Jump to content

Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

New Picture for the said article

Hello! This is User:Matthewprc (forgot to log in). The rationale for the new picture is that: (1) it represents each and every group outlined in the article; (2) the pictures therein are photographs (not mere depictions) of people; and (3) it represents the real appearance of each and every group. What do you think? -- User:Matthewprc

Smaller Ethnic Groups

The Zamboangueño Chavacanos - smaller? ethnic? --Weekeejames 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ibanags should be added too, there is already a page made about them Jcdizon (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


I have deleted the Igorot people from the Negrito category. Their dialects are closely related to the other Filipino dialects. Some of their practices are similar to that of the pre-hispanic Malay Filipinos and even Sabah.A tour in the Cordilleras would be a more eye-opening experience to counter erroneous information about their ethnicity/race or a copy of William Henry Scott's studies can be a good supplement too!!! Saida mariano (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Isn't having two collages a bit redundant?

--Nino Gonzales 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Lets remove one of them. (And why is this centered? LOL) --Howard the Duck | talk, 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do to fix it before deleting.One week?--Jondel 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The collages you are referring to are the faces in the main article?--Jondel 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd choose the first (top) one over the bottom one. --Howard the Duck | talk, 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been testing out at the sandbox but it I can't get the archive templates to appear on top.--Jondel 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Keep it up HtD!Add another pogi point! --Jondel 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hijacked that from User talk:Jimbo Wales hehehe --Howard the Duck | talk, 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the collage, I think the second one (bottom) would be more informative, as it shows each and every person from an ethnic group together in a multifaceted collage. While the first one (original) is OK, and I'd say, excellent, its' pictures are , however, unnecessarily repeated on the bottom. Another thing...the second one represents the Filipinos more (I mean, phenotypically). While it is quite obvious in the second collage that Filipinos are *good looking*, it does represent what they are, not only that, it also represents the prominent ethnic groups in equal proportion with the other groups I guess, equal opportunity is important in diversity, right? Aside from those discussions presented herein, since the Mestizos are overrepresented in the economic sector, we might as well give some recogniton due them by placing their pictures here. Equality and equity wise (also putting into consideration the unnecessary repetitions) , I surmise that nothing is wrong with this collage. And lastly, the collage is populated by images, not mere artist renderings.  :) -- User:Matthewprc

I don't want to say which one is better because I made one of them and would unavoidably have a bias... hehe...

OK, I'll explain the why of the 4x4 collage:

Inclusiveness
I think a collage of ethnic groups in the Ph should contain:
1) An Ilocano
2) A Pangasinense
3) A Kapampangan
4) A Tagalog
5) A Bicolano
6) A Bisaya
7) A Muslim Filipino
8) Tribal folk
9) A Chinese/mestizo/a
10) A Spanish/mestizo/a
Optional:
Other minorities (Japs, Indonesians, Americans, Germans, Indians)

Proportionality
I think this should be based on
1) Population size
2) Historical significance

Here are population percentages as well as historical significance
1) Bisaya (Cebuano+Ilonggo+Waray+Aklanon+etc=~30million=~40%)
2) Tagalog (~20million=~25%)
3) Ilocano (~9million=~11%)
4) Tribal groups (~10%)
5) Moro (~5%)
But we don't want 40% of the collage to be Bisaya, or 1/4 to be Tagalog, right?
I think as long as we put at least one for each, that would already be OK. No?
6) Spanish/mestizo/a - 333 years of Spain... There would have been no Philippines without that experience (Ultranationalist would cringe at hearing this, but as Nick Joaquin would say, there's nothing inevitable with geography)
7) Chinese/mestizo/a - We could not ignore the Chinese's/mestizo's role in the Revolution and in commerce

So, 1) Aeta girl (Tribal)
2) Nur Misuari (Moro)
3) GMA (Kapampangan)
4) Roco (Bicolano)
5) Quezon (Spanish-Tagalog)
6) Jaya (not sure of her ancestry, but she adds diversity to the collage)
7) Pedro Calungsod (El Bisayo)
8) Kris Aquino (Chinese-Tagalog)
9) A Moro Woman
10) Lucio Tan (Taipan of Fukienese origin)
11) Lucy Torres (Spanish Mestiza)
12) Marcos (Ilocano)
13) Ramos (Pangasinense)
14) Jolina (Manilenya)
15) Rizal (THE Tagalog)
16) A Tribal woman

I tried to make it as few as possible. But if you make it 3x4, I think you miss out on some groups.

I am strongly opposed to basing representation solely on perceived or real dominance in business.

And putting a Korean (just a few hundred thousands and mostly transients) is clearly unproportional.

Who's that girl beside Budoy? I do not think she is Cebuana.

And I am strongly, very strongly, for using Pedro Calungsod, however he is represented, to represent the Bisaya.

I am OK with either collage. But if the 2nd one is chosen, please:
1) Have an equal number of male and female
2) Fix the arrangement (like don't put the two tribal girls next to each other)
3) Try not to have a Manilenyo POV (it is currently dominated by people who live in Manila)
4) Fix the distortion of Lucio Tan's face
(but don't work on this yet until we choose which one to retain)

But I won't vote, since, again, I'm unavoidably biased. --Nino Gonzales 02:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Lets just wait a bit for other opinions? There is no rush anyway(?)--Jondel 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'd want the first collage, then the caption used on the second collage maybe be applied to the first collage. Also, it'll be better if we have public domain images. --Howard the Duck | talk, 10:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes :) Let's conduct a voting on this matter (but only others should vote) - place reasons for choosing either one of the two collage. Actually the heart of the matter is about he definition of who is the FIlipino. I think that there is nothing wrong with putting an image of a Korean in he collage, since being Filipino is not based on bloodlines, but on emotions as well as on culture (Enriquez, 1976). As for the usage of the term Filipino, I have many sources on what is 'a FIlipino and what is not'. Similarly, an American citizen residing among the FIlipinos for many years as a missionary (assumed that he US national has a "Filipino heart") is considered more as a Filipino rather than the typical primarily English-speaking rich "konyo" teens who are brought up in Western tradition and in the love of everything American (y'know what I mean if you are a Filipino). - This is how Filipino Psychology defines what and who is a FIlipino. Now for the other parts: The girl beside 'Budoy' is actually a Cebuana, she is Ruffa Gutierrez-Bektas. As for Pedro Calungsod, yes, he really represents all the Bisayans, but (I think) it is more important for a photo of a real person to be depicted, rather than an artist's rendition (If there's no Calungsod photo, you might as well choose a Cebuano/a, since they actually represent the Bisayans ever since the Spanish Colonial Era). And, yes, all are public domain photos. The arrangement of the 2nd collage is based on the flow of the article. The first collage is based on the images already present in the body of the article (which means that there is an unncessary repetition and redundancy). I would really want to hear others' opinions on why they DO NOT want the second collage. Hehe. :) -- User:Matthewprc, 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
First, who is a Filipino? Or better yet, who represents the Filipino race the best? Nino's collage has:
  1. Aeta girl (Tribal)
  2. Nur Misuari (Moro)
  3. GMA (Kapampangan)
  4. Roco (Bicolano)
  5. Quezon (Spanish-Tagalog)
  6. Jaya (not sure of her ancestry, but she adds diversity to the collage)
  7. Pedro Calungsod (El Bisayo)
  8. Kris Aquino (Chinese-Tagalog)
  9. A Moro Woman
  10. Lucio Tan (Taipan of Fukienese origin)
  11. Lucy Torres (Spanish Mestiza)
  12. Marcos (Ilocano)
  13. Ramos (Pangasinense)
  14. Jolina (Manilenya)
  15. Rizal (THE Tagalog)
  16. A Tribal woman
Matt's collage has:
  1. Imee Marcos (Ilokano)
  2. JDV (Pangasinense)
  3. A Pinoy Teen Big Brother housemate (dunno her ethnicity)
  4. "P"GMA (Capampangan)
  5. Roco (Bicolano)
  6. Who's that?
  7. see no. 6
  8. A Pinoy Celebrity Big Brother housemate (he's Bisaya)
  9. Nur Misuari (Bangsamoro)
  10. Some tribal woman
  11. The same woman from Nino's collage
  12. See no. 12
  13. Lucio Tan (Chinese)
  14. Kris Aquino (Chinese-Spanish)
  15. Isabel Presyler
  16. Pilita Corrales (Spanish mestiza)
  17. A Pinoy Big Brother Season 1 housemate (American?)
  18. see no. 17
  19. Sandara Park (Korean)
  20. see no. 6
Summing up, Nino's collage, despite having fewer entries is more diversified, more English language speakers may know them, and some of Matt's pictures came from Nino's collage. Also, three pictures came from Big Brother, and no entry from GMA-7 (lol)? So what's next? Itchyworms getting their own entry? (lol). Nino's collage is better, if you'd ask me. For example if someone from Boise, Idaho does a research on this subject, he'd assume that all Bisayas look like Budoy. Lets have a better representation on each ethnic group, and in which they maybe more known internationally. As of now, Nino's collage is better.
Or we can remove all collages altogether. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if the people want to remove whaterver, let us remove whatever… hehe

But, I think pictures are very useful. How about we vote for individual pictures rather than collages? That way, we might end up with a better and community made collage? I guess me and Matt could already vote.

Okay, instead of a collage, lets just have a singular picture representing a particular ethnic group in each section. Collages are impossible to license, unless all of the pics are from the public domain. --Howard the Duck | talk,

Straw poll

The poll has ended. Do not edit the poll immediately below. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --User:Matthewprc
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --User:Matthewprc
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --User:Matthewprc
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --User:Matthewprc
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record
  • Quezon (Spanish-Tagalog) I support any Filipino with Spanish ancestry especially if s/he is either part of the landed gentry (maybe someone from Western Visayas) or of showbiz (I think these are the steroetypes) -Nino Gonzales 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Neutral: I would choose photos over paintings. --User:Matthewprc
Support but comment: Are there any public domain pictures of Manuel Quezon? At least the portraits are PD, so in terms of the copyright license, it's easier. --Akira Say what? | Track record
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Neutral. She's Afro-Filipino? --User:Matthewprc
Conditional support: We need to know Jaya's ethnicity first. --Akira Say what? | Track record
Support --23prootie Her mom looks Aeta and was married to an American. I think she's part African-American
  • Pedro Calungsod (El Bisayo) - Very very strong and obstinate support. I will fight for this unto expulsion from Wikipedia… hehe… If needed I will make an essay why Pedro Calungsod is the most appropriate pic for the Bisaya, and why this particular representation (there are others) is the most appropriate representation. But I suggest you just take my word for it; I’m Bisaya. However, I support changing the pic in the Bisaya section. Maybe an Ilongo, a Cebuano and a Waray? For Cebuano, I strongly support Sergio Osmena. -Nino Gonzales 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I'd rather get Sergio Osmena. --Howard the Duck | talk
Comment: I'd get some person with a real photograph (not an artist's rendering). I would suggest that you pick someone who is like part-Cebuano part-Waray....lol. You won't b expelled from Wikipedia :) --User:Matthewprc
All of the Presidents' portraits are in the public domain, so its easier to license them. --Howard the Duck | talk. Addendum: Actually, you can be expelled from Wikipedia if you upload copyrighted material and pass it off either as fair use if it is not fairly used (collages is not fair use) or use another image tag for a copyrighted image. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Comment: For me, I think one Moro picture is enough. lol. --User:Matthewprc
Comment: Fookien are Chinese too, right? Or perhaps you're thinking about Mandarins. Otherwise, support. --Howard the Duck | talk
Comment: Fukienese and Cantonese are Sinicized Yuehs (meaning they are more related to VIetnamese and Filipinos than to the Mandarins-see the Han Chinese article. Anyway, it would be better to put one Fujianese and one Cantonese --User:Matthewprc
Oppose. We have too many Spanish people already. One would be enough. --Howard the Duck | talk
Oppose. The picture is in sepia format, which makes the pic somewhat unsightly. --User:Matthewprc
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Neutral. I would suggest Imee Marcos because Ferdinand Marcos's portrait is an anrtist's rendition. But if there's a Marcos pic bearing his 'true' image, then Support. --User:Matthewprc
but imee marcos is a half-ilokano. she don't even speak the iloko language well. if ferdinand marcos is to be subsituted, be it an another pure ilokano president: elpidio quirino. --Saluyot 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Neutral. I would suggest Jose de Venecia because Fidel Ramos' portrait is an anrtist's rendition. But if there's a Ramos pic bearing his 'true' image, then Support. --User:Matthewprc
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. ramos, in fact, though born in asingan, pangasinan (some say lingayen, pangasinan though), is not ethnically a pangasinense but an ilokano. --Saluyot 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Perhaps we can add another Manilenya/Manilenyo. Or Quezon will be good enough. Majority of Manilenyos are Tagalogs too. --Howard the Duck | talk
Oppose. For me, there is no need to put a Manilenyo since Manilenyos are of Tagalog descent --User:Matthewprc
Oppose per above. --Akira Say what? | Track record 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Most Manilenyos are actually of Visayan descent. Support since she's Manilenya. - --23prootie
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Neutral. I would suggest that a more modern photo of a Tagalog (like the second collage, featuring Jamilla Obispo from PBB, who hails from Laguna). --User:Matthewprc
No Rizal? A person from Boise, Idaho may know Rizal, but not Jamilla. --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --Akira Say what? | Track record 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Support --Saluyot 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Support --Howard the Duck | talk
Support --User:Matthewprc
Oppose. Ferdinand Marcos will do. --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. A photo is always better than a painting. lol. -- User:Matthewprc
Oppose. Ramos is enough. --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. A photo is always better than a painting. lol. -- User:Matthewprc
Re:Support: But Ramos's portrait is in the public domain. That's easier to license. --Howard the Duck | talk
Oppose --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. She is Tagalog. Would be nicer if a modern Tagalog is represented -- User:Matthewprc
Then if a modern Tagalog is represented, I'd rather see Erap. --Howard the Duck | talk
Comment: Why? Otherwise, oppose too. Too many Cebuanos already. Lets get a Waray. Is Ted Failon Waray? --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. She looks exactly like a typical Cebuana lass --

User:Matthewprc

Support. I think there should be a female Bisaya. --

23prootie

Oppose. Too many Cebuanos already. But if he's Waray, support.--Howard the Duck | talk
Support. -- User:Matthewprc
Support. Either Presyler or Corrales, only one should be added. --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. Either Preysler or Corrales -- User:Matthewprc
Support. Either Presyler or Corrales, only one should be added. --Howard the Duck | talk
Support. Either Preysler or Corrales -- User:Matthewprc
Oppose Sam Milby, support inclusion of an American. We can get another American. KC Montero, perhaps? Or Lou Diamond Phillips? --Howard the Duck | talk
Support the other American Mestizo pic (a PBB Teen housemate) -- User:Matthewprc
Comment: are we going to add individual pictures in the minorities section too? I don't see other ethnic groups/racial demographics articles doing that. IMHO, we should add more charts and graphs rather than photos. Support adding of a Korean in tbe collage. --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. She has been brought up in the culture and tradition of Filipinos, so she can pass off as a Filipina. -- User:Matthewprc
Though that maybe true for Sandara, I dunno about other Koreans. I'd rather see a Filipino-Indian.--Howard the Duck | talk,
Comment: I think a picture of Iwa Moto would be better. She's half-Japanese, half-Filipino --23prootie |
She's not notable enough. The collages must be a person a foreigner knows, aside from the indigenous peoples. --Howard the Duck 04:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add anyone you want to include in the collage. I suggest we limit it to 4x4. The lesser, the better, in my opinion. I also suggest we have the same number of men and women.--Nino Gonzales 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to which collage, I would choose the collage on top because the bottom second one has bad focus. The images are not sharp.--Jondel 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Results of straw poll

The following would compose the collage:

  1. An aeta girl
  2. Nur Misuari for Moros
  3. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for Capampangans
  4. Raul Roco for Bicolanos
  5. Lucio Tan for Chinese-Filipinos
  6. Jose Rizal for Tagalogs
  7. A tribal woman
  8. Either Isabel Presyler or Pilita Corrales. Make up your minds now. If either of the following gets nominated, we should have a public domain picture. Just reviewed votes and there were opposition and neutral votes.
  • Another straw poll is found below to decide on who will represent the Ilonggos and the Warays.
how about the ilokanos and the pangasinenses? --Saluyot 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
include them in the poll below. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Other additions

Add them here. --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Who should represent the following:

  • Pangasinenses
    • add your nomination here.
  • Cebuanos
    • add your nomination here.

Tag to use in collages

I can't imagine that using a copyrighted image in a novel work of art (the collage) would qualify as fair use. I think any collage uploaded to Wikipedia would have to consist of images either in the public domain or released under a free license permitting modification. User:Angr 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (From Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Collages)

If we can see some personalities in Philippine government websites then they might be PD. Both collages contain copyrighted material and they are not fairly used. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new collage

OK, somebody deleted the two collages in question (it wasn't me who initiated it). Now on the 12th we would have finished the poll and we could construct a new collage. --Howard the Duck 08:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Dude, what's the criteria for selection? Only the pics with all support? (It seems this is your criterial for the selection above) How about the pics without opposition but with neutral comments?--Nino Gonzales 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those with unanimous support were included. Unless the neutral and oppose votes were acted upon, they can't be included. Another problem was that there were very few votes, if there are oppose votes, it will be hard to ignore, but when there are, for example, 10 votes and only 1 opposed, then we can include it. --Howard the Duck 02:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't neutral mean that they don't mind if it is included (or not)? Where should we put more comments--since you wrote that we should not touch the poll?--Nino Gonzales 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the poll had a run of almost 2 months, it was supposed to end on Independence Day but I ended it yesterday. In any case, anybody can end his/her suggestion on the new straw poll. The older poll's decisions are final, but if other wikipedians insist on their own agenda, they can always add options to the new straw poll. --Howard the Duck 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we include the unopposed pictures? The voting is final I suppose but I don't think we ever agreed that pictures with neutral comments should not be included.--Nino Gonzales 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, only pictures that have neutral and support votes will be included. Those with oppose won't, unless they provide a better public domain image. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Principles

Could we first agree on the principles that would guide us to select the appropriate pictures to represent the Ethnic Groups in the Philippines? Like I think it is important that it should have an equal number of men and women.

I made a separate page to list down these principles and perhaps be our scratchpad for the creation of the collage and other pictures. Right now it’s just some guidelines that I have proposed some months ago. Perhaps we could develop it to become some sort of guideline.

The page is located here: Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines/Pictures --Nino Gonzales 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

Here’s a more positive discussion:

I think work is needed on the following. Any help would be appreciated: --Nino Gonzales 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Expand the Pangasinense section
  • Discuss what ethnicity means in the Philippines
    • There are no official “ethnicities”
    • It is most of the time not clear cut
    • ”Filipino” as an ethnicity
  • Find better pictures (I think it would be better to have ones with the same size; currently (May 11, 2006) many pictures are too small. Another way is to reupload the pics after saving them using a larger size. Thumbnails don’t work if the original pic is smaller than the thumbnail
  • Find references for the History section
A NEW PERSPECTIVE: I would suggest using FIlipino Psychology in defining who is the Filipino (see discussion above). Culture rather than nationality, is the best way to define who is and who is not FIlipino. I would encourage the contributors to reinforce the Sino-Austronesian ancestry (and Hispano-Austronesian culture) of Filipinos - the Guamanians who look exactly like Filipinos, love to reinforce their Hispano-Austronesian culture and ancestry, and as such, have been able to discover their true identity (unlike Filipinos, who still continue to disparage their Hispano-Austronesian identity). Today, the Guamanians are considered as a Hispano-Austronesian people and their language, a Hispano-Austronesian one. As for the ethnicity, the vst majority of scholars agree that the Phils. have 13 major ethnolinguistic groups (and this means separating the Bisayans into Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Waray). Since there is no official policy on what is an ethnic group, the contributors on this article should reach a consensus on defining the ethnicity in Philippine context. Now, if a person has mixed ethnicity, which is very common nowadays (Cebuano-Waray, Tagalog-Pampangueno, etc.), it is better if you put him on the group which he considers the more closer group (to himself).-- User:Matthewprc 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think there should be some more discussion on who the Filipino is. Maybe we could make an article on Who is a Filipino? similar to Who is a Jew?? We should try to capture all POV’s. Perhaps it is also better to give the different definitions of ethnicity in the Philippine context rather than define it?
And yes, Cebuano, Ilongo and Waray are 3 of the 13 ethnolinguistic groups with more than a million speakers. However, ethnolinguistic group is not always equal to ethnic group. There are multilingual ethnic groups. And two of the most renowned Filipino intellectuals with very different viewpoints – Nick Joaquin and Teodoro Agoncillo – have both used Visayan when talking about the different groups in the Philippines.--Nino Gonzales 02:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And you mentioned that Cebuanos represent Visayans. In my opinion, this is shouldn’t be. It just happens that Cebuano speakers are twice as many as Waray-waray and Ilongo speakers combined. But if you ask Visayans themselves, they will say they are Bisaya regardless of whatever Visayan language it is they speak. Some even get offended when people equate Bisaya to Cebuano, perhaps like non-white Americans get offended when people equate Americano to White.--Nino Gonzales 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, actually, this shouldn't be. However, as you said, Visayans view themselves as Visayans, and not as Waray, Cebuano, etc. So, you can just label them as, say, Ilonggo-speaking Visayan people, Cebuano-speaking Visayan people, Waray-speaking Visayan people, ROmblomanon-speaking Visayan people, etc. In this case, you might as well employ anyone from the Visayan domain, be it Ilonggo, Cebuano, Waray, etc., as a Visayan.. -- User:Matthewprc


IMHO, I think the term "Visayan" is a similar case to the term "Igorot". To my own perception, the Visayans are those who come from the Visayas, regardless if they are Cebuano, Waray, Ilonggo... Just like the Igorot. It refers to the people of the Cordilleras, but they are divided into Ibaloi, Kankana-ey, Ifontok, Ifugao, Isneg, and many more.

I have been planning to put an intro to the ethnic groups section. I think the article has to explain why this division was used. I think it should also be explained that some ethnic groups would not fall under the ethnic groupings that have a subsection here. A example is the Chavacano group. The Chavacanos in Zamboanga are probably mostly of Visayan descent and the Chavacanos of Cavite are probably of Tagalog descent, but they probably don't consider themselves Tagalog or Visayan. Another is the Ivatan. They are lowlanders and they are Christian, so they don't really belong to the tribal section. But if we make a subsection for them we have to make a similar subsection for minorities of similar sizes, and the article would probably go beyond the size guidelines. Perhaps we could point these exeptions out in the intro.--Nino Gonzales 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about setting up a new page for the small minorities? --Howard the Duck 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Individual articles would also be nice.--Nino Gonzales 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Individual articles are better. Lets just use the templates and categories to keep them connected. --Howard the Duck 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about creating an article "Who is a Filipino?" as many people, even Filipinos themselves are guilty of being ignorant regarding who is and who is not a Filipino. In the Philippines and among Filipinos, your ethnicity comes first before your nationality. Most Filipinos still consider non-Malay Filipinos as "foreigners" even if their families have been in the country for centuries. I have much first-hand experience myself because I am Filipino of mostly Chinese heritage. I think an "Who is a Filipino?" article would hopefully clear some things out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


As a Native Zamboangueño Ethnic myself, I have to correct some misinformation that was stated by HOWARD THE DUCK. "The Chavacanos in Zamboanga are probably mostly of Visayan descent". This is actually wrong! The present-day Zamboangueño Ethnic were actually once Subanon Ethnic who have evolved into a new Ethnic Group for many process that includes as follows: Christianization, Hispanization and the birth of their new language. Eventhough of Subanon Decent, the Zamboangueño Ethnic are actually the product of Spanish Colonization in the Kingdom of Jambangan which led to ethnic inter-marriage among the Subanon and Native-Mexican and Castilian with other Ethnicities in the areas particularly the Lutao Ethnic and some Ylongo and Cebuano who were brought by the Spain when they've gone to Jambangan from Sugbu and Yloilo. Lastly, regarding the Map showing the location of our Ethnicity, something I would to correct, please click this link for perusal:

- https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/pb.577653682349457.-2207520000.1462293310./982743818507106/?type=3&size=1968%2C2048&fbid=982743818507106 - https://www.facebook.com/CIudadZamboangaEstadoPolitica/photos/a.1120964577961558.1073741836.735429199848433/1120964614628221/? - https://www.facebook.com/CIudadZamboangaEstadoPolitica/photos/a.1087382804653069.1073741832.735429199848433/1087384227986260/?type=3&size=2048%2C1704&fbid=1087384227986260 - https://www.facebook.com/CIudadZamboangaEstadoPolitica/photos/a.1087382804653069.1073741832.735429199848433/1087383294653020/?type=3&size=361%2C247&fbid=1087383294653020

--Soy Un Orgulloso Latino Zamboangueño 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer Cyle (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Recent survey

Please provide more info about the 'recent survey'--Jondel 06:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures in the ethnic groups section

Are they even necessary? Or the more important question is are they fairly used? As stated in the counterexample:

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Honus Wagner article.

So the Kris Aquino image, as well as all images except those with a free license are not fairly used, because this article is not about Kris Aquino, or even about her television program (apply the example to everybody else). What we can do here is to link them to a famous person such as 'Famous Chinese people are..." or "famous Spanish mestizo are..." Also isn't it ironic that the Bisaya and the Tagalog, the two most dominant ethnic groups only have one pic, while the Chinese have two? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. The Demographics of the United States article, has maps and graphs, instead of pictures. Instead of adding pics and collages, what we need to do is to create graphs and maps, that is if we can find resources. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the Tagalogs and Visayans have their own map :)
Perhaps pedagogical and aesthetic considerations are also important, aside from legal ones. I, for one, would like to know how members of a certain ethnic group would look like. And I admit that my first consideration in selecting a picture is whether it looks good. It's good you are here to scrutinize the legal aspect.
Maybe you could suggest alternatives to the pictures, if they are not compliant to some rules...--Nino Gonzales 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This collage

File:Filipinos.jpg

This is freely licensed. Any objections if we use this? --Howard the Duck 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you could suggest sources of pictures we agreed upon in Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Pictures, plus some placeholders for the undecided pictures, I could make a new collage.--Nino Gonzales 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

question

how come Spanish didn't become a lanmguage of the Philipines as it did in Latin America? Also how come the Spanish were not sucesfull at mixing in with the people as they were in Latin Amereica supposedly. There are, I suppose a fair amount of Spanish Mestizos in the Philipines. The thing is some or many Flipinos look or resemble Hispanics. I being one of them, people have taught or even considred that I was some kind of Asian and some kind of Spanish. My parents came from the Plipines and came here to America and I was born here. Please answer my question. Please no raceism or prejudice, and no kind of pride or patriot stuff. I jusst want a answer not a opnion. *I think a article should be made why none of this was possible in the Philipines but was sucsessful in Latin America.

I dunno, but maybe the Filipino Mestizos article might help you. --Howard the Duck 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Edited on 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Because the Spanish refused the natives education (though there was a royal edict to teach the natives Spanish). The reason why many Filipinos and Hispanics look alike is because many Filipinos (particularly) that in Luzon, have Spanish blood. In the 1818 census, it has been shown that the population of Luzon is 59% Pure Filipino, 35% Filipino-Spanish, 3%Chinese, and approx. 1% each for South American and Spanish (see Demographics of the Philippines article), so this indicates that the Spanish have been somewhat successful in creolizing the Luzon people. However, many object to this information source - they continue to subscribe to the fact that there has been minimal, or no European introgression in the Philippines. Generally (in Manila), the faces of the Filipinos show some similarity to Hispanics than to the Taiwanese aborigines (their cloest relatives) or to the Malays (OK, just my observation) -- User:Matthewprc 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: ok, if there was royal edict why didn't happen? And that still dosen't answer why Spanish as a language of the Philipines didn't become sucessful but was sucessful in Latin America?

It seems the large-scale migration from Spain that happened in Latin America never happened in the Philippines. This is probably because of economic reasons: remember, the Philippine colony depended on Mexican silver for its upkeep, until, perhaps, the Tobacco Monopoly. If you were given a choice where you would want to migrate, you’d probably choose the one that has more economic opportunities. There were some, of course, but clearly not as much as Latin American countries like Mexico.
Another factor is perhaps the objectives of the Spaniards for the Philippine colony. You would many times see this summarized by scholars as “God, gold and glory.” So teaching Spanish wasn’t really one of their goals. They were successful, it seems, with goal #1: 83% of Filipinos are Catholic. They were not very successful, it seems, with #2 and #3.
The friars are usually blamed for not teaching Filipinos Spanish. But this is like blaming math teachers for not teaching literature. And they DID teach Spanish—however, this was only limited to a minority of the population: the Illustrados—the folks that were able to get some formal education. The friars are also usually criticized for the policy of teaching the Catechism in native languages like Cebuano, Bikol or Tagalog. But it seems this is quite logical: it seems a lot easier to learn a people’s language and evangelize in their language vs teaching a people YOUR language so that you could evangelize with your native tongue. If you look at the history of the Church, you probably won’t find a missionary who evangelized a people who speak a different language using his mother-tongue.
The final blow came with the Americans. They were quite efficient, it seems, with mass education. The American colonization also brought with it a strengthening of economic and cultural ties between the US and the Phil, while weakening that of Spain and Phil.--Nino Gonzales 05:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but with all do respect I don't think I'm getting a straight answer here. With respect I just keep geting answers thrown and gueses thrown. Spain had a vast empire why have one part of their empire speak the Mother tounge and the othere dosen't? Again why isn't there a vast amount of Spanish Mestizos in the Philipines as there is in Latin America? All I just want to know is history.

Let me quote Benedict Anderson. He has a nationalist and an anti-clerical bent, but he's a generally well regarded scholar, especially by Filipino scholars:

By the time the Spanish arrived to conquer, in the 1560s, the empire of Felipe II had reached its peak, and the islands, named after him, were the last major imperial acquisition. Iberian energies were absorbed in Europe and the Americas. The few Spaniards who did travel on to the Philippines found little on the spot to satiate their avarice. The one substantial source of rapid wealth lay not in mines but in commerce with Imperial China. Manila quickly became the entrepôt for the ‘galleon trade’, by which Chinese silks and porcelains were exchanged for Mexican silver, to be resold, at colossal profit, across the Pacific and eventually in Europe. It was not a business that required much acumen or industry; one needed merely to be in Manila, to have the right political connections, and to work out relationships with the Chinese traders and artisans who flocked to the entrepôt. [7]

The absence of mines, and, until much later, of hacienda-based commercial agriculture, meant not only a concentration of the Spanish in the Manila area, but the lack of any sustained interest in massive exploitation of the indigenous (or imported) populations as a labour force. At the same time, the fact that the pre-Hispanic Philippines (in contrast to Burma, Siam, Cambodia, Vietnam or Java) lacked any states with substantial military or bureaucratic power meant that relatively little force was required for the initial conquest and for its subsequent consolidation. Small garrisons, scattered here and there, generally sufficed. [8] Hence, in the provinces, to a degree unparalleled anywhere in the Americas except Paraguay, Spanish power in the Philippines was mediated through the Church.

The ardently Counter-Reformation clerics were fortunate in finding the great bulk of the indigenous population to be ‘animists’. Buddhism and Hinduism had not reached so far. And though Islam was sweeping in from what today is Indonesia, it had consolidated itself only in parts of Mindanao and adjacent southern islands. There it could be contained, if never subdued. [9] Meanwhile a vast proselytization was launched which has resulted in the contemporary Philippines being 90 per cent Christian. [10] (Only in twentieth-century Korea has Christianization in Asia been comparably successful.) The most noteworthy feature of this campaign was that it was conducted, most arduously, not through the medium of Spanish, but through the dozens of local languages. Till the very end of the Spanish regime no more than 5 per cent of the local population had any facility with the colonial language. Spanish never became a pervasive lingua franca, as it did in the Americas, with the result that, certainly in 1900, and to a lesser extent even today, the peasants and fishermen in different parts of the archipelago could not communicate with one another: only their rulers had a common archipelago-wide speech.

This is from "Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams" I hope this helps you...--Nino Gonzales 01:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a book yesterday in Powerbooks that studies how the Illustrados during the revolution saw in the Spanish language a source of unity for Filipinos (the Philippines has more than 160 languages and dialects according to SIL) This is of course unacceptable to the Americans. So if the Americans did not invade the Philippines, and the Illustrado leaders had their way, perhaps Spanish, instead of English, would have been the business and education lingua franca in the Philippines the past few decades. I'll get the title of the book the next time I pass by Powerbooks. --Nino Gonzales 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I understant that if the Americans didn't invade the country instead of English it would be Spanish yes I understand that but does that mean people would speak Spanish personally with family and friends

instead of Tagalog? Please answer..

Even now, most Filipinos speak their respective native languages at home instead of English. We luv our mother tongues :) You might want to read this article and its talk page. There's a very long discussion about why Spanish did not become a popular language in the Phil: Spanish in the Philippines--Nino Gonzales 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


But I'm asking why aren't Filipino people speaking Spanish as a Native language that they would speak personaly with family, friends, at work, and in public as they do in Latin America. When people suggest that the Spanish supressed the language on the Natives or whatever that dosen't make sense. They didn't do that in Latin America so why would they do it in the Phlipines. I understand the part about the US part of the story. That does not answer the question why arn't they speakning Spanish as a native tounge as it is in Latin America and English is in the US. I mean why Taglog instead of Spanish? How was this Taglog language developed? I just want to get the facts straight and now the truth not just personal opnions on history. If Spanish instead of Taglog was spoken today do you think the Philipines would be diffrent or the same? This could be copy and pasted into the Article talk page "Spanish in the Phlipines" with my premission.


Again why aren't there a great amount of Spanish Mestizos and/or full blooded Spaniards in the Phlipines as there is in Latin America. People have said it was because there wasn't any work in the Phlipines as there was in Latin America. What about the silk? Could it not be a great place to trade silk with the Chinese in there Spanish colony the Philipines. Well they say it was hard to get there. How? they did get there obviously. So how hard is it to get there again? Again why so many Spanish Mestizos and full blooded Spaniards in Latin America and not so many in the Phlipines. There is a fair amount of Filipinos who look or even are mistaken for Latinos. Even though Filipinos who have Spanish surnames does not always nessiarly mean they are of Spanish orgin. But surnames that were not given to familes by the Spanish and surnames not taken by the Family means they have Spanish orgin.

This is not the place for this. You may want to go to Talk:Spanish in the Philippines. You'll get more concrete answers there than here. --Howard the Duck 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But this does:..... Again why aren't there a great amount of Spanish Mestizos and/or full blooded Spaniards in the Phlipines as there is in Latin America. People have said it was because there wasn't any work in the Phlipines as there was in Latin America. What about the silk? Could it not be a great place to trade silk with the Chinese in there Spanish colony the Philipines. Well they say it was hard to get there. How? they did get there obviously. So how hard is it to get there again? Again why so many Spanish Mestizos and full blooded Spaniards in Latin America and not so many in the Phlipines. There is a fair amount of Filipinos who look or even are mistaken for Latinos. Even though Filipinos who have Spanish surnames does not always nessiarly mean they are of Spanish orgin. But surnames that were not given to familes by the Spanish and surnames not taken by the Family means they have Spanish orgin.

Again, go to Talk:Spaniards in the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me sir this is the place to talk about it because it has to do with ethnicity so please check what you have been talking about....

Again, due to the distubance of "howard the duck" please answer my question.. why aren't there a great amount of Spanish Mestizos and/or full blooded Spaniards in the Phlipines as there is in Latin America. People have said it was because there wasn't any work in the Phlipines as there was in Latin America. What about the silk? Could it not be a great place to trade silk with the Chinese in there Spanish colony the Philipines. Well they say it was hard to get there. How? they did get there obviously. So how hard is it to get there again? Again why so many Spanish Mestizos and full blooded Spaniards in Latin America and not so many in the Phlipines. There is a fair amount of Filipinos who look or even are mistaken for Latinos. Even though Filipinos who have Spanish surnames does not always nessiarly mean they are of Spanish orgin. But surnames that were not given to familes by the Spanish and surnames not taken by the Family means they have Spanish orgin.

The redirection is really more of letting you read the previous conversations about exactly the same topic. Have you tried reading Talk:Spanish in the Philippines? You will get to read several viewpoints about this. Yes, there was some commercial opportunities in the Philippines, and Spaniards have migrated to the Philippines. Many of their mestizo descendants are still in the country. E.g., the Ayalas, Aboitizes, Otigases,the hacienderos of Iloilo, Bacolod and Leyte (and many other lesser known families). It is also clear that the opportunities were not as many or as lucrative as that of Latin America. In consequence, I think, there were migrations, but not as many as to Latin America.--Nino Gonzales 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed countless times before. Better check out the archive pages of those discussion pages. There's a wealth of information there (more than those found at the article per se). We should be incorporating those at the articles, don't you think? --Howard the Duck 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have seen so many discussions and arguments about this topic. Long essays are not needed. All you need to know is that there were simply just not enough Spanish settlers to the Philippines!!!
        • I agree, and one of the reasons is that the the Suez canal was opened during the 1800s-towards the end of their regime, which was an easier route from Spain to the Philippines.Saida mariano (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Vietnam or Cambodia?

"Around 900 CE, extensive trade had brought a people called Orang Dampuan from Champa (in present-day Cambodia) to the Sulu Archipelago where they have intermarried with the Buranuns, the original natives of Sulu. "


Can anyone explain such this quotation more explicit to me?The writer already based on which source to aver such commentary?Which region in present-day Cambodia used to be part of Champa ariund 900CE?

Thanks, --Redflowers 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement

I don't think the arrangement based on size is the best way to go.

North to south is better. Then the ethnic groups which are dispersed throughout the country, like the Chinoys, Tisoys and Tribal groups... --Nino Gonzales 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about it, and you’ve got a point. What if, however, we just arranged them alphabetically? That way any claimed preferences (hopefully) wouldn’t show. I’m going to go ahead and try it out.

Bisaya as an ethnic group

This was added by an anonymous user:

No such "Bisaya Ethnic Group"

Ethnic identity refers to the reality and the process through which people identify themselves and are identified by others as members of a specific ethnic group. Ethnic solidarity refers to the sense and degree of cohesion felt by members of an ethnic group. Levinson (1998)

There are numerous factors that decides an ethnic group, such as linguistic, cultural, economic, and political factors. These factors have different roles with varying degrees of weight in deciding what an ethnic group is and who the members are.

The three major groups, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Warays, (pre-colonial times) did not share common political, economic, linguistic factors, etc., nor were there shared ethnic identity among them, or a sense of and degree of cohesion among these three groups or ethnic solidarity. Thus these groups could not be a single ethnic group.

The Cebuano Group for instance was headed by a Cebuano Raja, with several Datus under him spread throughout Cebuano speaking areas, sovereign and independent of the Warays, Hiligaynons, just like the Tagalog Group, Bicolano Group, Ilocano Group, etc. Predominantly Cebuano-speaking regions in the Philippines. Predominantly Cebuano-speaking regions in the Philippines.


Tagalog in the North; Bisaya in the South.

Historically, Philippine regional cultural traits have been described with the dichotomy of “Tagalog” in the north and “Bisaya” in the south from the Spanish colonial period. Eric C. Casino, The Filipino Nation, The Philippines: Lands, and Peoples, A Cultural Geography (1982, Manila: Grolier International).

As a result in the past many people from Luzon simply label people from the south as Bisaya, while those in the south label those from the north as Tagalogs.

The traditional dominance of the Cebuano Group in Central Philippines (who associate themselves with the term Bisaya/Binisaya ) have led to a misinformed inaccurate generalization or idea that all ethnic groups in the region belong to Bisaya, a multilinguistic ethnic group. Thus, the group of islands in Central Philippines today is called the Visayas. Moreover, the north-­south ethnic dichotomy created a stereotypical image towards all low-land christian peoples of Central and Southern Philippines as belonging to the said Bisaya ethnic group.

Hiligaynon and Warays speak a language of the Visayas, but they do not identify themselves with the Cebuano Bisaya/Binisaya. To Hiligaynon (Ilonggo) and Waray, Bisaya refer to geography (Visayas).

Cebuano-speakers in Cebu refer to their language as Bisaya/Binisaya or Cebuano. While Cebuano-speakers from mindanao and all other islands (except Cebu) may refer to whatever their Cebuano dialect is, e.g. Boholano (a Cebuano dialect), to clarify that they are not from Cebu, but that they do speak Cebuano. Others though may choose to refer theirs as Cebuano or Bisaya/Binisaya.


Ethnic Groups of the Philippines - National Commission for Culture and the Arts (Manila)

http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about_cultarts/glimpses.php?bk_Id=1


There are 12 Ethnic Groups in the Visayas.

No such Bisaya/Binisaya Multi-Linguistic Ethnic Group. Only the Cebuano(Bisaya/Binisaya) Group.

Over all the Philippines have eight (8) major ethno-linguistic groups, they are the Tagalog Group, Kampampangan Group, Pangasinan Group, Cebuano Group, Waray-Waray Group, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo Group, Bicolano Group, and Ilocano Group.

To the wiki-keepers, please correct and update this page.

In summary, he is saying that the Bisaya should not be considered an ethnic group because:

  • In prehistoric times, they did not share a shared identity feel a sense of cohesion
  • The origin of the term was usage of Bisaya to mean people of the Philippine south
  • Only the Cebuano speakers of Cebu use Bisaya to refer to their language
  • The Philippine government (specifically its commission on culture) says so

Here's my take:

  • Sense of cohesion: he probably deduced this from the accounts that tribes were warring against each other. But the Cebuano speakers were warring againts themselves. Does that mean that Cebuano should not be considered an ethnic group?
  • It seems that people of the Visayas were calling themselves Bisaya before the 1521... the oldest source, it seems, is Padre de Alcina's Historia de las Islas y Indios de Bisaya...
  • It seems non-Cebuano speakers also refer to themselves as Bisaya and their language as Binisaya

I'll just quote Chris Sundita, a linguist and Wikipedian:

Ilonggos, Warays, etc. have always been called Visayans. There are plenty of verified sources for this. I have a copy of 1977 work by an American linguist who specializes in Visayan languages (and is fluent in Aklanon and Tagalog) by Dr. R. David Zorc. He lists 36 known Visayan tongues as well as their alternate names.

For Hiligaynon, he lists only Ilonggo. However the three varieties of Waray-Waray all have Binisaya as an alternate name. Other groups that he lists as having Binisaya as an alternate name are Alcantaranon, Bantayan Visayan, Guimarasnon (this refers to 'both Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a!), the Cantilan dialect of Surigaonon, Kawayan Visayan (Negros Occidental), Masbateño, Naturalis dialect of Surigaonon, Pandan dialect of Kinaray-a, Semirara Visayan, Santa Teresa Visayan (of Brgy. Sta. Teresa, Magsaysay, Occ. Mindoro), Romblomanon, and the Jaun-Jaun dialect of Surigaonon. It would not surprise me that Binisaya would also refer to languages NOT listed by Dr. Zorc.

Also, in the 2001 work Facts about the World's Languages Dr. Zorc writes in the Hiligaynon article:

The name Visayan was the Spanish rendition of the adjective bisayá’ referring to a person or item from the central Philippine islands and the verb binisayá’ meaning ‘to speak Bisayan.’ It applies to 36 different speech varieties, the most well-known of which include Cebuano, Waray, Hiligaynon, and Aklanon. Together, these groups represent over 40% of the Philippine population, almost double that of any other language in the archipelago.

I hope this helps. --Chris S. 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The Philippine government says so--this is the worst reason of the four

--Nino Gonzales 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Population History

The Population History in this article conforms to H. Otley Beyer's theory of migration, which allegedly explains the populating of the Philippine Archipelago. In the Philippines, these has been duly proven to be mere imagination of Beyer and they now follow the theory of Bellwood (that Filipinos instead come from Taiwan). Hence, please do not revert the Population History to its' former state - instead, reqrite the history in accordance to Bellwood's theory. THanks. -- User:Matthewprc 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish group

Okay, who made the Spanish mestizos the seventh largest group? There's no such thing. Mestizos pervade in many other ethnic groups. Particularly highest among Cebuanos and Ilonggos with the former occupying most of Mindanao. Ever been to well-known private and respected public schools and universities in Davao City, General Santos City and South Cotabato? You'll see a lot of them. -Federmale 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I think there is no genetic study conducted among Filipinos, so we still use that of the Stanford University's study that 3.6% of all Filipinos have Caucasian ancestry. Before this journal article became known to Wikipedians, the general consensus in the WP:TAMBAY is that it is 2%. Personally, I also agree with what you said. Based on non-scientific observations in my school, public places, and transportation centers, I would place the percentage of Filipinos who have Caucasian admixture at about 40%. While there are LOTS of Filipinos who really look Spanish or Caucasian, there are literally tons of Filipinos who actually have Spanish ancestry (as in direct from Spain), but don't look Spanish at all because of admixtures with the Chinese or extreme dilution. But for now, since there is no such study that confirms such presuppositions, Wikipedia uses 3.6% as the standard proportion of Caucasian ancestry among Filipinos. Indeed, there are many other pages who still report it to be 2%. -- Matthewprc 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That stanford study should not be used because it is based on only 6 people from the Philippines. The percentage should not be a result of consensus of Wikipedians. If all wikipedians agree that it is 90%, will we use that? Why don't we just say that there is no genetic study yet on the level of caucasian ancestry in the phil?--Nino Gonzales 10:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You people really haven't went outside in the real world do you? I have yet to see a mestizo in a squatters' area or in the provinces with no large cities. --Howard the Duck 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree this is ridiculous. Who decided they were the seventh largest ethnic group?! There is no clear definition of a Mestizo because that term crosses many ethnic and cultural boundaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes section

The Notes section of this article is very ugly. Does anyone have any objections to my trying to make it less ugly with the {{Rp}} template? -- Boracay Bill 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it without waiting for discussion (see Wikipedia:Be bold). -- Boracay Bill 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rankings section table edit reversion

I have just reverted an edit to the table in the Rankings section of this article. The reverted edit was by 23prootie, and had an edit summary of "(→Rankings - duh)". I think that the edit would be useful if it were verifiable. I am not reverting this because I have any argument with the validity of the edit, but because I am unable to verify that validity is substantiated by the cited supporting source, or even from other material in this article (e.g., what substantiates the assertion that Masbateño are part of the Visayan ethnic group?). See WP:V and WP:RS. -- Boracay Bill 11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(further) I see that one reversion didn't get the table all the way back, so I have reverted it further.

... Regarding the point made in edit summaries regarding modifications to this table that the Joshua project is contrary to other sources, those other sources should be cited. If info from those sources conflicts significantly with info from the Joshua project, either the conflicts should be pointed out or a relative judgement should be made regarding the relative reliability of the sources. If one source is judged to be significantly more reliable than others, info from that source should be used, and that source should be cited. I'm not wedded to Joshua Project numbers, but it does seem to me reasonable to consider Joshua Project numbers as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (quoted from WP:RS). See info about their sources, etc. in their FAQ.

... There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some editors regarding Wikipedia articles in general. In the Population History and Spanish group sections above on this talk page, there seems to be a perception that wikipedia editors should compare the relative merits of possibly conflicting source, arbitrate the comparative correctness of conflicting sources, and present the article content from the point of view of the sources winning the arbitration. Such a perception would be in error. Please see WP:ENC, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and other WP:WP pages.

... Finally, an off-topic comment — I notice that the Population history section of this page has a similar focus to Filipino people#History. It seems to me that it would be useful to merge the content of both sections into a new summary article something like Anthropological history of the Philippines (or some better title), and reference that article from articles contributing to the merge. -- Boracay Bill 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe this section would look cleaner if, instead of a bulleted list that says (first largest) (second largest) afterward, we had a list with numbers and at the top it says "from highest to lowest" something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.184.124 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance on articles re: Philippine ethnic groups

I would just like to share my opinion after encountering an article "Jews in the Philippines". On my thought on "Jews in the Philippines".. I think this article should not even exist. The Jews are in no way near a significant ethnic group in the Philippines, let alone a minority group! Having a page dedicated to Jews in the Philippines would be like having an article "Senegalese in Taiwan" or something as irrelevant as "Senegalese in Taiwan". Instead, more focus and material should be added on articles concerning important Philippine ethnic groups such as the articles on the South Asians, Arabs, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans - all significant ethnic groups.. And please I do not want to start hearing accusations of being a Holocaust denier or anti-semitism, as does often happens when the Jewish ethno-religious group is discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is a Filipino?

Many seem to hold the view that only Austronesian Filipinos are "Filipinos".. There is no "real" Filipino. Filipinos cross over racial boundaries. It is just pure selfishness to define non-Austronesian non-"native" Filipinos as "fake" Filipinos. If anything, the real Filipinos are the tribal groupings such as Aetas and Ifugaos. Labelling Chinoys and Kastilas as "fake" Filipinos out of hatred of them due to their perceived wealth is just nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define the word filipino if you define it as an ethnic group,the speakers of Philippine Languages as Filipino it will include the Gorontalo-Mongondow speakers,If you define it as a nationality it will include all the inhabitants of the philippines.Kasumi-genx (talk)

I agree. There is no Filipino "race". The majority race is Malay. Filipino is a nationality. I am originally from Germany, naturalised in the Philippines. The law considers me a "natural-born Filipino". However, most people call me an American tourist! This is my home. I've lived here 15 years, and worked here too. I speak Filipino. muffins2000 at gmail dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.253 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Germans

On the section Others regarding Germans I changed the numbers from 961 to 962 because my friend Alice (who is German migrant to the Philippines) just gave birth to a daughter in Germany 2 days ago and Alice is planning to take her baby with her back to Manila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.198.66 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Haha.

Who the flying fuck removed all the references!

November 13 2008. I was suddenly surprised that this article so rich in sources and references suddenly had it's bibliography obliterated!! I'm reverting this to an earlier version. Someone must have been vandalizing the article.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC) This is unacceptable. I'm reverting this article to an earlier version

I just reverted the article to Revision as of 19:20, November 7, 2008, restoring much sourced material which had been removed without explanation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity

The lead section includes the assertion, "The Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in terms of ethnicity.", supporting this with a cite of YEOH Kok Kheng, Towards an Index of Ethnic Fractionalization, Table 1. I thought this assertion surprising (actually, my reaction was somewhere between surprise and astonishment). I found a copy of the paper cited in support of this assertion here, and see that it ranks countries according to an "Ethnic Fractionalization Index" (EFI) that paper proposes and defines. Table 1 in the cited paper ranks the eight most diverse countries in the world according to EFI as follows:

Rank Country EFI
1 Zaire, Republic of 0.885
2 Uganda, Republic of 0.883
3 Kenya, Republic of 0.877
4 India, Republic of 0.876
5 South Africa, Republic of 0.873
6 Cameroon, Republic of 0.852
7 Mali, Republic of 0.844
8 Philippines, Republic of the 0.838

All of those rankings surprise me. The paper says takes into consideration three major types of nonclass cleavages in society - racial (phenotypical), linguistic and religious. It cites two sources of data for the computation of EFI for the Philippines:

  • Gunnemark Gunnemark, Erik and Kenrick, Donald (1985), A Geolinguistic Handbook, 2e, Kungalv:Goterna (Printer).
  • Katzner Katzner, Kenneth (1995), The Languages of the World, new ed., London:Routledge.

If this assertion about ethnic diversity in the Philippines is to stand, it needs some elaboration regarding the meaning of "Ethnic diversity". I would opine that it also needs some balance by the consideration of other measures of ethnic diversity than EFI. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(update) I've removed this dubious assertion from the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me is the United States of America being on a quite low ranking (I forget what rank exactly the USA is), but the USA is definitely not in the top 10 or top 20 if I remember correctly. And some countries/regions that are definitely not known for their multi-ethnic composition such as Northern Ireland being on a higher rank than the USA, even though Northern Ireland is pretty much bi-ethnic, bi-religious (composing of Protestants and Catholic Irish).. Why is this the case with this table? Or have I misunderstood the Ethnic Fractionalization Index perhaps??? Si lapu lapu (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu
The paper says that EFI takes into consideration three major types of nonclass cleavages in society, which it lists as racial (phenotypical), linguistic, and religious. The data sources listed for the Philippines appear to be sources which would offer only linguistic data. EFI score is apparently computed from only the data available in the sources used. Effectively, diversity categories for which no data is available are considered to be completely diverse, with every individual presumed to belong to a different group. This is certainly not true in the Philippines regarding the racial (phenotypical) and religious diversity categories, and is probably not the true in other countries for which EFI score is computed in the paper.
In the case of the Philippines, an EFI score computed based solely on linguistic diversity (and which likely does not consider the relative universality of linguistic skills in the English and/or Tagalog languages in the Philippines), presuming the Philippines to be maximally diverse in the religion and racial (phenotypical) categories, probably leads to a falsely high diverse EFI score result.
The paper appears to be no longer available at the URL linked above. An archived copy is still available here.
I'm guessing that this claim, "The Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in terms of ethnicity" appeared in this article for reasons of nationalistic vanity -- someone noticed that the Philippines ranked high in this paper, thought that high ranking reflected favorably on the Philippines, and thought that favorable reflection should be trumpeted. I stumbled across it while looking at something else, and it rang alarm bells with me because on its face the claim failed the "does this make sense?" test. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
China has far more ethnic groups than the philippines actually.Kasumi-genx (talk)

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Duboius assertion needs a supporting cite or removal.

I've tagged the assertion, "A plan formulated by the American government was to transfer all the African American in the Mainland United States to the Philippines," with {{dubious}} and {{fact}} tags. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits challenged

I recently challenged some questionable-looking edits on the talk page of the editor involved. I haven't seen either corrective action or feedback, so I'm repeating my challenges here. My main concern is that some of the edits look like they may invalidate the support of cited sources. I don't have access to the specific supporting sources involved, and so cannot check whether my concerns are or are not valid.

My specific questionings were:

At one point, you inserted ", but a small-n study concludes that about 3.6% of the Philippine population has varied admixtures of European ancestry." immediately prior to a pre-existing cite of a supporting source. One wonders whether the cited source supports that insertion. If not, the info should be inserted after the cite, and should cite a source which supports the inserted info.

At another point you insert the word "partly" into a statement supported by another cited supporting source. one wonders whether the cited source supports the assertion as you have modified it.

At another point you insert information and cite the Joshua project as a source. I used to cite them myself from time to time, but I grew tired of repeatedly being taken to task for that by editors who argued that this is not a reliable source. I no longer cite them.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Austronesian Ethnic Groups in the Philippines can be classified to four larger ethnic groups

-Philippine Languages Speakers/"Mainstream Filipino"
-Samal-Bajau Language Speakers
-Sangiric Language Speakers
-Dayak(in palawan)

I think the larger speakers of thev philippine languages are the ones called Katagalugan by Bonifacio... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Kasumi-genx (talk)

second para of the lead needs rewriting

This is the second article in a row where I have added a section with this heading to the talk page. The para currently reads:

In Mindanao, there are people who practice Islam. They are known as Moros. In the province of Bukidnon there is an ethnic group of mountain dwelling people called Binukid who speak the Binukid language. However these individuals do not practice Islam.

  1. "In Mindanao, there are people who practice Islam." yes.
  2. "They are known as Moros." Well, some of the people in Mindinao who practice Islam are known as Moros; most (p[robably not all) people in Mindinao who are known as Moros practice Islam.
  3. "In the province of Bukidnon there is an ethnic group of mountain dwelling people called Binukid who speak the Binukid language. However these individuals do not practice Islam." That amount of detail probably does not belong in the lead. I'm guessing, though, that the Binukid are people in Miondinao who are known as Moros butwho do not practice Islam (mostly -- there are probably exceptions). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

But if it mean like race or ethnicity, some Filipinos are mestizos, some are full blooded Spanish. Full blooded are only "3%" of the population (According to the research done by Stanford University)...they are a minority....mestizos may be a larger percentage.....but if there's an approx. 90 million Filipinos and since 3% are Spanish descent...there would be at least a million Spanish Filipinos.

I've removed the above text. It was added in this August 11 edit, along with some other text which has since been removed, ahead of a pre-existing cite of the paper on the mentioned research. The words up to the initial comma are superfluous and badly constructed and, as far as I can tell, the Stanford source does not support the suggestion here that 3% of Filipinos are of Spanish descent (It does say that 3.6% European introgression was evident in the Philippines). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It doesn't seem written very (seems to me more of a conversation rather than encyclopedic material), the added text misquotes the source, and it makes assumptions. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-10-12 cleanup

I noticed that this article had a badly located and garbled References section (see WP:GTL. I relocated the section and cleaned up the notes a bit in order to populate it. I left in an un-ref'd cite of the CIA Factbook but I took out an un-ref'd cite of the 1973 constitution (the current constitution is the 1987 one; the cite seemed to mention the article on Languages, but I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to support). I made a couple of other small changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Map: Ethnic Groups in the Philippines

The map on the opening page of "Ethnic Groups in the Philippines" appears to be in need of many corrections, at least as far as the northern ethnic groups are concerned. A simple guide is to match the ethnic group to the province or provincial capital with matching name, i.e., the Ifugao primarily live in Ifugao, not in Mountain Province; the Kalinga primarily live in Kalinga, not in Apayao. A good reference is the "Ethnographic Map of the Philippines" published by the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and People's Action for Cultural Ties. Northerntraveller (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

They've been switched. As stated in the description page, the source of the map is the 2000 census.

Tasaday is an ethnic group, not included in the template

I saw that Tasaday was not included in templates. I have put Tasaday in the Lumad template. I'll try to put it in the template below the article.--Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which English should Wiki use?

It seems that most wiki articles are written in American and British English. Why are most Filipino-related articles written in Philippine English?

Granted, I can see the relation. However, it leaves the majority of English like myself wondering what the heck the article says...

muffins2000 at gmail dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.253 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Redid assertion re Tabon Man

The Population history section began, "The first human remains discovered by anthropologists in the Philippines were that of the Prehistoric Tabon Man, [...]". Tabon Man was discovered in 1962. I found it difficult to believe that anthropologists did not discover any human remains in the Philippines prior to 1962, so I redid the wording of that assertion. My replacement wording might benefit from some tweaks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Material in the lead section re official language and governmental history

I've reverted this edit, which introduced problems.

Re the governmental history, The period which might be termed "the American occupation" ran from the surrender of of Manila to American forces by the Spanish Governor General on August 13, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, until the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, in which Spain ceded the Philippines to the U.S. The Philippine Republic constituted itself as an insurgent government in revolution against Spain on January 23, 1899 (following without a break on two previous embodiments of that insurgency which had resumed May 24, 1898 after a break). After the cession of the Philippines by Spain, the Philippine Republic insurgency continued against America, and was ultimately unsuccessful.

Re official languages

  • The constitution of the Philippine Republic did specify that the Spanish language would be used for governmental purposes until the matter of official languages could be addressed (see article 93 at Wikisource:Constitution o the Philippines (1899)), but that applied only as far as the control of that insurgent government extended.
  • Offhand, I don't know when The U.S. military government of the Philippines or, later, the civil government under the Taft Commission officially addressed the matter of official languages, or what might have been done.
  • The 1935 constitution specified English and Spanish as official languages.
  • The 1973 constitution specified English and Pilipino (with a 'P') as official languages.
  • On March 15, 1973, Presidential decree No. 155 specified that Spanish language shall continue to be recognized as an official language in the Philippines while important documents in government files are in the Spanish language and not translated into either English or Pilipino language.
  • The 1987 constitution designated English and Filipino (with an 'F') as official languages and mandates that Spanish and Arabic "shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis."

The material in the article after reverting that recent edit is not entirely consistent with the foregoing, and I may make further edits to try to correct that. Thinking about it, though, I don't think any of this belongs in the lead section, and it probably doesn't belong in this article at all -- It doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with the article topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, I boldly removed the paragraph abut this, as it seems off-topic for the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood is false. It's a myth

The "only 3.6%" of Filipinos have European blood clause has been discussed over and over again across various forums in the internet and from reading on the various discussions about it one can gain the following conclusions.

1) The methodology by which they concluded that only 3.6% of Filipinos are European is woefully inaccurate firstly because they only sampled 28 individuals from a single place out of an estimated 98 Million Filipinos. A sample size of 28 to represent a population of 98 Million doesn't even pass the margin of error requirement.

2) The study was not meant to describe the whole genome of a population only the Y chromosomes of a select number of individuals [By which an average of 3.6% European admixture was culled from all the people they sampled ] Even if it were true for those involved in the study it isn't completely true because the mitochondrial and X chromosome genetic materials were summarily ignored.

3) The haphazardly done and minuscule-sampled study conflicts with historical scholarship.

Books written in the Spanish era by Frenchmen and by Spanish census takers themselves record that at least 1/3 of the population of the island of Luzon (The most populous island) had varying degrees of Spanish ancestry [From Tornatras to full Peninsulares] their descendants would thus number among the millions today, a conservative 10-12 million. Yet the 3.6% assumption conflicts with that (Considering that most of the samples were taken in the south not in Luzon)

4) Other genetic findings conflict this. Genetic studies done by members of "23forme" Genome study group yield that 75% of Filipinos possess European genetic markers and the average amount of European genes among the 75% is 4.8% of their total genome (The dilution of European genes among those who possessed it is understandable considering it was Latinos [Who were already mixed with Amerindians] who emigrated en masse to the Philippines not the Spaniards [Research Viceroyalty of New Spain])

Thus, considering this, I would like to request that we either remove the mythological "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood" in wikipedia or we update the information according to modern research.

Thank You Very Much.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A claim that only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood would probably be not only false, but unsupportable. However, this article makes no such claim. It would would probably be an improvement to update the article in this regard according to modern research as you suggest (observing WP:DUE, and citing supporting sources, of course). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Single Grouping for Ethnicities (no indigenous/non-indigenous)

Ethnicities should not be divided into 'indigenous' and 'non-indigenous,' not least because the indigenous peoples page classifies indigenes as being a politically or economically inferior group. The List of ethnic groups in China simply lists the main groups (given their population sizes) including 'non-indigenous' Koreans, Mongols, and Kazakhs, never mind if they were or were not living there before annexation by China. I'm not sure if the emphasis on Chinese here is due to 'Chinese' Filipinos, or Filipinos who don't know just how detrimental that behavior is to the reputation of all Filipinos, or non-Filipinos (i.e. whites or yellows), but it has to stop (everywhere, not just on Wikipedia); likewise for the constant pushing of European ancestry. Simply list the main ethnicities with their population size. 'Chinese' can either be kept 'Chinese' or can be turned into Hokkien. The number of non-Hokkien Chinese in the Philippines is insignificant. Same for Korean, American, Arab, Indian, Japanese, Jewish--those are insignificantly small populations that do not warrant mention on this wikipage. Hispanic perhaps should be, given the history of the Philippines. FYAYP (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Something wrong with the Demographs regarding the Zamboangueño Ethnolinguistic Nation"

Kindly check this map here for your perusal: https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/a.582877705160388.1073741829.577653682349457/790531167728373/?type=1, https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/pb.577653682349457.-2207520000.1429983960./719098104871680/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F10350516_719098104871680_2325736201529867299_n.jpg%3Foh%3D89c6aea1b51e5a22e0a924d4d1b34b91%26oe%3D559CC1C3%26__gda__%3D1439955231_ce9fef02ca03a595b5bda22d5c3dea04&size=512%2C511&fbid=719098104871680, https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla?fref=photo

regards, 62.209.16.40 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Un Verdadero Zamboangueño

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic groups in the 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic groups in the 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Cebuano, Bohol-anon, Bisaya

This is wrong to subdivide them into three categories. The correct term or name of their Ethnicity is "Cebuano" or "Sugbuanon". there is no such thing as Bohol-anon Ethnic or Bisaya Ethnic but there is only Cebuano Ethnic, and they can be found from Cebu to Negro, to Bohol, to parts of Mindanao.

I am sure that whoever did this is an Imperialist/Colonialist-Tagalist/Tagalogist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Zamboangueño Ethnolinguistic Nation Map

[[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/Filipinas2_zpsqj4tvloh.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/Filipinas2_zpsqj4tvloh.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]] [[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Solamente1_zpswqumkacq.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Solamente1_zpswqumkacq.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]] [[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Entero1_zpspdbaumx3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Entero1_zpspdbaumx3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]]

The current map showing therein for the location of the predominant Zamboangueño Ethnic is WRONG. Therefore the map has to update, especially as this is being seen many people and by not correcting them it will eventually become correct in the eyes' of the beholder who knows nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Soy Un Orgulloso Latino Zamboangueño 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic groups in the 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic groups in the 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines/Archive_2&oldid=1153591487"