Jump to content

Talk:Philippines/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

There are some Filipinos who posses Amerindian ancestry

There are small minority of Filipinos who posses Native American (Amerindian) ancestry, most notably Filipinos of Mexican descent. I'm still researching on this issue. Indigenous Mexicans are present in the Philippines, since the colonial times. There was an integration between the Filipino population. Though the exact number of the population is unknown at the moment. Also, the number of Náhuatl loan words in most indigenous Filipino languages are of Aztec origin. Mexicans of Filipino descent (mixed Mexican and Filipino ancesty) are present in large numbers in Acapulco and Colima. This issue will expand very soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.131.111 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Nah, I think Filipinos of Amerindian ancestry are too insignificant to be here, anyway. --Howard the Duck 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. But the truth is, there is a small minority of Filipinos who posses Amerindian ancestry. Like them or hate them, Significant or not, they are present in the country. Some people are just to ignorant to understand. Just letting you know, Filipinos who posses Amerindian ancestry "do not look" Oriental or Pacific islanders. These people have Amerindian features such as high cheekbones, defined jaws, aquiline nose structures and possesing brown skin. (similar to how a Indigenous Peruvian would look like).

You hit the nail right on the head, they're insignificant since their population is low. How many Filipino-Amerindians are residing in the Philippines? If they're just over a million (roughly more than 1%), they can't be notable in this article. Even ethnic groups with populations smaller than 3,000,000 shouldn't be here unless they're historically significant. --Howard the Duck 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion once again. Who said ethnic groups of about 3 million are not allowed to be mentioned. That's alot of garbage. This is an Encylopedia believe or not. All kinds of informations do count. It's a place for learning.

The most "notable" Filipino who possess Amerindian (Cherokee) ancestry is Lou Diamond Phillips. I also have a feeling that Kalani Queypo the Native American Hollywood actor from the United States, might have some Filipino origin. Kalani Queypo

Well so far so good, I've found some estimated statistics. This are only estimates o.k. [1]

If we'll allow ethnic groups of about or less than 3 million people on this article, this would have been a lot longer; we'd have to include indigenous groups which are far more important than recent emigrants. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3 million or not, there is no outwardly identifiable community of Filipinos of Amerindian descent. Thus the fact remains that they are insignificant. --Chris S. 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some who posses the ancestry. Amerindians or even blacks have been in the Philippines since the Spanish colonial period (1521-1898) brought as slaves, labourers or sailors in Manila-Acapulco Galleon trade. Although not large in population, there are some people who descended from these ancestries. It's hard to spot the difference since some Amerindian genetics have blended into the Filipino genes. Only the average Filipino person tend to posses the amerindian ancestry, without the person knowing it. Insignificant or what ever, this people are part of the Philippine History. And also this is an Encyclopedia, a place for learning informations. All informations do count.

(First things first, sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks.)
You are welcome to create an article, but the Philippines article has to be general, if we'll delve into specific ethnic groups, like those which are insignificant - groups with low populations - we'd violate WP:SIZE (the article actually violates that now). We're not saying you can't add it in an encyclopedia; we're saying you can't add that in this article, or else we'd add information about the Ivatan, Ibaloi, Badjao, Ibanag, Igorot, Tasaday, Itneg, Isneg, Tboli, Jews, Koreans, some Filipina interviewer I saw on CNN, an American Idol contestant, etc., etc. --Howard the Duck 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are towns in Pampanga that are of Nahuatl origin such as Mexico and Sasmuan. It was written in the Pampanga wiki once that Nahuatl speaking people from Mexico settled in the towns of Macabebe and Masantol to get away from the Spaniards and that they have descendants living there. Jcdizon 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct names of cities in the Philippines?

I have some wonders about how to spell the names of cities in the Philippines in their correct form. Let's take a city like Mandaluyong in Metro Manila as an example. As I understand it, the official way to write the name is City of Mandaluyong. However, it's found as Mandaluyong City here on wiki. Shouldn't it be either City of Mandaluyong or just Mandaluyong? The official names of cities in the Philippines have either City of... before the name, or City after the name (as for Quezon City). A thought I have is that cities with City of... shall only have their main name (which gives Mandaluyong) and cities with City after the name shall have the full official name written (for instance Quezon City). A speculation of mine, of course, but it makes some sense I think. Can someone bring some light over this? I am not interested in what "people on the street" call their city, just what the correct official forms are. --Pjred 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They're all correct, although wiki uses <cityname> City since it is the most common name. The legal name of majority of the cities is "City of <cityname>". --Howard the Duck 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are right, I am that nationality so i knowDisneyrocks13 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about being the "PEARL OF THE ORIENT"?

I can't believe there is nothing about us being called the pearl of the orient. We even have/had these on our license plates, just because it isn't a 'fad' anymore to call us that doesn't mean we have given up that title. The Philippines will always remain the true, the original, and the only Pearl of the Orient :) 124.104.33.140 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)AARON

You have to support that with facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrySy (talk • contribs)

The President of the Philippines title should be left blank as all (most) Filipinos do not recognize the present presidency to be the legitimate one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrySy (talk • contribs)

lol. Then maybe we should also blank the President of the U.S. title since alot of people do not recognise the Bush presidency to be a legitimate one, well i think his first term wasn't, via florida ballots. Coojah 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (humor intended)

{{editprotected}}

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Min Han Chinese

I am half Filipino and my mom, although having some Chinese blood (she was the Filipino one) didn't speak Chinese at home this stereotype obviously doesn't include the entire Tsinoy/Tsinay population but then my mom is 1/4 Chinese--69.234.176.81 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight98

Let's meet and talk about Wikipedia and the Philippines

I encourage everybody to participate in this meeting. Please post your replies to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Manila 2 --Exec8 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Extrajudicial Killings Summit

I added the major and historical Summit on Killings today. --Florentino floro 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But why? The article didn't even have the APEC summit, why should that be added? --Howard the Duck 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
G'Day, Friends! (I've been fortunate enough to have visited some of the Philippine islands on more than 20 separate occasions - just Luzon, Camiguin, Bohol, Cebu, Negros, Siquijor and Mindanao - and, of course, I have had the great pleasure of meeting many expatriate filipinos on my world travels).
I've made some edits to this Philippines article in the past and I know that both of you two guys are frequent and erudite contributors to WP.
May I ask a genuine question?
Where would be the best place to put the very interesting text on the Extrajudicial Killings Summit in WP?
Should a new article be started?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If there should be a new article, it should be the extrajudicial killings in general, not just the summit. --Howard the Duck 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines would be a nice place. Berserkerz Crit 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur {although I have just now added some of the (edited) excised text to Extrajudicial_punishment#Extrajudicial_Killings_Summit}...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You may also add things at Human rights in the Philippines and the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo articles. --Howard the Duck 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and helpful suggestions; however I feel that I am not qualified for this - especially as I am deep in the do-do's right now on Irish themed articles and do not wish to edit another controversial topic...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not realise there were Dodos still in Ireland. I thought they were all extinct. Your name is very strange. Is it from Ireland or the Philippines? 84.13.6.103 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Transportation Section on Philippines

Travel arrangements to the Philippines can easily be made via travel agencies and tour companies all over the world. The land structure makes travel by plane the easiest way to get to the Philippines. Manila, Cebu and Davao are some of the major cities that host International Airports. Most visitors land in Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), which has recently opened its 3rd terminal. The country has two flag carriers – Philippine Airlines and Cebu Pacific, although several other airline companies service the Philippines daily.

Travel options inside the Philippines include trains, ferries, buses, jeepneys, taxis, tricycles and pedicabs. The Philippine National Railways network is a line that runs from North to South of Luzon. Although much older than the LRT and MRT, it is still able to serve its purpose of conveying travelers across the island. The Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) are a series of interconnected railways that could take you around Metro Manila.

With the large number of companies operating interisland ferries and provincial bus lines, you can get to virtually any spot in the country with ease. Recent innovations in travel spurred the RoRo method of traveling. The more adventurous can try this Roll-on, Roll-off way which takes much longer than a direct flight to your province of choice, but offers more exposure to the culture and the amazing scenery.

City travel is made manageable by local buses, numerous taxis and jeepneys. Jeepneys are remnants of the Jeep used by American troops during World War II. Filipinos have customized it for public transportation by lengthening the body and adding horizontal seat for as much as 20 people. Tricycles (motorbikes fitted with a side cab) and pedicabs (manual bikes also fitted with a cab) are also an interesting transport vehicle but are only recommended for very short distances.

Violetdolor 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd need a few cites for this to go to the article page. And perhaps shorten this a little bit. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Phillip

The name Phillip derives from the Latin Philipp, meaning "Phillip", and the Greek ines, meaning "islands".

"Islands" in Greek is "Nesia": like "Indonesia" meaning: "islands of India (or the indies)". Or "Melanesia" meaning the "islands of the black (people)" - because the European explorers encountered negroid peoples there. "Ines" in Philippines (Spanish: "inas" in "Filipinas") is simply a suffix.


I haven't seen the wiki article yet but actually, Phillip is Greek meaning Lover of horses, short for 'philo hippos'. Ussually the name comes from Phillipp II, father of Alexander. There are many Greek words in Latin. --Jondel 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

secret ban?

"Traditional Filipino martial arts, such as eskrima, had secretly been banned by the Spanish during the three-hundred year colonial period..."

How do you ban something in secret? Doesn't a ban on something like a martial art have to be pretty public? Otherwise couldn't have been enforced. Correct me if I'm wrong. - 205.193.82.252 21:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Economy

The economy section sounds too rosy, it's too good to be true. --Howard the Duck 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No reference to Spanish contributions and civilization

It is surprising that the History section of this article provides no description, even briefly, of the institutions, infrastructures or other elements of western civilization brought by the Spanish during three centuries of colonial rule. The article simply says "In the next 333 years, the Spanish fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges" Is that all that happened in 333 years of rule? May I suggest that the following text is added to this section:


"Spanish colonial rule brought trade, education, and the code of law to the Philippines, as well as political unification of a wide geographic area previously separated into countless independent communities. The Spanish brought elements of western civilization including the plow and the wheel which helped create urban centers, and built infrastructures such as roads, bridges and ports that helped transportation between the different regions and islands. The oldest bridge standing today in the Philippines is the Puente de España bridge on Pasig River in Manila, built in 1701 by the Spanish and later renamed the Jones Bridge by the Americans in 1916. Spanish rule also established major institutions such as schools, churches and hospitals which are among the oldest in Asia. For example, the San Lazaro Hospital in Manila was built as early as 1578, and the Enfermeria de Naga in 1583. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded by the Spanish Jesuits in 1595, is the oldest university in Asia. Another well-known university, the Santo Tomas University was founded by the Dominicans in 1611.

In the 19th century the western concept of citizenship was introduced by the Cadiz Constitution of 1812, making all Filipinos Spanish citizens regardless of ancestry or place of birth. In 1863 the concept of universal education was also introduced, providing free public schooling to children, which proved crucial in forming an educated class of Filipinos called the Ilustrados or enlightened ones, which later actively participated in the Philippine Revolution".


Thanks, JCR

Because "the institutions, infrastructures or other elements of western civilization " is on the culture section. --Howard the Duck 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And the History section of this article is not meant to show everything, but just a summary. We have History of the Philippines and History of the Philippines (1521-1898) and many other related articles... --Howard the Duck 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

333 Years of History summarised as "fighting indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges"?

Dear Howard, thanks for your message. I understand that one of the objectives of Wikipedia is to give accurate and neutral explanations of the issues concerned. From an academic point of view I would say it is far from accurate or even neutral to summarise a three hundred-year period of history into simple "fights against revolts and foreign challenges". Except for Christian religion, there is no reference to the elements of civilization brought by Spanish rule, or to institutions like universities or schools (that still exist today) or the network of infrastructures (roads, ports and bridges), or even the concept of Philippine Nationality brought about by the unification of a group of previously independent islands and regions. Such unified concept of "Philippine" identity did not exist before the 17th century, and there is no mention of this.

You argue that the "institutions, infrastructures or elements of civilization" are in the "Culture" section, but I could not find them. The Culture section simply talks about "music, dance, food.." and other cultural elements, as well as Spanish surnames in the Philippines, and the influence of Spanish architecture on Philippine buildings. (In many cases it's not just "influence" as many of the buildings were actually built during the colonial period so they are actually "Spanish" not merely "Spanish-influenced"). But there is no reference either to the concepts of code of law, citizenship or education introduced during those 300 years, or even free public education established in the 19th century. Allow me to question both the accuracy and neutrality of a text that ignores such elements of not just western, but universal human civilization.

Many thanks, JCR

We do not omit those, they're linked in many articles. This article is meant to be a summary. For example, in a summary of Star Wars Episode IV, omitted are events such as Darth Vader's meeting with Princess Leia at her prison. If we'd list those, we might as well list everything else, and that'll make the article very, very, long. --Howard the Duck 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And the Philippine identity, if you'd ask me, started to appear in the last years of the 19th century, not the 17th century. People still identify themselves as Bisayas or Ilocanos by that time; they only started identifying themselves as Filipinos by 1870s onwards. And universities and schools started appearing only in the 20th century; for example, 6 out of 8 members of the UAAP were established after 1899. --Howard the Duck 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A summary should include prominent events

Dear Howard, I understand it is supposed to be a summary. Indeed, a historical summary is supposed to include the main events of a certain period, meaning the most prominent or decisive events. Why do the authors of this article conider "indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges" the most important events? A historical account cannot take for granted the advances of civilization, educational institutions, infrastructures, or even the concept of nationality that were brought by colonial rule. All these issues are essential to the development of the Philippine nation and should be included in a historical summary.

In terms of schools and universities, the article cannot ignore that many existing educational insitutions were established in the colonial period. Yes, probably the majority of existing schools & universities today are post 1898, of course. But the academic heritage of the colonial period cannot be ignored. It was that colonial rule that introduced such academic institutions in the Philippines. A summary of a 300-year period deserves a mention of this, including that the oldest university in Asia was a Philippine university estabished during that time: the University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595. Or that such well-known universities as University of Santo Tomas or the Ateneo de Manila were also established during the colonial period (1611 and 1859 respectively).

Regarding identity, it is arguable excatly when the concept of Philippine identity appeared. Many would agree with you that indeed this appeared in the 19th century. But the summary should contain a mention of the basic fact that colonial rule brought the unification of a large geographic area, that later made possible the concept of "Philippine" nationality and indeed identity. In my opinion this cannot be ignored, even in a summary.

Regards, JCR

Look, if you'll add those, you'd have to remove some of the text in the article. Tell me what should be removed in order for your additions to be added. --Howard the Duck 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for 4th paragraph

Thanks Howard. I would rewrite the 4th paragraph to make it only slightly longer. The paragraph that starts with "Roman Catholic missionaries converted..." would be divided into 2 paragraphs, that would look like this:


"The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico) from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. The Philippines was the centre of the Spanish East Indies which included Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

Three centuries of Spanish rule brought trade, education, and the Christian religion to the Philippines. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Catholicism, which has remained the largest religion to this day. The construction of roads and ports made transportation easier between islands, increasing local and foreign trade. The establishment of numerous academic and medical institutions helped the Philippines become one of the most advanced countries in Asia by the 19th century. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595 by the Jesuits, is the oldest university in Asia. In the 19th century the Cadiz Constitution of 1812 granted all Filipinos Spanish citizenship regardless of ancestry or place of birth. The Philippines opened itself to world trade on September 6, 1834. In 1863 universal education was introduced, a measure that proved crucial in forming an educated class of Filipinos called the Ilustrados ("Enlightened" ones) which later participated in the Philippine Revolution".


Another suggestion is to simply divide the History section into 5 subcategories, for example: Pre-Colonial (beginning), Spanish Colony (3rd paragraph), Revolution (paragraph starting with "A propaganda movement..), American Rule (paragraph starting "The Spanish-American War..) and Independence.

Regards, JCR

Before you do that, read WP:SIZE. The article is already long and it doesn't even have the other prerequisite country sections (see the "To do" box above). Also, snooping around from some great articles, India doesn't have to do schools or even universal eduction (did a quick read). And the USC and UST issue is not yet resolved, since USC became a university only in the 1940s.
In addition, India#History only has 5 paragraphs]]. Ours has 9. And to think India's history is much, much longer than RP's.
Finally, India is 51 KB long, the Philippines is 53 KB long. Actually, we shouldn't be talking about adding info, instead we should talk about condensing info, especially the very long Economy section. But since I'm no economist, I won't lift a finger on that section. --Howard the Duck 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(:See also: Talk:Philippines/Archive 5#History. --Howard the Duck 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Condensed version of the 4th paragraph

Howard, I agree. But somehow there is no clear proportion between the length of the text and the timeframe it covers. For example there are 4 paragraphs (one very lengthy) to cover the last century of Philippine history (1890's - today) and there is only 1 short paragraph to describe 3 centuries of colonial rule. I understand that the more recent history is more important and deserves more attention, but 1 paragraph for 3 centuries of history is clearly insufficient.

In any case, here is a more condensed version of my suggestion for the 4th pargraph. It would be difficult to reduce it further, unless important facts are left out:


"The Philippines was the centre of the Spanish East Indies and was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico) from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. Spanish rule brought trade, education, and the Christian religion to the Philippines. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Catholicism, which has remained the most important religion to this day. The establishment of numerous academic and medical institutions helped the Philippines become one of the most advanced countries in Asia by the 19th century. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595 by the Jesuits, is the oldest university in Asia. In the 19th century the Cadiz Constitution of 1812 granted all Filipinos Spanish citizenship. The Philippines opened itself to world trade on September 6, 1834. In 1863 universal education was introduced, which helped form an educated class of Filipinos called the Ilustrados ("Enlightened" ones) such as Jose Rizal which later promoted the Philippine Revolution".

Regards, JCR

There are nine paragraphs, prehistory, pre-Hispanic, 2 paragraphs for the Spanish era, Philippine revolution, American period, Third Republic, Martial Law, and Fifth Republic.
I really don't think we'd need academic institutions since it was not that universal. I doubt if the indios outnumbered the mestizos and insulares in UST, USC and Ateneo. And the oldest university in the Philippines and in even in Asia is still highly disputed. --Howard the Duck 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Howard, don't confuse "academic institutions" which were there as early as the 16th century, with public or "universal education", a 19th century concept which for the first time provided free education to all citizens. I am not sure how "universal" this education was at the beginning (probably not much) but that is not the point. The point is that this was a major breakthrough in the Philippines, and in the whole of Asia.

Regarding the oldest university, there is indeed a dispute between University of San Carlos (Cebu, 1565) and University of Santo Tomas (Manila, 1611) due to a difference in criteria: founding date versus the granting of "university charter". But there is no question that both of these are the oldest universities both in the Philippines as well as in Asia. All other Asian universities were founded in the 19th and 20th centuries (see List of oldest universities in continuous operation). So our text could say "The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595 by the Jesuits, is arguably the oldest university in Asia".

In any case both 16th century academic institutions as well as 19th century universal education are prominent events in the history of the Philippines, specially in explaining the progress of the country compared to her Asian neighbors (Filipino scholars were highly reputed in the 19th century) and therefore deserve mentioning, even if briefly.

Regards, JCR

Take a look at your post at No reference to Spanish contributions and civilization; you mentioned "universal education". And Nanjing University was founded on 258, the oldest by far in Asia. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Howard I don't understand your point about "universal education": indeed I mentioned it in my post above, but it has not been included in the text of the article. Regarding the oldest university in Asia, I am simply taking the "modern" definition used by Wikipedia in "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" which states that a university should "include the ability to grant degrees". As you can see the article uses this definition and excludes "ancient" educational institutions. Take a look at the list titled "Founded before 1500": the oldest university in the world is actually in Morroco (founded in 859). Below that you can see the "Post-1500" universities, where both Philippine universities are by far the oldest.

But what's the point of all of this anyway? Granted UST and USC are the oldest in the European definition of "university" it still doesn't make sense since if universities and colleges are to be mentioned in a country article. I have yet to encounter a country article where colleges and universities are discussed out in the open. Japan mentions it for the simple reason that they have the best universities in Asia. Perhaps the Philippines may even hold several "oldest" things, like oldest secondary schools, oldest electoral exercise, etc. but we don't mention them here. Japan has the oldest person but they don't mention it in the article.
And if we'll UST and USC, then we might as well add UP<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> since they claim to be the best university in the Philippines, DLSU for they're the best private university, Ateneo since they're DLSU's rival, FEU since they've beaten DLSU in the UAAP Finals, UE, NU and Adamson since they're part of the UAAP, the 8 NCAA schools since if you'll include the UAAP, better include the NCAA or they'll cry foul, the other CESAFI schools since USC is included, UA&P since their tuition fees are the most expensive, etc... --Howard the Duck 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Howard, I am wondering whether this discussion is leading anywhere. You don't seem to take this seriously.

If "Japan mentions it for the simple reason that they have the best universities in Asia" why shouldn't the Philippines mention that they have the oldest universities in Asia? Or indeed the oldest secondary schools in Asia? Wouldn't you consider the oldest academic tradition or legacy in Asia a sufficiently prominent event in a country's history? This really beats me.

This whole discussion derives from the fact that 333 years of Philippine history are being "summarised" as "fighting indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges" which is pretty inaccurate or seems to avoid mentioning the Spanish contributions to the country's history for some reason. I do not understand. JCR

The 2 paragraphs mentioned not only "fighting indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges" but also, the spread of Roman Catholicism and the Manila Galleon. Not much should I say, but there were many "omissions" during the American era, such as the period between the capture of EA and the Commonwealth, the "commissions" went to the U.S. to press independence, the Jones Law, the Tydings-McDuffie Law, etc. Again I couldn't be convinced by your version if we'd only add USC and UST links aka "universal education." If we'll do that, we'd have to add several other universities, such as the University of the Philippines. Heck, the fall of Bataan, which is commemorated every April 9 isn't included, what more the founding years of two universities?
After much investigation, your IP address comes from Spain. Now I know why. --Howard the Duck 17:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Questionable Neutrality

Well done, but you could have asked me to avoid so much investigation. I am from Madrid (Spain) and interested in Mexican and Philippine history. You will agree that history should incorporate different sources and versions to make it as neutral as possible. I have shown that the Philippine article has important omissions and therefore its neutrality is questionable. Some English language versions of Philippine history tend to sweep past the colonial period without mentioning major facts like trade and agriculture, education, citizenship or political unification. Filipino agriculture (tobacco, abaca hemp - the Manila rope, rice, maize, cassava, camote, banana, and tomatoes) flourished during the colonial period thanks to the introduction of the wheel and the plow, which helped create urban centers and contributed to demographic growth. Transport infrastructures such as roads and ports allowed for trade between the islands and with other nations such as China (as well as Mexico through the Manila Galeon). The concept of free public education is essential to explain the rise of the "Ilustrado" class, of which Rizal, Aguinaldo and Bonifacio were part. The concept of citizenship allowed Filipino scholars (again like Rizal) to travel to Spain and other European countries to further their studies. Political unifacation gave rise to the nation we know today. Regarding independence, there is no mention either of the First Philippine Republic, the oldest democracy in Asia or the Malolos Constitution (1899). What more can I say?

Regards, JCR

Again I couldn't be convinced that Spaniards introduced universal education, even education for the "indio" majority in the Spanish era. I couldn't even consider Andres Bonifacio "illustrado" since he didn't study in university although he was self-taught by reputable books even though he belonged to "lower-upper" stratum of society. As for the First Philippine Republic, it wasn't mentioned perhaps it wasn't able to establish control through the whole country, perhaps the areas where the first republic held were some parts of Cavite and Bulacan, and the towns Aguinaldo slept while fleeing from the Americans. Despite not mentioning these events, one can have a rough sketch of how Philippine history was. If they'd want more information, links are sufficiently given at the very top of the section, the featured article History of the Philippines.
I could live with the ommisions since the article redirects the reader into a more complete article, perhaps the reader wouldn't even bother reading the history section of this article and will instead proceed directly to the History of the Philippines article. --Howard the Duck 13:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive the intrusion, but I would like to congratulate the editors on the civil way they have conducted this discussion. Do you think it would be appropriate to mention the legendary courtesy and politeness of Filipinos in this article if I could find a suitable reference?...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 08:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all Gaimhreadhan. You are more than welcome to join our discussion. Indeed our exchange has been polite. However we have not reached an agreement on this issue. I am now looking for sources to prove a series of facts about the colonial period of Philippine history which many English-language texts simply ignore or interpret in a biased way. I still hold there is lack of neutrality in the 4th paragraph of the history section. I have explained thoroughly why in the long discussion above. Basically the few sentences on the 333-year period of Spanish rule are too condensed and do not describe adequately the most prominent events of that time. Regards, JCR
Oh puh-leeze. As what I've said, if you'll add anything, remove other things from the other sections. What else could've happened? Again, if you'll add Ateneo and UST, you might as well add University of the Philippines, and every UAAP and NCAA school. And probably everyone and everything else... --Howard the Duck 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Howard, regarding your comment above: "Again I couldn't be convinced that Spaniards introduced universal education" I have found multiple references that confirm this 1863 Spanish Decree that set up universal education. One of them is this article from a U.S. University Directory: htp://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1197/Philippines-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html that reads: "the Spanish colonial government had initiated a system of free, compulsory primary education in 1863". Also this Country Studies website from the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress [2]. The actual Wikipedia article on the Philippine Department of Education says:
Access to education by Filipinos was later liberalized through the enactment of the Educational Decree of 1863, which provided for the establishment of at least one primary school for boys and girls in each town under the responsibility of the municipal government; and the establishment of a normal school for male teachers under the supervision of the Jesuits. Primary instruction was free and the teaching of Spanish was compulsory..
Hope this helps to clarify at least this point about the colonial period of Philippine history. Regards, JCR. 83.41.149.156 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And it was never implemented. LOL. If that was the case then public schooling was introduced as early as 1863, but the fact is the Thomasites introduced public education. --Howard the Duck 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it was implemented. You can read in the mentioned source [3] that the number of enrolled Filipino students reached 200,000 by 1898. Indeed the Thomasites gave this initiative a major push, and by the 1920's there were almost 1 million students enrolled in Philippine schools. But the fact remains that the initiative came half a century earlier, during the colonial period. This was a major breakthrough not only for the Philippines, but also for the whole of Asia. Remeber that public schooling only became standard in Europe in the late 19th century. Again, my point about the country's major academic tradition. Regards, JCR.
200,000 is paltry considering there were 5,279,955 Filipinos on 1898. And again, if you will see Talk:Manila, the addition of schools in the article would be very contentious, considering the school pride of Filipinos. In other words, the school list will turn into a grocery list. --Howard the Duck 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Let us make this discussion a bit more honest. Beating about the bush with facts that are crystal clear and undeniable will take us nowhere. You say "200,000 is paltry". So now it's a question of numbers? How can you judge what is paltry and what is not in 1890? 20 years after the Thomasites arrived in the Philippines less than 1 million students were enrolled in schools: is that also paltry? Things must be put in historical context. Maybe you should do some research on the numbers of students enrolled in European countries with similiar "universal education" programs at the time. You would be surprised. The 1863 education decree actually put the Philippines at the vanguard of Asia. This is what Fernando Zialcita, a Filipino professor at Ateneo de Manila said about education in the Philippines during the colonial period:
It is often said today that Spain kept the Filipinos ignorant during much of its rule, and that we owe our mass, public schooling to the US. How true is this claim?
Today we assume that the provision of public schooling is a duty of every State. But, like many things we take for granted today, this was in fact a 19TH CENTURY INVENTION. Just likely the telegraph, the railroad, liberal democracy and socialist ideals. Certainly in the US, as this entry suggests, it begins to appear only during the first decades of the 19th century and becomes widespread in many states only later -- during the 2nd half of that century.[4][5]
In France, then the vanguard of Europe, public education becomes mandatory under the Guizot Law of 1833.[6][7]
But who should control the schools: the Church or the State? In France, Spain and other Catholic countries, the battle between the Church and the State was bitter. It was only during the Third Republic in France at the close of the 19th century, that the republican forces were able to push for a wholly secular educational system. [8]
What was the situation like in the Philippines during the 19th century? Jean Mallat lived in the Philippines for 8 years. In his 2 volume 1846 book, “The Philippines”, he wrote, “In the Philippines, the education of sons of the country as well as of mestizos and indios of both sexes is not as neglected as certain persons claim. On the contrary, the colony has from the start made the greatest effort for the education of the people. Even in the smallest villages, indios find facilities for learning to read and write; everywhere there are primary schools paid by the pueblo…the education of the indios is far from backward, if compared to that of the lower classes in Europe.”
In 1863, public education became mandatory in Spanish Philippines. Every sizeable municipality was required to set up a public school. The German scientist Fedor Jagor observed in his 1873 book, “Travels in the Philippines”, that almost every pueblo did have a school...
"Public Education during the 19th Century on a Comparative Basis" by Fernando N. Zialcita
Regards, JCR
Put that in Education in the Philippines, as I've said, several major events are omitted in the history, this is supposed to be a skeleton, a summary. If we'll add the introduction of "public" education by friars, then we should add about just everything else. In fact, the so-called introduction of "public" education isn't even an historical turning point; if it was indeed implemented, then Filipinos should've learnt to speak Spanish,, but they didn't. Only the learned illustrados were able to know Spanish, the general population didn't. The introduction of "public" education, at best, is trivial and didn't largely affect future events in history. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to include that in the Education in the Philippines but I have explained thoroughly that this deserves a mention in the main article. My point is that the 4th paragraph summarizes the colonial period of Philippine history in an oversimplistic if not biased way by stating that "In the next 333 years, the Spanish fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges". I have explained why other prominent events should be included like the flourishing of trade, introduction of wheel and plow, founding of cities, building of infrastructures, the political unification of the islands, citizenship and most importantly education (oldest universities in Asia, universal education in 1863 and consequently the rise of the Ilustrado class which made possible the 1896 revolution and independence). Of all I will accept that only education is included for now. This is a revised version of my suggestion for the fourth paragraph, that we can include if all editors agree:
"The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico) from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Catholicism, which has remained the most important religion to this day. The Spanish also founded numerous academic and medical institutions which are among the oldest in the Philippines. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595 by the Jesuits, is the oldest university in Asia. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, which helped create an educated class of Filipinos called the Ilustrados such as Jose Rizal which later promoted the Philippine Revolution. The Philippines opened itself to world trade on September 6, 1834."
I'm pretty much certain early Filipinos used the plow at least. And the oldest university in Asia is at China, FYI. The introduction of "public" education isn't a turning point of Philippine history. You might as well include the introduction of true public education by the Americans, with the University of the Philippines as the most lasting remnant. And the fact that both UST and USC were controlled by the church and not the state makes the claim of "public", much more "free" education very doubtful. I'm OK with the political unification of the islands except for most parts of Mindanao, though. --Howard the Duck 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding oldest university in Asia, we have already discussed this (see above) "..I am taking the "modern" definition used by Wikipedia in "List of oldest universities in continuous operation" which states that a university should "include the ability to grant degrees". As you can see the article uses this definition and excludes "ancient" educational institutions" such as the Chinese schools. Take a look at the list titled "Founded before 1500": the oldest university in the world is actually in Morroco (founded in 859)."

Prominent Events during the Colonial Period

Regarding the plow and the wheel, the following article in the Manila Times [9] taken from the book "Culture and History" by Nick Joaquin, mentions that they were indeed introduced during the colonial period. This adds to other prominent events which are ignored in the History section of the article, such as infrastructures (roads and bridges), new crops, alphabet and printing, calendar and others.

Regarding "public" education, it is certainly a turning point in Philippine history (despite being largely controlled by the Church) because for the first time education was open to any Filipino regardless of social class or ancestry. It also gave rise to a class of Filipino scholars also called the Ilustrado class, some of which furthered their studies in Europe like Jose Rizal, many of which participated and made possible the Philippine Revolution.

I'm willing to bet most if not all students at Ateneo and UST were either Spanish or mestizos. This refutes the claim that any native non-racially mixed Filipino (or indio/yndio as the Spanish called them) can study rise through the educational system and lead a revolution. There were several revolts already and not most of them were not due to education. Filipinos were just pissed off by the Spanish and/or denied a proper Christian burial.
And there was an alphabet before. And there are many other events ignored in the history section, not just the very minor event of the introduction of "free" public education.
Add the fact that the Philippines was actually very much ignored by the Spanish as compared to the richer New World colonies, things picked up when those colonies regained their independence. --Howard the Duck 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of betting. A hypothesis like that does not refute anything. If you read about independence movements in Latin American countries you will see that it was also an educated class there (made up of indios, creoles and mestizos) which organized and promoted the revolutions. In the Philippines this was no different. Spain shot herself in the foot by introducing free public education because this helped create the Ilustrado class, which was made up of "indios" as well as "mestizos". Regarding alphabet, you are right that there was already one before. I am not proposing to include all the events of the colonial period, just add a few facts to the paragraph on the "333-year period" which is quite scarce of information.
If this is so important then why is this also omitted in the History of the Philippines FA? --Howard the Duck 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe it should be included. You will agree that the rise of an Ilustrado class does not simply come from the "opening of the Suez cannal". There needs to be public schools (open to all citizens) for the rise of such an important group of scholars. In any case, I am just proposing to include a few facts in the paragraph on the "333-year period" which is quite scarce, as I said before.
Actually, the Suez Canal had a role, since thought and information flowed faster than ever before. But I still really think the "introduction of public education by the Spaniards" didn't led largely to the illustrados' "enlightenment", since most illustrados even cautioned the Katipunan on staging the revolution, and these illustrados were ultimately educated in Europe (UST was a seminary until the late 1700s, USC was a seminary until World War II, Ateneo was a high school until the Americans came). --Howard the Duck 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No doubt the opening of the Suez Canal had a role. But my point is that free public education was the main driver for the rise of an educated class of Filipinos (of different origins and social levels) some of which indeed furthered their studies in Spain and other European countries. Like any revolution, the Philippine independence movement of the 1890's required intellectual leadership to organize and promote it. The existence of public education since the 1860's undoubtedly made possible the rise of this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 11:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Final Suggestion for 4th paragraph

Following the very long discussion above regarding the important omissions of the 4th paragraph (History section) on the 333-year colonial period, with my thanks to all the editors who have contributed to this useful exchange, and with their permission, I will include this final re-revised version of the said paragraph. Of all issues discussed, I have included: "political unification of the islands", the "oldest universities", and the "1863 education decree". However, to facilitate the consensus I have finally excluded the historical relationship between the 1863 decree, and the rise of the Ilustrado class.

  • "Spanish rule brought political unification of the archipielago that later became the Philippines and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico) from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco in New Spain traveled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Catholicism, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, established in 1595 is arguably the oldest university in Asia. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish. The Philippines opened itself to world trade on September 6, 1834."
Regards, JCR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.16.155 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


As there have been no comments or objections I have included the above recommended text. It has been a long but productive discussion. Thanks again to all editors for their contribution.

As per this "very important event," go to History of the Philippines first. If it becomes a part of that article, then go here. It can't be a summary if it's not mentioned on the article it's supposed to be summarizing. --Howard the Duck 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of a rule that requires a "summary" article to be preceded by a "main" article. I will be pleased to include some of these events in the main History of the Philippines article (others are already there). But please do not remove the final recommended paragraph, as it is the result of a very long and productive discussion.
The very meaning of the summary means everything in the main article must be in the subarticle, and the subarticle should contain many other facts not found on the main article, come on, it's common sense. As for the "very long and productive discussion," it has been shot down many times, the introduction of "public schools" by the Spaniards isn't important enough. Even Andres Bonifacio, the leader of the revolution, did not went to these schools, and the illustrados actually did not support the revolution. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Summary style. Pairadox 03:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing issues in the talk page if people randomly remove texts that result from those discussions. You are welcome to request additional references, or ask that the Main article is improved. But please respect the work that has gone into producing this paragraph, in which you also participated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No consensus = shouldn't be at the article. --Howard the Duck 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not start an edit war. The suggested paragraph was left there for editors to contend for almost a week. You are free to make additional comments or reassess the mentioned paragraph at any time, but do not remove the recommended text until a new consensus has been reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also included references for the previously disputed issues (in the Talk page) so that they are not disputed all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no consensus for the paragraph to be revised. Also, the main article should synchronize with the subarticle. If the subarticle doesn't include this event, then it shouldn't be at the main article. --Howard the Duck 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph is the result of a discussion in which you participated yourself. It was left there for almost a week without anybody contending it. This amounts to consensus. If you want to contend it now, go right ahead. The question about those events not being in the "Main" article is an entirely different and unrelated question, which strangely enough has not been raised until now. Please be constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.140.66 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. There is no consensus. The only reason why I can't spot your posts at my watchlist since you didn't sign, and then this bot signs for you and I can't see it since all actions by bots won't show up, then I can't see it. That's why there's a delay when I reply. And even though I haven't replied, every argument that you presented has been consistently challenged. And please, sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your posts. --Howard the Duck 11:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I am now using an account which I created a few months back, to participate in this discussion more easily, and for other editors to track my contributions. I am surprised you have resorted to blocking the page in order to advance in this discussion. I do not see a constructive and positive attitude in this decision.

It is untrue that every argument I presented has been "consistently challenged". First, right above this section ("Final Suggestion") you can see that my explanation about the limited implications of the Suez Cannal on the rise of the Ilustrado class has not been answered or contested. Second, the challenges of my arguments have been replied in a clear & concise way everytime. I do not understand why my contributions are systematically contended, often without clear justification. I have thoroughly explained in this endless discussion why some prominent if not decisive events in the history of the Philippines should be included in the article. I have given reasons and provided sound references for every point questioned. At the end, as there was no contention of my last explanation I put forth a final consensus suggestion for the 4th paragraph (in which I accepted not to include the issue of public education and the Ilustrados) and for almost a week there was no answer. I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures or rules, but it certainly does not seem fair that after a long and apparently "productive" discussion, the final suggestion is simply deleted and the page protected. Indeed we will have to look for more editors to give their opinion, or find some other procedure to end this dispute. JCRB 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually read 3 encyclopedias yesterday (Academic American Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta on the computer, I willing to scan Academic American and print screen Encarta if you'd want) and they don't mention this so-called "decisive" moment in the history sections of the Philippines article. With that said, it has only been you alone who has been pushing this "decisive" yet "omitted" moment in Philippine history.
Now, I'm urging you to first go to Talk:History of the Philippines and suggest that this "momentous" moment to be added on that article, first, since the history section of the Philippines article is a summary. In a summary, not all events are included, even some major events are not included. Now if there'll be a statement about this "decisive" moment, it should first be suggested at the talk page of the subarticle. Then if it is approved there, then you and I can talk on adding it here. However, as I insisted all along, this is still relatively unimportant, as the leaders of the revolution didn't go to Spanish schools, and in fact, several illustrados passively opposed the revolution, particularly Jose Rizal.
As for a week without reply, here's the reason. Under "My Preferences," anything that is last edited by a bot wouldn't show up on my watchlist. Now, you've added your post here, without your signature. Now here comes our friendly bot signing your post for you. Now since the bot last edited the page, I won't be able to see it. As you can see, I've consistently replied to each of your posts at least a day after you posted them. The reason why I haven't replied is since I didn't know you've replied, since a bot signed for you. --Howard the Duck 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (belatedly signed)

Conclusion

In order to end this already, I suggest the addition of the statement "On 1863 the colonial government introduced a system of free primary-school education in Spanish." No mention of schools (since Santo Tomas and San Carlos weren't founded as a consequence the decree) or anything else, this should be fine already. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


1. Procedure

I can understand that you did not contend my explanations in one week because you did not see them, fine. For this reason I am ready to recap on the issues/events covered in the long discussion above and even re-address their relevance and provide references all over again. What I cannot accept is that after this endless discussion, you now suggest an alternative procedure for their inclusion in the Summary: discussing them again from zero in the Main Article. This means not only that the above discussion has been an incredible waste of time, but it implies some sort of "rule" that Summary artilces must be "preceded" by Main articles, something I am not aware of. In fact, most articles in Wikipedia have been written first as a summary and then expanded into a Main, longer article. As I said before, I am willing to expand on these important events on Philippine history in the Main article, once this discussion on the Summary article is settled.

2. Contents

You keep dismissing the issues I am presenting with irony, calling them one "decisive" or "momentous" moment. First, I have never talked about the moment being decisive, but the actual events ignored in this paragraph which are relevant and important. (At any rate, these events did not happen in one moment but in a period of three centuries). Second, irony will not help in contending arguments, unless you have ample proof behind it. In the long discussion above I have explained that the colonial period saw the following prominent if not decisive events in the history of the Philippines, which are omitted from the article: 1) political unification and the creation of the concept of "Philippine" Nation, 2) introduction of western tools such as plow and wheel (which were fundamental for large-scale agriculture and the growth of cities) and western concepts such as: calendar, clock, printing, and the code of law, all unknown to the native population prior to that, 3) infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and ports, 4) New crops (corn, tobacco, camote, coffee, tea, cocoa, beans, onion, etc) and new livestock (horse, cow, sheep etc) 5) Growth of trade, specially international trade, 6) Education, not only public primary education (in 1863) but an important academic tradition with universities starting in 1595 (the first in Asia) 7) Other institutions such as hospitals, churches, factories etc. All of the above are basic in forming the Philippine nation we know today. According to Filipino writer Nick Joaquin these elements are:

"...the greatest in our history because they have been affecting us since the 16th century and will continue to affect this nation as long as there are Filipinos."
(Nick Joaquin, in "Culture and History")

I hope these points are clear and we can now advance in finding a consensus for the mentioned paragraph. JCRB 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually willing to allow this to be added, just no mention of schools. Just keep it brief. The article is very long already. About two or three compound sentences. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised Suggestion

Thanks for your comprehension. Here is an alternative suggestion for the 4th paragraph, without the names of schools, and slightly shorter:

OK to calling it "public education". But I think Mexico should appear in the text, because that is the current name of the country that the Philippines was ruled from for over 2 centuries. Maybe like this:
The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain in present-day Mexico from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain until 1898. JCRB 11:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Spaniards introduced the calendar to the islands, since the Moros were using the Islamic calendar, and as with all religions, calendars are important. Question: how was New Spain organized? Was the Philippines one division of it co-equal with those at the Americas? --Howard the Duck 15:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The book "Culture & History" specifically mentions the western calendar as one of the elements introduced by the Spaniards, meaning the "western" or "gregorian" calendar. Regarding the Viceroyalty of New Spain ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:La_nueva_espa%C3%B1a_1.PNG) its capital was Mexico City and was divided into "Gobernaciones" (like provinces). Each "Gobernacion" had a Governor who was the top authority of the territory, as well as a Captain General (military). The Philippines was one of these Gobernaciones with a Governor (who was also Captain General) based in Manila, who reported to the Viceroy of New Spain, in Mexico. For a short time after the Constitution of Cadiz (1812) the Viceroyalties were dissolved and all overseas territories became Provinces, with equal status in relation to Madrid. However King Ferdinand VII reinstated the Viceroyalty again from 1814 to 1820, when the revolutionary movements started in many Central & South American countries. The Philippines was therefore almost continuously a "Gobernación" or "Capitanía General", but administered directy from mainland Spain since 1821 (following the independence of Mexico). JCRB 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. To ignore the Islamic calendar and say the Spaniards introduced the Western calendar reeks of bias and POV. I suggest to leave it. Or add every calender used in the Philippines.
  2. With your explanation, it means that the Philippines is co-equal with the provinces in Mexico, ergo, to say that the Philippines was governed from MExico is wrong. --Howard the Duck 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We can say "western calendar" if you prefer. There is no bias or POV in that. Regarding New Spain, I think my explanation above is clear. The Philippines (together with present-day Mexico, California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, etc) were all governed from Mexico City, capital of New Spain until 1821. There is no need to change that, the previous text was already correct. JCRB 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather omit "western calender" or any mention of calenders. Or else we should say also the Islamic calendar. Who knows what calendar the ancient Filipinos may have used. As for Mexico City, does it really matter? After all, you don't say Louisiana was controlled from Upper Canada, right? What matters is the Philippines was controlled by Spain and Louisiana was controlled by the French. --Howard the Duck 09:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that it was ruled from Mexico is a very relevant historical fact, and appears in all history books. Many of the western (Hispanic) influences in the Philippines were Mexican. The Spanish that was once spoken was largely Mexican Spanish (many words borrowed from native Mexican languages such as Nahuatl) the arts and cooking also had much Mexican influence, the Manila Galeon went to Acapulco (Mexico), not Spain.. I don't think we can leave this out. JCRB 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It was ruled from Mexico, but it was not ruled by Mexicans. And the fact that the Philippines is co-equal with the provinces at the Americas means Mexico shouldn't be there. If the Philippines was under the administration of one Mexican province then it can be said that it was ruled by Mexico. For example, you don't say Texas was ruled from Washington DC, but you can say Houston is ruled from Austin. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. It was not ruled by "Mexicans" because there were no "Mexicans" at that time. They were "Novohispanos" or "Newspaniards" if you like. The Philippines was ruled by a Spanish-born Viceroy and a government of "Novohispanos" from Mexico, and locally by a Governor in Manila. The point is the Philippines was not a Viceroyalty itself, but was part of the larger Viceroyalty of New Spain based in Mexico City, thousands of miles and 3-4 months sea journey away. As such, the major polotical decisions took place in Mexico City, and a lot of trade (Mexican silver), military (soldiers and ships) and social and cultural influence (inmigration) came from Mexico. (For your info, the 4 Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire were New Spain, Peru, Rio de la Plata (Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay), and New Granada (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama).
In your comparisson with Texas and Austin I think you miss the point. Texas is part of the larger USA, based in Washington D.C. (You don't say Texas, or California or New York are "governed" from Washington D.C. because this is understood, as they are all part of the same country, and the same geographical unit: continental USA. The Philippines was was part of the larger Viceroyalty of New Spain, based in Mexico, which is thousands of miles away, and not part of the same geographical mass. It is therefore relevant to stress this point. The "capital" of the larger political unit was therefore in Mexico, thousands of miles away. This also helps to explain the many Mexican influences in Philippine culture, as I said before. JCRB 13:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Honolulu is far away from the continental 48, but you don't say Hawaii is ruled from Washington, DC. The Philippines wasn't a separate colony from New Spain, it was a part of New Spain, co-equal to the highest subdivision found on those found at the Americas. Ergo, to say that the Philippines was ruled from Mexico is wrong, what can be acceptable is that the Philippines and Mexico were ruled collectively as New Spain. But I think it'll still be wrong since "Mexico" as a political entity did not exist yet (I'm not sure on this - are the Mexican Gobernaciones collectively administered as one "Mexico" with other Gobernaciones, like the Philippines separate and distinct politically?). --Howard the Duck 13:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going round and round in circles, but I see your point. You are saying that all "Governaciones" were equal to each other, so you cannot say that "one (Philippines) was ruled from another (Mexico)". Fine, but the important point is that the Philippines was part of New Spain whose capital was Mexico City. As the Viceroyalty was a centralized system with "Gobernaciones" having little or no autonomy (Governors were chosen directly by the Viceroy and reported directly to him in any and all matters regarding his territory, be it civil or military) it is perfectly accurate to say that "the Philippines was ruled from Mexico City" just like California and Texas "were ruled from Mexico City". Plus, this helps to explain why there is Mexican influence in Philippine culture, and why the Galleon travelled to Acapulco (mainland New Spain) and not Cadiz (Spain) for instance. JCRB 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Either say "the Philippines was ruled from Mexico City" or "the Philippines was ruled as a part of New Spain". Adding parenthetical statements will confuse the reader. For example, if you'll say "the Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico)" would imply that New Spain is Mexico, and the Philippines was a subdivision under Mexico when it isn't (?). --Howard the Duck 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok about the parenthesis. How about "the Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from Mexico City"? JCRB 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it why Mexico City should we added when we mention Acapulco already. --Howard the Duck 17:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not mention that before. Mexico City is an inland town, and was the capital of New Spain. Acapulco is a coastal town, and was one of the most important Spanish ports in the Pacific. That is why the Manila Galeon travelled there. JCRB 12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Did the name "Mexico" exist to refer to the land we now refer to as "Mexico" now? What was the current Mexico called during colonial times? New Spain? So Mexico City was called Mexico City by that time? If the name Mexico referred only to the city, we cannot say the galleon traveled to "Mexico" since "Mexico" at that time referred to the city, if "Mexico" at that time refers to the current Mexico + the American southwest, then we can say "the Philippines was ruled from Mexico" (no need to mention New Spain), since again, it is a summary, we might as well mention what gobernaciones are for the reader to understand what the article is trying to say. As for the Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from Mexico City", you don't say, "California is ruled as a part of the United States from Washington, D.C.," right? Again, the insistence of adding "Mexico City" illogical and unwarranted; the article can live without that. The reader may just click New Spain and voila! --Howard the Duck 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your constant opposition to either "New Spain" or "Mexico". Those are the facts and there is no denying them. During the Spanish period the name was "Ciudad de México". We can talk about that in the Mexican Talk page. This article is about the Philippines, which for 3 centuries was part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain and ruled from Mexico City. It is fine to say "Mexico" alone, because that's is the name of the country today. Choose any of the following, and let's finish this discussion:

Nor do I understand why should the article add word "Mexico" in a place where it shouldn't exist, where it can omitted. As you've said, Mexico as a country didn't exist at that time, Mexico referred to Mexico City, the Philippines is co-equal with other provinces found on the American mainland. Adding "from Mexico City" will add to more questions (such as the gobernaciones, the local government administration at that time, etc.) in which the term "New Spain" would be fine. It can be omitted, we can't say everything here. --Howard the Duck 11:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "Mexico" contributes to the article by telling the reader what New Spain was. This is valid & informative data because it helps to put it on the map, and it only takes a couple of words! I don't see the problem. JCRB 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But Mexico was not News Spain. Actually the current sentence on the article fits perfectly. Probably a link to Viceroyalty may be in order. If you'd add Mexico, it'll open a can of worms, then in a few days, the sentence would read ...New Spain (Mexico, the American Southwest, the Great Plains and the Floridas.) The point is, New Spain was not solely composed of Mexico, and to say Mexico is New Spain is wrong; to put Mexico City is unneeded. --Howard the Duck 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
New Spain was overwhelmingly Mexico, because 90% of New Spain became "Mexico" when it gained independence from Spain in 1821. (The other "New Spain" territories such as Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines continued under Spanish rule until 1898, and others like Florida or Lousiana were sold/ exchanged). In other words, the whole Southwest of the U.S. was part of "Mexico" after independence. The terms "New Spain" and "Mexico" are therefore perfectly interchangeable, and any historian would agree with that. Still, I do not understand you opposition to including either Mexico, or Mexico City, both of which had a major political and cultural bond with the Philippines for over 250 years. JCRB 10:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What was New Spain also contained territories from the current American Southwest and the Philippines. Ergo to say New Spain is interchangeable with Mexico is wrong. In order to be "interchangeable" it should be 100%, not 90%, not even 99.9%.
Also, the history section shouldn't even care about political and cultural bonds. It should be at politics and culture sections, not at the history section. So do any of the Spanish governor generals are Mexican natives? Even if there is one or all of them it still wouldn't matter, since the Philippines was never a Mexican colony. Again, the Philippines and what is now Mexico is co-equal with each other when they were under New Spain. To imply Mexico owned, colonized, administered, etc. the Philippines is factually inaccurate. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain in what is mostly present-day Mexico is a relevant historical fact. I don't understand your criteria. JCRB 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But the name Mexico at that time referred to the city, not the modern-day country. I dunno what they call modern-day Mexico which is a part of New Spain. New Spain is not = to Mexico. --Howard the Duck 13:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But for information's sake the text must say "Mexico" or "present-day Mexico" in order to explain what New Spain was. Plus the coincidental fact that the capital was also called "Mexico" or "Mexico City". The sentence is perfectly clear and appropriate, please. JCRB 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's for "information's sake", it's not worth it. --Howard the Duck 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be about "information", right? JCRB 12:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't just to "for information's sake, or else this article will be bloated with lots of "for information's sake trivia." --Howard the Duck 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You know I did not mean trivia or other superfluous information. I meant relevant and concise information which belongs in a summary article. I really don't know where this is leading, but after having discussed this "Mexico" issue in considerable length, it seems we will now have to find other editors (through some procedure) to move on. I will look into this. JCRB 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Come on, it's just one word. And bypassing Mexico won't make the reader that confused. As I've said, adding "(Mexico)" implies ownership. Mexico and the Mexicans didn't control the Philippines (the Spanish did), that simple. See your long explanation on the matter about gobernaciones if you'll add Mexico; better add your long explanation about gobernaciones or just remove it. It's not important anyway. --Howard the Duck 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just one important word. I already said that we can leave out the parenthesis. The best option is therefore:

An important word that can be omitted. Also, that is ambiguous; I don't know what that statement is trying to say, is it New Spain is composed of what is now Mexico and the Philippines was a satellite? New Spain was Mexico? What? I still think it's unneeded, no matter it's importance; several important things are omitted in this article, anyway. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's "important", it should 'not be omitted, specially if it's only one word. Let's be constructive. The sentence is very clear. Read it again to yourself. It means that the Philippines was part of the administrative region of "New Spain", but ruled from present-day Mexico. Not only good, it's perfect! JCRB 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Not all that is important goes here. By default, all presidents are important, are they mentioned? No. Also, the Philippines wasn't ruled as a territory, it was, as you said, ruled as a province, co-equal will all provinces in the Americas. --Howard the Duck 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Important events, defined as "prominent" or "relevant" for the history of the Philippines should be included. Presidents are not all "important" for the country's history. But the fact that the Philippines was ruled from Mexico for over 2 centuries definitely is. JCRB 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you've said presidents are not "important", that ends this discussion between you and me. LOL --Howard the Duck 03:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Carefully. I said "not all Presidents are important", meaning for the history summary of the main article. About ending the discussion, I am happy to do so once we all agree on the 4th paragraph. Your constant opposition to quoting "Mexico" as the place where the Philippines was governed from for more than 2 centuries is incomprehensible. Just accept the fact and let's keep going. JCRB 11:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Our encyclopedia at home doesn't omit any president in the history section of the Philippines article, although the history part is significantly longer. Also, I've read many encyclopedias that equate New Spain as Mexico; as you've explained yourself, it is wrong. So for the word Mexico, as you gleefully insist to be here, you've got to explain the gobernaciones system to show that a) the Philippines was co-equal with the other gobernaciones in the "mainland," and b) "Mexico" didn't exist at that time, or "Mexico" referred to the city. However, that'll significantly lengthen the article with a discourse that can readily be avoided, since after all the mention of "Mexico" isn't needed, see "Mexico" didn't play a part in the history of this country. Did Mexicans rule the Philippines? No. Did Mexico rule the Philippines? No. Was Mexico even "superior" administratively to the Philippines? No. Did the happenings at Mexico alter the way the Philippines was governed? For the most part, no, the only instance was when Mexico gained their independence, and the Philippines was administered directly from Spain. Also, Mexico is already mentioned, "The conquistador, Miguel López de Legazpi arrived from Mexico in 1565..." so adding New Spain (Mexico) will be redundant.
However, if you really insist, I'd suggest to add all things Mexican at the culture though, since that is the most appropriate place for that, since anything "Mexican" can be found at the "Culture" section, not the "History" section.
(Actually, thinking about it, Mexico WAS New Spain, until Miguel Lopez de Legazpi et. al. conquered the Philippines.) --Howard the Duck 13:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As it currently stands, this article is already too long (53.4 KiB (7295 words) - 19:31, September 29, 2007). I don't think that making it longer still with major additions would be an improvement. Perhaps (with WP:SS in mind) it might make sense to add a Provinces section to the New Spain article, and a Philippines subsection there. Itmight even make sense to have a Philippines under New Spain main article with WP:SS links from both this article and the New Spain article. Also, regarding Presidents, I note that an article named List of Presidents of the Philippines exists, and that Presidents of the Philippines redirects to that article. Presidents of the Philippines could be turned into a narrative article about Philippine Presidents, perhaps grouping them into separate sections by historical era.(just a passing thought). Finally (several points), I observe that the See Also section of this article has just one entry - List of Philippine-related topics, and that that article does not list either List of Presidents of the Philippines or Presidents of the Philippines (and most likely omits some other articles on Philippine-related topics; that many Philippine-related articles (this article for example) are not in Category:Philippines; it looks like there is a lot of housekeeping needed regarding Philippine-related articles. -- Boracay Bill 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to care with List of Philippine-related topics since it is rather old and no one touches it. The presidents articles are relatively new. --Howard the Duck 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That article has very few links to it (mostly from user pages and WP error pages). If it's out of date, likely to remain so, and does no more than (badly) duplicate what Category:Philippines tries to do, it should probably be de-linked from those articles which reference it and Afd'd. It may (certainly could, with minor editing) qualify for speedy deletion as {{db-nocontent}} Comments? If not, I'll ask on its talk page if there is any opposition to getting rid of it? -- Boracay Bill 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what to do with it. The primary purpose of that thing is to track related changes. I haven't used that article either to track changes. --Howard the Duck 02:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I re-edited this section to fis my messed-up mention above of {{db-nocontent}}. Since I'm here, I'llalso mention that I intend to go ahead and propose deletion of that article on its talk page. -- Boracay Bill 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. If I may add, there is a President of the Philippines article completely different with the Presidents of the Philippines redirect. --Howard the Duck 06:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate contributions from other editors to help solve this dispute. I am arguing that mentioning Mexico is perfectly adequate in the following sentence, because it is the place where the Philippines was governed from for over 2 centuries. And "Mexico" is the modern name of the country, so it is OK to use it, and there is no need for further explanations (about the gobernaciones). Any of the following should be fine:

If you'd want Mexico to be mentioned, it's already mentioned when Legazpi arrived. No need to be redundant. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please. One thing is the origin of Legazpi's expedition. Another is the territory from which the Philippines was administered for over 2 centuries. They happen to be the same: Mexico. But they are two different events. Why this constant opposition to including Mexico? You don't like that particular part of Philippine history? JCRB 11:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, Mexico didn't rule, administer or govern the Philippines. Spain did. What is present-day Mexico and present-day Philippines was administered as one New Spain. For a country that did really do anything politically in the Philippines, it is mentioned four times in the article, by comparison, the "United States" is mentioned five times. --Howard the Duck 11:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the 3 options above implies that "Mexico ruled the Philippines". What is present-day Philippines was governed from, not by present-day Mexico. What is your problem with that? JCRB 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
For an "expert" such as you of course it wouldn't. For a newbie, it would imply as such. Also, the mention of New Spain/Mexico on arrival of Legazpi is more appropriate, since at that time = New Spain = Mexico + the Antilles. --Howard the Duck 15:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Even a "newbie" would understand "The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from present-day Mexico" JCRB 10:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. S/he can also interpret it as "present-day Mexico ruled the Philippines". --Howard the Duck 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And as I've said, the word Mexico is explained several times already, "too several" as a matter of fact. --Howard the Duck 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Why "too several"? I sense a bit of bias here. It seems you don't want the Philippines to be associated with Mexico for some reason. This is really going too far. I have made my point extensively and proved that "Mexico" is perfectly appropriate. I will look for other editors to solve this dispute. JCRB 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And I've made my point that even though it may be appropriate, it can be omitted. We don't list majority of the presidents here, so why does Mexico, which has really nothing to do with how the country was run during those days should be listed? And "Mexico" is mentioned in the article 4 times, for a country that has nothing to do with much of the history of the Philippines to be mentioned more than four times is a bit too much. I'd even remove remove the British Occupation bit since it can be omitted. --Howard the Duck 15:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Final Revised Suggestion

For the sake of moving forward in this endless discussion I have removed the word "Mexico" from that part of the text. I still think it should be included (it provides useful and relevant information in the paragraph on the colonial history) but for now I will accept not to include it. This is the previous version of the suggested 4th paragraph without "Mexico":

  • Spanish rule brought political unification to an archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar[3]. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. During that time new crops and livestock were introduced, and trade flourished. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco travelled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish [4]. JCRB 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Change "...before it was administered directly from Spain." to "before it was administered directly from Madrid." Having two "Spains" in the same sentence is bad. --Howard the Duck 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why quoting "Mexico" was necessary. It made clear that before the Philippines was governed from present-day Mexico, and later from mainland Spain. See? Now it is all confusing: "New Spain" and "Spain" in the same sentence, just because you obstinately want to exclude this word. JCRB 10:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No. It's semantics. Having two "Spains" in one sentence is bad. That's why people invented pronouns. Present-day Mexico has nothing to do with how the Philippines was governed. And New Spain can't be equated to Mexico, as I've explained before, even if Mexico composed 99.99% of New Spain. Changing New Spain to Mexico will give more questions than changing Spain to Madrid. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of pronouns here. Spain and New Spain are toponyms (try saying "Spain" and "New it"). But indeed using "New Spain" and "Spain" in the same sentence sounds "bad" as you put it, it is confusing. And present-day Mexico has everything to do with how the Philippines was governed. It is the territory it was administered from until 1821. JCRB 22:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No. As you've explained it, both present-day Mexico and the Philippines has the same hierarchy within New Spain so saying it was administered from New Spain is illogical. And saying "present-day Mexico has everything to do with how the Philippines was governed" is a stretch, Mexicans didn't govern the Philippines, the Spanish did. Did Mexico rule the colony? No. Did Mexico rule the Philippines. No, Mexico as a country didn't even exist yet, LOL. The most you can say about Philippine-Mexican relations during the colonial era was "Spain ruled present-day Mexico, Central America, the American Southwest and the Philippines as New Spain," to say anything else would be illogical. Now would saying "New Spain (Mexico)" be correct? No, as you've said, Philippines+present-day Mexico+American Southwest+Central America=New Spain, not Mexico=New Spain, that'll be oversimplification of facts. --Howard the Duck 10:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Mexico has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the Philippines are governed, and NEVER has. Philippines WAS governed by Spain NOT Mexico, there is a HUGE difference. The only country other than Spain, and the U.S.A. to basically govern the Philippines was Japan from 1941--1945. Oh and there has NEVER been a COUNTRY called New Spain. New Spain was a general name for places GOVERNED by SPAIN.Aladdin Zane 11:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheap ploy used by someone losing a debate. Even deleted a little before archiving.Aladdin Zane 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Well to answer your question, your question assumes that all countries are sovereign. It is not. Therefore, question cannot be answered. Happy now? If you still want to continue, I seriously suggest to do it on my talk page, NOT HERE. IT IS OFF-TOPIC ALREADY. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 14:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
LoL This is ON TOPIC Every history book and REAL encyclopedia gives governing power of Philippines to Spain then the United States. Not New Spain. This is the only place to try and say that.Also you finally admit you were wrong. Discussion ended.Aladdin Zane 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Philippines was governed by Spain via New Spain. It is even said that the Governor-General of the Philippines was more powerful than the King of Spain since he can do whatever he wants on the islands. This was gradually diminished when it was administered directly from Spain after Mexico regained independence.
And I must have proprs for answering a question that was wrong from the onset. --Howard the Duck 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thx for admitting again that you were wrong.Please let it end nowAladdin Zane 15:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Tnx for not trolling. --Howard the Duck 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Actually there was a country, or a colony called New Spain. It was Spanish possessions in most of North America+West Indies and the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said it, New Spain was NOT a COUNTRY is was a Name for colonies GOVERNED by SPAIN. There is a HUGE difference. New Spain was NOT a governing body. It was places governed by Spain.Aladdin Zane 12:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A country may be a state or a colony. For example, the Philippines was a country already even though it was a U.S. colony since it competed in the Olympics, same for Puerto Rico. Anyway, that's a discussion for political science and doesn't really involve this article as a whole. New Spain was a colony of Spain. A viceroyalty.--Howard the Duck 12:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
New Spain as I said was NOT a governing body. It was places GOVERNED by Spain. And what also said was it was never a COUNTRY, because it wasn't.Aladdin Zane 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
New Spain can also be considered as the government that controlled the places governed by Spain. So it can be a country. --Howard the Duck 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
LoL, now your trying to use semantics. Yes, countries can be governed other countries. But New Spain was NOT a country, It was a Name of viceroyalties Governed by Spain. You even keep saying it yourself "governed by Spain" your arguement makes NO sense.Aladdin Zane 13:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
New Spain was ONE viceroyalty. It was divided further into other political units. See the viceroy article. Also, you're confused with the terms, country, colony, state and nation. These 4 are not synonymous with each other. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I know they are not synonymous, you are the one trying to say they are. How many drugs are you own right now? Because you keep disagreeing with yourself.Aladdin Zane 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the drugs comment really necessary?
What I'm saying is New Spain can be considered as a country of the modern sense. --Howard the Duck 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was necessary, I took your side in the discussion, then you jumped to the other side. Then while in discussion with me you jumped sides against yourself, arguing with yourself. So it leads me to beleive either you are on something, or have multiple-personalities. New Spain was never a country.Aladdin Zane 13:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's never necessary. With that said, New Spain can be considered a country. I'm not saying it is (who am I to say that it is), but it can be considered as such. --Howard the Duck 13:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes it is necessary. To make you step back and realize what you were saying. Also it was a question not a statement. The U.S.A. did not become a country until 1776. When it was a viceroy of Britain it was not a country it was a viceroy. Same with New Spain it was a viceroyalty of viceroys of Spain, It was never a country. For it to have been established as a country Spain would have had to give it independence as it did with Mexico, thereby establishing Mexico as a country. It never did that to New Spain. New Spain was lead by a viceroy of The King of Spain. New Spain was NEVER self-governing or independent.Aladdin Zane 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It is NEVER, EVER necessary, at least here on Wikipedia. Also, making it as interrogatory statement is an easy way out to say "it's not a personal attack."
See, you're confusing "country" with "state." A state is a country that has sovereignty. A country may not be sovereign, such as Puerto Rico, or even Hong Kong. Nevertheless, this discussion is unnecessary for the development of this article. If you really insist, go to my user talk page. As what it stands, I'd like to state that "The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid." is a better statement. --Howard the Duck 13:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That is still semantics. If your dad tells your brother, to tell you to do something. You brother is not the one that told you what to do. Your dad is.Aladdin Zane 13:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It was ruled by Spain through New Spain. So it was ruled by Spain, NOT New Spain. Even though that is now said. I think it should remain the way it isAladdin Zane 13:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Also if New Spain was what you are trying to say. Then why did Mexico get its independence from Spain. And not New Spain?Aladdin Zane 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Countries colonize other countries. That simple. A country may not be independent and yet still be a country. You really are confused between a "state" and a "country" A state has people, government, territory and sovereignty. A country only has the first 3. I suppose if you really want to continue with this discussion, do so on my user talk page. I won't be replying to this "country-state" topic anymore here. --Howard the Duck 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Gentlemen, I do hope we can lower the tone of this discussion, which has been polite and (arguably) productive upto now. The problem with Howard's suggested sentence ("The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid.") is that it is unbalanced, let's say from an information point of view. If the sentence starts with "The Philippines was ruled as a territory of A" then it should finish with "before it was ruled as a territory of B". The alternative would be to start with: "The Philippines was ruled from A" and finish with "before it was ruled from B". But as it stands now, it is confusing. In other words, if you finish the sentence with "before it was administered directly from Madrid" then you should start with "The Philippines was ruled from Mexico City" or "The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from Mexico City". Hope I made myself clear. JCRB 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it will be confusing if you don't know that Madrid is Spain's capital - as a matter of fact, many people don't know the capitals of other countries so it can be a problem. Otherwise, it is pretty straightforward and is used in daily life, especially on matters of government. For example, if you're saying "The French government surrendered to the Axis powers after the...", you can rephrase that as "Paris surrendered to the Axis powers after the...". This is more prevalent when you talk of the EU; instead of "The European Union encouraged new members to...", you can say it as "Brussels encouraged new members to...". In this regard you can equate Mexico City as New Spain and Madrid as Spain, since you're talking about governments. --Howard the Duck 11:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Here is the final re-revised paragraph:
  • Spanish rule brought political unification to an archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar[5]. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid. During that time new crops and livestock were introduced, and trade flourished. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco travelled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish [6]. JCRB 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This should be fine now. Just change universal to public, Christianity to Roman Catholicism. Do you have a link for "Spanish military"? That'll be a good link. --Howard the Duck 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please no more changes. I agree to substituting "universal" with "public". But the term Christianity is better because it alternates with Roman Catholic. Otherwise it would read "Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Roman Catholicism" which is repetitive. Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity. JCRB 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that'll be fine for me. --Howard the Duck 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will include the final consensus paragraph. JCRB 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

The 3rd paragraph currently reads:

At the service of Spain, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his crew were the first Europeans to arrive in the archipelago in March 1521. Magellan was later killed in battle by indigenous warriors in Mactan Island on account of political conflicts with Lapu-Lapu. The beginnings of colonization started to take form when King Philip II of Spain (after whom the Philippines was named) ordered a successive expedition. The conquistador, Miguel López de Legazpi arrived from Mexico in 1565 and formed the first Spanish settlements in Cebu. In 1571 he established Manila as the capital of the new Spanish colony.[7]

I think that a couple of changes and additions would improve that. I suggest the following:

At the service of Spain, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his crew were the first Europeans to arrive in the archipelago in March 1521. Magellan was later killed in battle by indigenous warriors in Mactan Island on account of political conflicts with Lapu-Lapu. The beginnings of colonization started to take form when Antonio de Mendoza, the first Viceroy of New Spain, commissioned the expedition of Ruy López de Villalobos to the Philippines in 1542-1543. In 1565, the conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi arrived and formed the first Spanish settlements in Cebu. In 1571, Legazpi established Manila as the capital.[8]

The info for that change comes from the New Spain article, and I am presuming its correctness. One significant point of this change would be to attribute the commissioning of the 1542-1543 expedition to the New Spain viceroy instead of to King Phillip. The wikilinks to the pages for Mendoza and Villalobos are useful, as that voyage is discussed a bit on those pages. The elimination of the mention King Phillip in this paragraph would necessitate a change earlier on to explain the origin of the country's name.

Also, I've removed the description of the Philippines in 1571 as "the new Spanish colony". because, as I understand it from discussions above regarding the 4th paragraph, Spain had considered the Philippines to have been a province of New Spain for some time by 1571. I haven't seen the book cited at that point, and so don't know whether or not any of this might conflict with what that book says. -- Boracay Bill 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Although Spanish may have once been spoken in the Philippines, I'm unsure how easy it is to find someone who speaks conversational Spanish, a non-official language, there. This contrasts with: -the Maghreb, where French is widely spoken (except in Libya, a former Italian colony) -Israel, which has a sizeable Russian-speaking population, a consequence of immigration there from former Soviet republics 74.12.144.138 02:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) David, 02:30 GMT, 30 August 2007 (22:30 North American EDT, 29 August 2007)

It's the Spanish or Hispanic people that continually add those here and insists that Spanish is still a language are the ones doing that. --Howard the Duck 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Irregardless, all of the edits adding Spanish to the language part in the infobox came from people with an agenda of making Spanish as a "national language," so I'm still correct. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply: To: User:Howard the Duck, You seemed to have caused a racial conflict with other unknown user editors. Howard, being arrogant or showing a bias attitude, when someone doesn't agree with you, achieves' nothing. It will only make matters worst. This is my advice to you in your future edits in Wikipedia. I don't mean to intrigue in your business, but you should learn to Think before you talk. You shouldn't go around pointing fingers or attempt to blame an ethnic group just because you do not like what they are or agree with their opinions. You should also learn to developed a sense of respect towards your fellow wikieditors. People are intitled to their own opinions. Lets' all live in peace! Cheers!-- Gonzalo 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a pattern. Latin American anons will add "Spanish" the "official language" at the infobox, added "Republica de Filipinas" as a local name and several other Spanish/Latin American/Amerindian stuff which shouldn't be here. See also Talk:Spanish language. There's a pattern and the history log shows it. Ergo, it was OK and right for me to say those words. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, it's not Latin Americans but a Spanish IP it seems (This edit came from a Spanish IP. And they still have an agenda, I recently reverted Spanish language which added Philippines in the infobox there. --Howard the Duck 13:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Howard, Bakit ganon ka pare? Wala kanaman nang ebidencia? Mayabang ka pare!, Hindi yung ang solution. In my opinion you deserved to be harrased kasi parang sino ka mag kwintohan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.220.72 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Howard or should I say Jericho!, Walang agenda ang manga tao dito, E kao ang mai agenda sa kastila. You make every thing a big deal!, AHh totoo' yan diba? Olol ka Howard! Utak mo parang bata!, sentimentalista ka ba or bakla ka ba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Howard or should I say Jericho, your a good editor, but geesh pare, your so sentimenalist when it comes to a disagreement. It's really gay how you easily get upset when someone doesn't agree with you. Have some sense of humour pare, Para kang serious type na tao. Your so weird Jericho!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Howard or should i say Jericho the nurse, also known as the crawler! Filipinos are so sentimentalist, easily heart broken. Come to think of it; it's kind of funny. Have some pride! Stand up straight, don't be a dick or a show-off and be proud of who you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
G'day mate! Makakatawa ka Howard!... Your one weird funny editor. By the way, this pointing fingers issue is so boring and full of crap. Move on and get over it. It's not a big deal...Cheers mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.130.111 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Mate, Howard hasn't replied to your last 5 replies. It is you who's not moving on, lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.91.27 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It won't be easy to dis/prove that these anon editors are among those who have an agenda in promoting Spanish as one of the official languages of the Philippines; remember that anon IP edits may come from shared IP addresses (for example, in an Internet cafe). However, for the record, the Philippine Constitution explicitly states that Filipino and English are considered the two official languages of the Philippines, and both the Spanish and Arabic languages were mentioned as the two auxilliary languages in the government's official communications. Two reasons for this: 1. Arabic is used by our Muslim brethren in the South, and 2. aside from the fact that there is, indeed, a minority of Spanish-speaking Filipinos, some legal documents (especially the pre-WW II ones) were written in Spanish. --- Tito Pao 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Philippine' and 'Philippines'

I propose that we create disambiguation pages for 'Philippine' and 'Philippines,' the links to which will go on the top of the page, just like the set-up in the Canada article. Thoughts? --- Dakilang Isagani 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
  2. ^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
  3. ^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
  4. ^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
  5. ^ Joaquin, Nick. 1988. Culture and History: Occasional Notes on the Process of Philippine Becoming. Solar Publishing, Metro Manila
  6. ^ US Country Studies: Education in the Philippines
  7. ^ Kurlansky, Mark. 1999. The Basque History of the World. Walker & Company, New York. ISBN 0-8027-1349-1, p. 64
  8. ^ Kurlansky, Mark. 1999. The Basque History of the World. Walker & Company, New York. ISBN 0-8027-1349-1, p. 64
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines/Archive_8&oldid=1137083818"