Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Archive 1

Merge
Please comment(violently or otherwise) at WP:TAMBAY.--Jondel 02:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[bleep] ina, pareho ra ta tanan, kung dili ta magkahi-usa wala tay kapaingnan! mao nang cge ra ta ug away kay di ta magkasinabot

 * Bay, ang paghiusa dili nagpasabot sa pagkapareho. Unity does not mean uniformity. And wikipedia is not the place to promote whatever you want to promote. It just documents verifiable facts. The fact documented here is that the Philippines is comprised of several ethnic groups... what's so bad about that?

I think this is getting rediculous
I know Philippines has a lot of ethnic people but Ithink this is rediculous. Does that mean every country, we have to inclue every race?

Come on. Italian Filipinos? Formosans? THis is rediculous. Including an ethnic people with a population of 100 or less. I strongly question about this page.


 * Exactly. Please see the Tambay link above. I will try to merge but the task is a bit large.--Jondel 01:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps European mestizos and Europeans should be merged under “Europeans and their Descendants” or similar, then from there we elaborate. Having Filipino Italians mentioned in the Mestizo part and then later in the Europeans part is a bit redundant and, at least for me, confusing.
 * I've just finished reading the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines. I'm sorry, this is beyond a JOKE!!! Has anyone read the statistics and cr*p written under the section on Jews? Where has that, and everything else in this article been researched? From what bin has this rubbish been found and attempted to be recycled - and at the failure of recycling has instead been turned into an article on Wikipedia? Who is responsible???? Demographics of the Philippines has been mutilated.


 * To Jondel, I know I haven't been to the Philippines pages in a little while, and I am appalled to see what has happened in my absence. Were you aware of how the pages were spiralling into garbage? Al-Andalus 00:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC).


 * I want to attempt to merge with Demographics . We have too many articles on demographics and ethnic groups, 2 demographic articles plus this ethno groups. But this is tooo much work, uuggghh. I wish we had one authoritive Demographics of the P. article. The Demographics/Mexican/Mestizo themes are overrated. Well, if it really is encyclopedic and helpful, well and good. --Jondel 01:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of garbage and it is ridiculous!! --Warays still practise witch craft!! -- What??!!! I don't know if I should delete this or just Vfd the whole thing.--Jondel 01:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh what the f***, I 'll start working on this. *Warays practise witchcraft* sheesh! How about UFOs and aliens?--Jondel 01:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the POV and clean-up tags... I think the article has reached some level of objectivity and quality: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines&oldid=42479481 --Nino Gonzales 14:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Ancestry Percentage
(Please see discussion page for more information) > The reason why the Filipinos here only amount to 75% is that the Mestizos, such as Chinese and SPanish-FIlipinos, would be co[unted as CHinese and Spanish, respectively. Filipinos are Austronesians because they came from Southern China to Taiwan (they are not Malays, for Malays are just part of the Austronesians). SOme are Indonesians. The term Indonesians here refer to the Nesiots, ot semi-Caucasoid people such as those residing in SUmatra island (the Bataks). OUr hill tribes descended from them. They are the Indones in ourn Elementary and High School textbooks. Now, for the Papuans, they are the Negritos. Included wirth the Papuans are the Australoid-Sakais.


 * Filipino: Austronesian (50%)
 * Filipino: Indonesian and Papuan (30%)
 * Chinese: Fukienese/Min Nan (9%)
 * Chinese: Cantonese/Yueh (1%)
 * Indo-Aryan: Indian and Pakistanis (5%)
 * Americans (3%)
 * Spaniard: Castilian and Catalan (2%)
 * Arab (1%)
 * Japanese and Okinawan (1%)
 * Other European: British, Italian, Irish, Polish, German, French (1%)

For the love of all that is dear!!!
Indo-Aryans 5% + Americans 3% + Spaniards 2% + Arabs 1% + non-Spaniard Europeans 1% = 12% caucasoid. Where did all this bullsh*t statistic come from. Whose orifice has it been pulled out of? Twelve percent of the entire Filipino population is NOT caucasoid! Remember that when speaking of a population which is close to 90 million, 1% on its own signifies close to 1 million people. As I said, there ARE NOT 12 million caucasoids in the Philippines. Who created this page? What on earth happened to the article Demographics of the Philippines, it was mutilated!!! And so was the demographics section in the Philippines article. Al-Andalus 00:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC).
 * From the Dorling Kindersley World Reference Atlas 1998 Edition as well as from other historical books published in the Philippines like Zaide and anthropological books written by H. Otley Beyer.

Chinese Mestizos
I just wanna know the source where you got the information on the number of Chinese Mestizos.. It said here, they are 1 million. I wanna verify if the "Chinese Mestizos" ONLY refers to those who are EXACTLY half Chinese.

It says here that 10% of Filipinos have Chinese ancestry, making the Chinese mestizo population at around 10 million, and on another article here on wikipedia, it said that up to 20% of Filipinos have Chinese anscestry, and in this article, it said that 50% of Filipinos have traces of Chinese blood.

And then, on the first paragraph on this article, it said that 95% are Filipinos.

Granting that 95% are indeed Filipinos, does the 95% include the assimilated people of non-Filipino descent? and the rest of the 5% would usually refer to those who are not well-assimilated or those who are still culturally distinctive as non-Filipino. I studied in the Philippines for 2 years and I happen to come across a lot of who are of Chinese descent and I attest that many of them behave like the ethnic-Filipinos.

Sorry to say, but the different pages on the demographics of the Philippines seem very incoherent. I mean, here, it says that the Chinese-mestizos are at around 2%, but when look at the other demographic pages, it says that the mestizos, in whole, are 2% of the population.

"Chinese mestizos are those in the Philippines of mixed Chinese and either Filipino or Spanish (or both) ancestry. They make up about another 2% of the country's total population"

"While ethnic Filipinos constitute the bulk of the population (95%), there do exist other foreign minority groups (excluding the Chinese, Spaniards and their mestizos), but all combined they constitute less than 1%. The Chinese (including Chinese-mestizos) are the most significant foreign ethnic minority and alone consitute just under 3 percent, and Spaniards (including Spanish-mestizos) account for close to 2 percent."

"Mestizos, (in Filipino, Mestiso or Mistiso): Filipinos of mixed race. They form a tiny but economically and politically important minority. Recent statistics indicate that the combined number of all types of mestizos constitute no more than 2% of the entire Filipino population. Mestizos in the Philippines may be of any race combination or ratio. Most Filipino mestizos are of the following mixtures; Filipino-Spanish/Mexican, Filipino-Chinese, Filipino-American or Filipino-Japanese."

" The combined number of all types of mestisos constitute no more than 2% of the entire Filipino population. Of that 2%, less than half are of the Spanish variety"

The articles about the demographics of the Philippines is very incoherent. Or maybe, these are the mestizos(and those who are not native Filipinos) who are not assimilated to the mainstream?

PS: Can you give a link to where you got the number estimates of the Chinese Mestizos? I wouldn't question the number of those of Chinese descent since it's similar to other websites, but as for the Chinese-mestizos, it's really doubtful. I find it quite unfair to distinguish the Chinese as "Foreign Minorities" since as an observation, the Chinese are somewhat assimilated.

Why can you just write a wide estimate like 5-60% or 'difficult to determine'

Why Always 'Physically Indistinguishable'?
Why put that 'Malaysians and Filipinos are physically indistinguishable?'. Its' synonymous to saying that Chinese are physically indistinguishable to Koreans and to Japanese, and that Filipinos are indeed Malays. Filipinos aren't indistinguishable from Malaysians- you can see it clearly, even phenotypically-there are so many Filipinos out there who have white skin, as contrasted to the Malays, who are for the most part brown skinned. Furthermore, the faces of Filipinos tend to veer toward the Mongoloid (Chinese, if you must say), whereas the Malaysians look like Dravidians and other Indochinese. This has been confirmed by the genetic study in the article Demographics of the Philippines, where according to it, there is an even higher frequency of Filipinos having Chinese genes (about 53%) (It is colored red in the pie chart) than Malay/Formosan genes (colored Pink).

Sorry but Malaysians are not just Malays. 33% of its people are Chinese and 10% are Indian as well. There are many caucasian decent. Your explanation about Malaysians are wrong. It is more multicultural than Philippines.
 * What I mean regarding the word 'Malaysians' are the ethnic Malays.

What I mean regarding the word 'Malaysians' are the ethnic Malays.

I think their both EQUALLY multicultural.

Plan
Hi. If no one complains, I plan to do the following when I have the time:

Principles:
 * Proportionality. Larger (e.g., Tagalogs) or significant (Chinese commercially, Spanish historically) should get more space than almost invisible minorities like Indonesians or Malaysians
 * Filipino is beyond ethnicity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity)

Outline
 * Intro (broad description)
 * History (move from Demographics of the Philippines)
 * Check with sources, put references
 * Ethnic groups (north to south? for each group: size; location; language/s; culture; some special thing about them… e.g., commercial role of the Chinese; a picture of a member of that ethnicity)
 * Ilokano (pic of Marcos)
 * Kapangpangan (pic Arroyo?)
 * Pangasinense (pic of Ramos)
 * Tagalog (pic of Rizal)
 * Bikolano (Raul Roco)
 * Bisaya (Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Waray, etc.) (Pedro Calungsod)
 * Moro (A datu)
 * Mountainfolk (Igorot, Lumad, etc.) (a Negrito, a Lumad in traditional garb)
 * Chinese, Chinese mestiso (Lucio Tan and Kris Aquino)
 * Spanish, Spanish Mestiso (An Ayala and a mestiso actor)
 * Other minorities (American, Koreans, South Asians, etc)

Please join the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines#Clean-up --Nino Gonzales 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uma Khouny
Calling anyone an "Israelite" is a bit...outdated. Check out the Israelite article for an explanation of that.

POV and Clean-up tags
I placed a POV tag on the article because it seems that:
 * It is written from a Pilipino racial nationalist POV, based on its categorization of ethnicities; on what it deems to be “Filipino” and “foreign”
 * It is written from a Tagalog/Manila-centric POV, based on its selection of information to include for each ethnicity

I also placed a improvement tag since: --Nino Gonzales 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is too long
 * There are too many controversial claims without any reference
 * The POV issues

I have removed the tags... I hope I'm not doing this too soon...--Nino Gonzales 14:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block:Limited to registered users only
Due the controversy associated, frequent reverts and as requested, editing this article will be limited to and prioritize registered users.--Jondel 04:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Article
This was discussed in Tambay. Some agreed. Others did not react. No one opposed. --Nino Gonzales 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proportionality
More prominent ethnicities should get more space. If people want more data, they could always go to the main articles.
 * The Tagalogs, Kapampangans, etc. should get their own sections (due to their size and visibility)
 * The Filipinos of Chinese and Spanish ancestries should also get sections due to their prominence in Philippine history.
 * I’d collapse Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, South Asians into 2 sentences. Maybe give 3 or 4 to Americans due to their influence in Filipino culture. And maybe 1 for the Japanese because of the war. If people want more details, they could always go to the pages of Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. in the Philippines

Brevity
Limit inclusion of data to those which are most significant.
 * I would limit this to language, size, location, and something unique about them (e.g., the Ilocano’s reputation of having the tendency for migration)
 * Budgeted outline
 * Intro (1 paragraph)
 * History (5 to 10 paragraphs)
 * The different ethnic groups intro (5 sentences)
 * Ilocano (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Pangasinense (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Kapampangan (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Tagalog (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Bicolano (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Bisaya (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Moro/Muslim Filipinos (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Tribal groups (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Chinese, Chinese mestizo (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Spanish, Spanish mestizo (2-3 paragraphs)
 * Other minorities (one paragraph with maybe a couple of sentences about the influence of American culture)

Collapse when you can

 * The Bisaya can be lumped together (why not?). Highlight the Cebuano, Waray-Waray and Hiligaynon speakers by noting that they are the biggest ethnolinguistic groups with Bisaya ancestry.
 * The Moros/Muslim Filipinos could also be discussed in one section
 * The tribal groups could also be in one section.
 * I would include Chinese mestisos in the Chinese section and Spanish mestisos in the Spanish section. If you include them in the other sections (there are Tagalog-Chinese, Bisaya-Chinese, Waray-Spanish, Kapampangan-American), you’d have to repeat it in every section.

Controversial claims should be backed-up by generally trusted sources
Here are the sources I was planning to use:
 * Agoncillo for the objective things (the what and the when)
 * Nick Joaquin for the subjective things (e.g., what it means to be Filipino, the influence of the Chinese, Spanish and Americans)
 * CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art for the data on each ethnicity
 * A few other papers and books to fill whatever gaps there are from the above

Follow convention
Use commonly used terms and divisions
 * In outline proposal 1, the division is based on 2 very mainstream books: Agoncillo’s History of the Filipino People and Nick Joaquin’s Culture and History.
 * Discussion on terms below

Terms
There are different definition. I admit that some define Filipino in terms of race, but I don’t know of any mainstream scholar who defines Filipino in terms of race. Agoncillo and Nick Joaquin does NOT define Filipino in terms of race. I suggest we avoid defining it; neither explicitly nor implicitly (through some sort of segregation). If we insist in defining it, the several generally accepted POV’s should be represented.
 * Filipino

From its wikipedia article, it does not (only) mean race, or linguistic grouping
 * Ethnicity


 * Ok! Pero, American (120.000), South Asian (50,000), and Korean (22,000) are very large enough to warrant their own section. Do you think so?
 * If the major ethnic groups get a section and they are in the millions (even the "full blooded" Chinese are in the millions), maybe ethnicities in the hundred thousands or ten thousands could get subsections in a "minorities" section... or get several sentences... particularly the Americans due to their role in Filipino history, or South Asians due to some Hindu influence in Filipino culture, or to Koreans who have lately been very visible due to English schools and Koreonovelas... how does that sound? --Nino Gonzales 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Level of detail
If we want to make this article quick and crisp, I think we need to select what are the most important details we would want to include. I think all ethnicities should have the following details:
 * location
 * Maybe better to make it broad (e.g., Ilocanos are the inhabitants of the lowlands and coastal areas of northern Luzon. vs. The Ilocano are found in the original Ilocano provinces of Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, La Union)


 * language/s and number of speakers
 * religion

And for specific ethnicities
 * Ilocano
 * tendency to migrate
 * presence in Hawaii
 * Philippine Independent Church


 * Kapampangan
 * The Tagalog-Kapampangan role during the Spanish era
 * reliable soldiers of the Spanish colony


 * Tagalog
 * Manila
 * The national language
 * Role in Philippine history


 * Bisaya
 * The largest are the speakers of Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray-Waray
 * Bisaya vs. Binisaya


 * Moro
 * The largest groups: Tausug, Maguindanao, Maranao
 * Unconquered by Spanish
 * Continuing struggle for various degrees of self-determination?


 * Tribal groups
 * Coldillera, Palawan, Mindanao hilltribes
 * Least influenced by Islamic, Christian, Hispanic and American cultures


 * Chinese
 * Commercial role
 * Chinese mestizo role in the development of the Filipino nation


 * Spanish
 * Christianity
 * Cultural influence
 * A lot of mestizos in former agriculture centers, showbiz?

What do you think?--Nino Gonzales 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Austonesian AGAIN!!!
This erroneous use of Austronesian in any other context than a linguistic one must STOP TODAY! People keep on asserting in the article "the Austronesian waves from southern China and Taiwan" (fair enough), the Indonesian Orang Bandjar that came later and intermarried which the article found the need to stress were also "Austronesian". The assertion that the Austronesian migrants displaced the Aeta Negrito (True enough that they did), but the Negrito Aeta ARE also AUSTRONESIANS!!! They speak Agta, an Austronesian language.

In fact, there is no indigenous Filipino language or group (whether they be the first wave, second or third and most important wave from which the bulk of Filipinos belong to) that isn't Austonesian. From the Negrito Aeta, to the Orang Dampuan, Tagalogos, Visayans, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They are ALL so-called "Austronesians"

I'm am going to propose a BAN on the use of "Austronesian" on Wikipedia on anything other than in linguistic context (it's only context). Al-Andalus 12:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Sure. Btw, for conciseness and proportionality's sake, I am removing the mestizo and foreign ethnic groups sections. I'll also remove the "ethnic Filipino" section. (This proposal has been around for more than a week and no one opposed). Instead of these sections, how about one for chinese/mestizo, spanish/mestizo and a section of the rest of the minorities. How does that sound? If you don't agree with this, I would be great if we could discuss the best way to improve this article.--Nino Gonzales 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No! Negrito Aeta ARE NOT Austronesians. They speak an Austronesian language, but they are not Austronesians. Negritos are akin to the Andamanese islanders, and they have an extinct language called Katabaga. Why ban the use of the term Austronesian? If you refer to 'Indo-Europeans' to Indians and Europeans, why not use Austronesian?--User:Matthgewprc 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Khouny" doesn't seem like a Jewish name
But of course I might be wrong. But while one need not doubt Uma Khouny's Israeli ancestry, one has to ask whether it is Jewish or Arab. 210.213.179.34 11:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And what exactly is a Jewish name to you? Steinberg? Rosenberg? Weizmann? Those are German names, donned by Ashkenazi Jews. "Ashkenazi" is Hebrew for German person, and the term applies to all other European Jews who then moved on to populate other parts of Europe (except Spain and Portugal, which was populated by Sephardim; Hebrew for Spanish people).


 * Khouny may well be a Mizrahi or Teimani surname. Teimani are Jews from Yemen or Oman, and Mizrahim are Jews indigenous to other Arab countries and Iran. So they may have Arab surnames, as one would expect "Arab Jews" to have. Abdullah Youssef doesn't sound very "Jewish" (if by Jewish you wrongly equate Ashkenazi), yet he is Jewish, just not an Ashkenazi. He is an Iraqi Jew and was the Chief Rabbi of Israel.


 * In any case, Uma could be a non-Jewish Arab, so I guess we'll have to verify that. What is certain is that he is Israeli-born to an Israeli father and Filipina mother. Al-Andalus 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC).


 * He does not have Filipino blood! He was just adopted by his supposed Filipina mother. Hence, he is a true Middle Easterner. -- User:MAtthewprc

Ivatan and Ibanag
Could anyone add a portion for the Ivatans, Ibanag and other related groups. There are highly underrepresented for a people of almost a million. - Isao
 * How does putting them under tribal groups sound? Maybe noting that Ivatans are Christians... we might also have to do that for the Igorots of the Coldirrieras... many of them, it seems, have embraced Episcopalianism...--Nino Gonzales 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I doubt their culture is tribal since it is more related to the Ilocanos, which are lowland. Could you expand the tribal groups section to show the different characteristics of the peoples included. Maybe a sentence for each group. Also, could you add Negritos. Thank you! :) - Isao
 * Hey, maybe you could help out... just create an account...--Nino Gonzales 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The migration from Taiwan could be earlier than 300 BCE since Polynesia was also being populated at around the same time, according to the Polynesia wiki. The formation of the numerous Austronesian languages could't happen in a year, could it? -Isao(...--Isao)