history are not presently available to me. Please discuss here if discussion is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This article badly needs a review with the editing guideline Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS) in mind. This is exampled bye the info in the American Rule section concerning chronology and the Republic of Negros which has been subject to recent edits and comment above on this talk page. WP:SS would have increasing detail about this as one goes from article to article in Philippines > History of the Philippines > History of the Philippines (1898–1946) > Republic of Negros, and that is not the case. This problem is also exampled by the talk page section above this one. That problem that ought to be corrected. Correcting that is a big job; it is a bigger than I want to undertake (and I'll acknowledge that I have surely been a sometimes contributor to this slow-growing problem), but I thought that problem deserved at least a mention here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Here, I placed a ((fv)) in the article, saying: "The bulk of of this assertion is not supported by the source cited." That apparently resulted in edits here and here. This is unsupported original research -- it may be supportable, but it is unsupported here. It ought to be supported or removed.See also the talk page section immediately below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
GDP (nominal) 2018 estimate
• Per capita $3,100 : IMF https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/PHL Tomvstom (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change GDP (nominal) per capita to 3,100 USD because current data is old report was forecasted by IMF since April 2017. Please refer here https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/PHL or Report for Selected Countries and SubjectsTomvstom (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence below for the Main article about religion is incorrect.
"Main article: Religion in the Philippines" "The Philippines is an officially secular state, although Christianity is the dominant faith."
Please put back the original sentence in this article. Philippines is a Christian nation in Southeast Asia, with Christianity as the dominant faith. 80% of Filipinos professed Catholicism, 10% Protestants, 5% other religions and remaining 5% Islam. Therefore, in the second paragraph, first sentence, "Islam is the second largest religion" is not true based on the real statistics of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cue bee2000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Here, I've removed a cite titled "WVS Database". By its location, this was cited in support of an assertion saying: "Census data from 2010 found that [...] Protestants were 10.8%." The cite title was added (by me) in this August 7, 2016 edit, where the cite of this source appeared in support of an assertion saying: "Protestants are 1.8% of the total population.". I did not reverify that assertion at that time. even though (I see now) it then was tagged ((fv)). The ((fv)) tag was added in this August 4, 2014 edit. The cite appears to have been originally added in this June 29, 2016 edit in support of the 1.8% figure, which that edit introduced to replace a previous estimate of 5% which had been supported by a cite of http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/208472.pdf. (I don't see support for the 5% figure in there). Re the cite I've removed, I've looked at the web page linked there and I don't find anything directly useful in support of an assertion about the percentage of Protestants in the Philippines.
Is it any wonder that people joke about the unreliability of information found in Wikipedia? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add on the background section of the Philippines: Culturally, the Philippines is the most westernized nation in Asia, (Latin in temperament/attitude, Asian in family structure and an American sense of mindset/consumerist behavior). Che0709s (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, as you can see I am a new user, although I want to contribute accurate information and ensure the credibility of those already posted on the Philippines page.
My apologies for not seeking consensus at first since I am still new to Wikipedia. I don't have prior knowledge of the requirement to seek consensus.
I would like to post here regarding the edits I had recently made on this page.
Regarding the Filipino Sign Language: I have already talked on the talk page of the two users/editors who have responded on my removal of the FSL from the national and official languages of the Philippines. I stand by the first reason I gave which is about the law (Republic Act no. 11106) that specifically made the FSL the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf (from Section 3). If we analyze it word per word, it does not explicitly declare it as the national and official language. It was declared as the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf (it does not say official means of communication in "all" transactions). While I do understand and agree that the FSL is a language (as all sign languages are), the law has only recognized it as the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf. It has not declared it as a national and official language. That is where the difference lies. My proposal is to create a new subtitle/heading in the info box to show the FSL as the national sign language so as to avoid confusion on the difference between the national language and national sign language.
Moreover, I apologize for assuming the KWF only handles the Filipino language. I have now read about its mandate. I was misled by the name of the commission which is the Commission on the "Filipino Language".
Regarding the American Rule: I will come back to this when I get the spare time to do so. There are conflicting accounts since some Filipinos at that time were stating that the American colonial administration is suppressing the Filipino culture. Perhaps a cultural renaissance happened because Filipino artists fought the suppression and the result was a renaissance instead of a suppression. However, I will still read more books about it and share it with this talk page when I have the time to do so.
Moreover, I think the focus of the American period needs to talk more about what happened during the period instead of talking about what happened before that period (the fall of the First Philippine Republic and other revolutionary movements which led to the American period). I would also suggest to put a period between the Spanish rule and American rule. It can be named as the Philippine Revolutionary period (as our contemporary historians call it) or First Philippine Republic since the events during this period happened in the transition between the Spanish rule and the American rule. The foundations of the modern Philippine nation or the concept of the Philippines as a whole was made or strengthened during this time (e.g. the declaration of independence we celebrate today as June 12 was made from this time). It will be good to talk about this since after all, this is the "Philippines" page. The fall of the First Philippine Republic and the other revolutionary or independence movements can be discussed here. This will also serve as the smooth transition between the Spanish rule and American rule for a better chronological understanding of events and also for the American rule to contain information on the American period itself, not the period (Philippine Revolution particularly the second phase and the Philippine-American War) which led to it.
Thanks. Jhlletras (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Linked image breaks several points in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, namely it's excessively decorative, cluttered, contains text that could be entered in description, etc. The information is great, but image itself needs to be simplified. --Truflip99 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., your explanation for the reinsertion of all the material missed most of what I said in my edit summary. Putting aside for the moment the question of sourcing, your edits restored a lot of extra text that was not added with citations, along with a few very strange recently introduced typos. On sources, being the second-most sourced country article is not a good thing. It heavily implies that this article fails to meet WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and indeed, that is the case. The huge bloat this article has undergone since it was assessed as a Good Article has been to its great detriment. CMD (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok I will work in even trimming it down even further then. And why are you so concerned about the Philippines losing its good article status for reference bloat when the USA article is even much more worse and it still retains Good Article Status? I do agree with you that this article is just too wordy and that two wrongs don't make a right but I just want to point out the double standards. Oh no Philippines article has 640 references! Bad! GA status endangered! The USA article has 720 references. It's totally ok!!!! 😂 Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((khans)) to ((Khan (title)|khans))