![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Now that the article has more or less stablized, lets add refs so that this can at least be a GA article. --Howard the Duck 10:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What? --Howard the Duck 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the go? Can someone possibly explain that in the article? Filipino is an odd way to spell it given that it is said pilipino if anything. Where did the replacement of phi with fi in some literary references arive? What information can anyone provide on the matter? Perhaps we can bash up something for the article itself, because the blazingly strange inconsistancies of the nomenclature and a lack of address in the articles opening paragraph seems unsound and unencyclopaedic to me. 211.30.80.121 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
--193.203.200.2 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC):It's the English/Spanish difference. (I asked the same question not too long ago!)Cameron Nedland 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Filipinos used Filipino in English and Pilipino locally while foreigners (some foreigners) used the word Philippine rather than Filipino... peads 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
People from the Philippines are called "Filipinos" because this is the original term (and spelling) used by Philippine-born Spaniards during the early colonial period, later by all persons born in the country irrespective of ancestry, and later by Philippine nationals after 1898. The word is indeed Spanish, as Spanish was the official language of the country for more than 3 centuries. But the term is also built into tagalog, ilocano, cebuano, ilonggo, and other native languages, and therefore considered purely Filipino too. Nothing wrong in my opinion, in using this term to describe "people from the Philippines" despite the spelling not strictly being English. Regards, Javier
That's very informative. To add to the previous query however, please clarify the use of Filipino and Pilipino. Is there really a significant difference? I was told Pilipino refers to the person and Filipino refers to the national language.
Some of the sections read like they were written like informercial pamphlet written governmental propaganda written to make the country look amazing and great for foreign investing, some it's actually more ludicrous than effective. This should be an encyclopaedia. The reality is that this country is extremely poor and commits several human rights abuses with children in prisons, cages, et al. In article it looks like a powerhouse speedlighting at 6% growth on way to surprise the world as the most mangificent Asian tiger - A load of governmental BS if you consider the pornographic debt their budget issues. Just saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.138.0.112 (talk • contribs) August 21, 2006 at 23:12.
To unknown: Of course you're not going to put your name, so we don't know who you are. You're not Filipino, are you? And also, it is incorrect for you to say "the country has committed several human rights abuses", because it is the government and rebel groups that do these abuses, and neither the government nor rebel groups represent the whole country. Also, neither is the country "extremely" poor. Many other countries in Africa and Asia are much poorer, although I'd hardly judge a country on how "poor" they are, unlike you. The question is, why are you "just saying" this, anyway? Since as you say, this is an encyclopedia, if you wanted to propose changes, you would say them in a matter-of-fact-way. But you didn't. From the confrontational and offensive tone and wording of what you said, it seems you have some other reason for saying what you said. Maybe...to insult? Just saying, too. Besides, it's not even the government which edits this article, so obviously you're wrong in assuming that it's "government propaganda". Not nice.
202.73.162.190 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Concerned Filipino
As a concerned reader I want to add new information about the cheating of the elections. The Tribune (www.tribune.net.ph) quotes Escudero:
Rep. Francis Escudero, who was also present at the same forum, expressed apprehension at the possibility that Malacañang would again engage in its dirty tricks, threaten and scare the witnesses and their families to get them to recant their affidavits.
“When the time comes, everyone who wants to testify against Mrs. Arroyo are immediately taken into custody, bought off to recant their sworn statements, and with them even coming up with accusations that they had been forced by the political opposition to manufacture testimonies,” Escudero said. (5. September 2006)
By the way, we cant be sure if its true that it is the government who abuses human rights so it is wrong to say the "because it is the government and rebel groups that do these abuses". So far, we have no evidence that the government really did. And one more thing, for the sake of the country's image we cant say that the country is "extremly poor", You may say it in a more polite way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.109.224 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 17:19(UCT).
When you say largest city don't you normally refer to population rather than land area? Might still be worth noting that Davao City has the largest land area in the article itself, but for the infobox we may as well follow how the other Wikipedia country articles are structured. --Edward Sandstig 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Any idea on how to deal with it? --Howard the Duck 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I add it? Lest I be accused of anti-nationalist again... --Howard the Duck 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I read this in the Religion Section... "The Philippines is the third-largest Christian nation, after the United States and Brazil."
I'm highly suspecious about that claim... we're only the 12-13 largest nation depending on who you ask but the United States and Brazil aren't the only big countries with big Christian populations.
92% of the Philippines is Christian.. that would be 76.4 million people (out of 83 million) that are Christian.
However including the US and Brazil... is Mexico, the 11th largest country: 95% are Christian making it have 101.65 million people (out of 107 million) that are Christian.
Even the Demographics of Russia suggest 58% of its populace are Russian Orthodox. That calculated out would be 83 million people.
Prehaps our intent was that the Philippines is the third largest Catholic Nation after Mexico and Brazil... however with illegal immigration into the United States as it is... perhaps the Filipino would be the fourth largest.
Definitely not the Christians' 3rd though. Someone please verify with me on this. PhilipDM 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets select the pics that should be added. Especially at the Economy section. Lets have a representative, one for Luzon, one for Visayas and one for Mindanao. Lets stop the Metro Manila-centrism. --Howard the Duck 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
But i dont see any mindanao pics in there - insanedrivers
I'm referring to the edit by User_talk:203.164.50.111 where he switched the place of Spanish and Chinese in the sentence about mestizos.[1] Could it be he meant to emphasize that the term mestizo isn't often used in modern times to refer to mixed Chinese-Filipinos where the term Filipino-Chinese (or Fil-Chi) is generally preferred? --Edward Sandstig 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The Archive of the Indies in Seville and Madrid states that During the colonial period, Filipinas was also called Nueva Espaňa (New Spain). All the Territory who were part of the viceroyalty of New Spain was New Spain itself. Philippines was New Spain. -- Gonzalo 2:34, September 20, 2006 (UTC)
I see no reference of the miitary of the Phillipines --Johnston49er 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
i guess everyone's lazy to do the military part... better check the Military of the Philippines- insanedrivers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.109.224 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 17:19(UCT).
I didn't realise there was a military of the philippines. Must be easy to over-look. Wanderer 15 Nov 06
Natsirtj[2] recently replaced the paragraph that read:
The Filipinos came from Austronesian-speaking peoples, but there are also some Filipinos of mixed descent, known as mestizos, through intermarriage with the Spanish, Chinese or other nationalities.[citation needed]
With a direct copy-paste from the Philippine Department of Tourism's own website:
The Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish, and Arab blood. The Philippines has a population of 90 million as of 2006, and it is hard to distinguish accurately the lines between stocks. From a long history of Western colonial rule, interspersed with the visits of merchants and traders, evolved a people of a unique blend of east and west, both in appearance and culture. [1]
I've edited the paragraph somewhat so that it doesn't violate any copyrights, and removed the obvious marketing speak. I'm considering removing the paragraph altogether though since the articles already getting too long and it seems more appropriate to deal with ethnic origins in the demographics section. Thoughts? --Edward Sandstig 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
How come the condensed history section starts with the settling of Palawan then suddenly jumps to Magellan? Nothing happened between the two events? If I recall correctly, a very important thing happened. Well, two, actually. First, the Aetas reached the Philippines more than 10,000 years ago. And most important of all, the great expansion of Austronesians from Taiwan settled northern Luzon and gave rise to the majority(more than 90% of the population) of Filipinos today. It should at least be mentioned in a short sentence at the very least.--Chicbicyclist 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I've noticed a number of authors making multiple edits in sequence. If you're not sure how something might look, I'd like to suggest you use the "Preview" button before committing your changes. :) --Edward Sandstig 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Who deleted the "the Philippines suffers from overpopulation due to a high birthrate"? It must be government propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.212.52.10 (talk • contribs) October 1, 2006 14:19 (UCT).
Overpopulation is a relative thing. Sure, the Philippines is about the size of the American state Arizona but about twenty times as dense, but Japan is way denser and it hardly has the same problems. We can hardly cite overpopulation until we see some hard data, and this would be nearly impossible to research. The problems are the same as they would be with a quarter of the population: poor education, poor medical care, and poor jobs. The governmental organization here is poor, but when they get involved they usually screw things up worse (i.e. coding days). Those problems are way worse then overpopulation, which really only affects traffic. And the traffic sucks. 203.131.167.26 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Geography tab on the Philippines needs to be extended. What about the Flora and Fauna of the Philippines? Climate? Resources? If anyone could add them to article, it would be very helpful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninestrokes (talk • contribs) October 6, 2006 17:34 (UCT).
What hell is it with people and government propaganda? Maybe they are government propaganda!!!! Pinoy Pride!!!Australian Jezza 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a dictionary, folks. I don't think Arroyo would bother messing with an article that will be predominately read by Non-Filipinos. Remember - if you don't have an Internet connection over here you pay by the hour, and Filipinos prefer not to blow that money on online encyclopedias. I don't really blame them. 203.131.167.26 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any famous Filipino Musicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis1345 (talk • contribs)
Just a reminder: Largest city refers to the city with the biggest population, NOT the city with the largest land area. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)