Talk:History of the Philippines

Major Problem
As a trained historian I can tell you that this page has a major problem. It doesn't understand what history is. History is the study of human past through written records (inscriptions, documents and literature). It is the study of change through a humanistic (subjective) epistemological lens, since objective human experience is not much different than those of chimpanzees or orangutans.

History, then, cannot be "607,000" years old in the Philippines. What you mean to say is that "evidence for presence of proto-human life has been found dating to..."

But you cannot use the word "history" for that period. The reason why we historiographically call the period of civilization "history" and pre-civilization "pre-history" is because the people before the invention of writing cannot tell us by themselves who they believed they were.

Therefore, history begins roughly 5500 years ago (ergo Hebrew calendar is year 5780) when writing with a proper ductus begins in Mesopotamia, and after that we have records of humans who were able to tell their story (the logos) and tell us who they were.

Everything before roughly 3500 BCE is thus pre-history, and is subject to speculation. Modern humans only emerge roughly 200,000 years ago, so the population of proto-human who lived on the Philippines 607,000 years ago is NOT related to the modern humans, and certainly not the anatomically modern humans who emerged some 25,000 years ago.

You can see how by your overzealousness who combat against the idea that stems from personal insecurity rather than anything any genuine scholar would ever believe, you inadvertently prove the opposite of what you intend - the intention is to demonstrate a continuity of culture of the Philippines as being ancient and thus stand on its own as a legitimate civilization of the islands before European arrival, but instead, if you're alleging that the population today has continuity of existence with the people from 607,000 years ago, you're saying that the Philippinos are a different human species than the other modern humans.

Be careful what you write and how you write it.

"Evidence of some habitation by a species related to humans in the Philippines has been found dating to a period of ...."

But it cannot be "history of the Philippines" - as history requires the continuity of social, political and urban organization together with writing. Oral history is fine, but it's very problematic and unreliable, so history in the Philippines begins when writing is introduced, and not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiaantiqua (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This bothered me, too, as soon as I saw the page, this first sentence. History is commonly defined as what we have written records of. In Philippines, this is between 500 and 1000 years ago. Philippines has extensive prehistory, and simply changing the opening sentence to "The prehistory of the Philippines is known to have begun..." would be an improvement.

Drsruli (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

British Rule
The recent vandalism of this section by $antander has been reversed.

Although the British only occupied Manila and Cavite and some small areas around, the British controlled Manila Bay and the government. After the short siege of Manila, the Spanish government of the Philippines surrendered and formally ceded the whole of the Philippines to the British.

Legally, the British ruled the Philippines, even though the only oidor outside Manila, Don Simon Anda y Salazar, was very active in Pangasinan resisting British occupation.

It might be considered an unhappy fact that the British managed to take over the government of the Philippines from the Spanish. And although it was only for about 18 months, and in the context of the Seven Years War, it nevertheless is a very relevant fact for Philippines history.

Gubernatoria (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The even more recent vandalism by $antander has again been reversed for the following reasons: 1. The Spanish Navy was not defeated. Spanish land forces were defeated. 2. Arandia was the Royal Governor of the Philippines, not commander of the Spanish Navy wherever. 3. The archbishop was Lieutenant Governor, not Lieutenant general. 4. Not all parts of what is now called the Philippines was under Spanish rule. Only the Spanish Philippines were Spanish. The Sultanate of Sulu, for instance, was not under Spanish rule, but is now part of the Philippines. 5. Archbishop Rojo was acting governor of the Philippines, not just Manila. He surrendered the whole of the Spanish Philippines to the British. 6. Spanish Rule devolved to the British by written terms of the Spanish surrender. 7. The British legally ruled the (Spanish) Philippines by right of conquest and the Spanish terms of surrender. These facts are referenced and available in the cited passages. The recent edits by $antander are unreferenced, and some are plainly nonsensical.

Gubernatoria (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * $antander, has once more vandalised the British Rule section. He has once more changed all the dates from British format to US format. The British format was the original format for this section of the article, so $antander is in breach of wikipedia language guidelines. Do not do it again $antander or you will be reported for multiple vandalism. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

$antander, changed the caption for the Spanish Battle standard to read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine Islands. Prior to his edit the caption read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine standard. The Cross of Burgundy was on the flag NOT on the country. His edit was nonsensical. But today he again changed the caption and justified it by saying ''the flag was the coat of arms of the entire islands. philippines was new spain.'' Anyone who looks up New Spain in wikipedia will see that the Philippines was NEVER New Spain. Is this multiple vandalism or just utter carelessness by $antander ? Gubernatoria (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At 02:19, 2 December 2008 $antander again vandalised the article. He has been repeatedly warned.  Since this is a repeated violation for the same thing, after repeated warnings, I request administration to bar him from editing this article again. Administration is also invited to consider all his other recent "corrections" in light of this latest action. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At 06:17, 2 December 2008 $antander once again vandalised the article. He has been informed that wikipedia policy is not to change the original version of english from British to US, or vice versa. His 'corrections' imply the British standard of the original contribution (by me) is wrong. This is contrary to wikipedia policy as I understand it. He has been notified of this but persists in his repeated vandalism, and insists he has not breach wikipedia policy. He has been reported for vandalism but is still persisting. Would an administrator please intervene. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the governing consideration here should be consistency throughout the article. See WP:ENGVAR (particularly the Consistency within articles and the Strong national ties to a topic subsections there) and MOSNUM (particularly the Format consistency subsection there). Overall, this article has, IMHO, stronger national ties to America than to Britain&mdash;arguing for standardization on American vs. British standards of spelling and date formatting. A separate article on British rule in the Philippines (1762-1764) might be argued to have stronger ties to Britain. A differently-slanted article on The Philippines under British rule (1762-1764) might be argued to lack those ties. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Boracay Bill, dates in Philippine-related articles should be in US format. TheCoffee (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Philippine History Page And All Associated Articles need a Radical Overhaul
It's the New Year and tons of new historical states and various archeological findings have been discovered about the Philippines recently, pushing the limits and breaking molds of traditional information. This new information is suddenly and haphazardly inserted to a structural framework that doesnt sync with it at all! This renders the current version of Philippine history moot and outdated. It's time for a radical overhaul.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Issues in the Philippine-American War section
The enlarged illustrations appear to have been intentionally superimposed to give an impression that America was the most cruel colonial power in the Philippines -a common Anti-American mantra or hate campaign among communists in the Philippines. You cannot see the same tenor towards Spain and Japan here in this article. Spanish and Japanese atrocities are at most described at a minimum. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed misleading and irrelevant image that properly belongs to another article
The image portraying Jacob H. Smith's order is quiet problematic. First, it is misleading as it tends to project to the reader that killing children was the official and prevailing U.S. policy at that time, which is not. The alleged order only came from the mouth of a single officer and purports to a single incident which was never officially sanctioned nor given any official approval. This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent to the alleged events, court martial proceedings were directed against those who committed the alleged acts. Second, the image is irrelevant because nowhere in the text of the section is the incident specifically described. Furthermore, an article has already been written for that purpose (Balangiga massacre). It is there where the image should find utmost relevance. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The image was restored in this edit with an edit summary of "Restore image. No consensus for removal." I don't see any tie-in for the image content in the prose of this section. A smaller-sized version of this image is present in Philippine–American War, which is linked as a main article in this section. I think that the inclusion of this image there is much more appropriate than the inclusion here. Given the brevity of the summary style Philippine-American War section prose in this article, I think that the inclusion of the image here gives undue weight to its content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Wtmitchell. Images must be reflective of what the section says. Since the section purports to be a summary of the Philippine American War, images used must be descriptive of that summary. In this particular case, it is not. Rather, it only points to a single incident which does not reflect the over-all nature of the war itself.  It misleads the reader into thinking, that killing children above ten years old was the general and over-all direction of the war. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we now have a consensus? To other editors, comments are invited. If nobody objects in the next 7 days, I'll take the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter and proceed to remove the image accordingly. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Therebeing no additional points raised, I'm taking the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter. I shall proceed to remove the subject image. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion. Let's talk.
I've reverted this edit, which had an edit summary of "Removed out of context, irrelevant racist ramblings against Spain and added President McKinley's statements". The edit may have some merit, but it has been applied too boldly and with too much POV. Let's talk about which of the removed ramblings are racist and how so, which ones are perceived to have been taken out of context, and in what context they should be considered.

Also, re the McKinley statement, I'll point out that the context in which it was delivered, prior to the beginning of the Spanish-American War, was as follows: "Of the untried measures there remain only: recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recognition of the independence of Cuba; neutral intervention to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contestants, and intervention in favor of one or the other party. I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That by our code of morality would be criminal aggression."

That statement was later lifted out of context and applied to the developing situation in the Philippines (as e.g., here), and pointing out its relevance in the context of the U.S. acquisition of the Philippines (annexation is too strong a word here, and cession, though technically accurate, is probably too soft) may have some merit, but the context needs to be preserved and the application of a statement from another context here explained&mdash;lifting the statement out of context and slapping it into the lead section of the article without explanation is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. The statement came to this article via a source which routinely disregards historical context and demonizes U.S. actions in the Philippine-American War (some of which actions, admittedly, richly deserve demonization).

This is an encyclopedia article, not a position paper on one point of view about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys regarding this bit of history. As William Tecumseh Sherman observed twenty years or so prior to the Philippine-American War, "War is Hell".

Apologies for the bluntness of the above, but I am pushed for time at the moment and did not want to rush off to other things and leave this unaddressed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Wtmitchell


 * You are partly right in your observations. And I most apologize for having made just a single huge edit instead of several that are easier to revert on a single basis. I will now divide the edits into several entries, so they are easier to pinpoint.


 * OK, Let's talk.


 * First of all, the Philippines were unified for the first time ever under Spanish rule. Prior to that there was no Philippines as such. No one can argue that.


 * Second, to speak of smallpox, venereal disease, leprosy etc as one of the contributions made by the Spanish would be like crediting the malaria pandemic that killed over 200000 Filipinos during the American-Filipino War as an US contribution. Besides, neither smallpox, venereal disease or leprosy were that prominent in the Philippines as to make them worth of being slapped into the lead section of the article. Same goes for wars of aggression with firearms, deforestation, tribute, alienation of land, forced migration, heavy taxes. The Philippines were largely unprofitable for Spain. Spain actually put in more resources than it took away.


 * Third, to say "Universal education was never a Spanish objective in the Philippines." would be untrue. Universal education was made free for all Filipino subjects during the second part of the 19th century and remained so until the end of the Spanish colonial era.


 * Fourth, the American-Filipino war left a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians. There's ample documentation on these numbers. Failing to mention this genocide that killed more than 10% of the population from the article would be irresponsible and totally unencyclopedic.


 * Fifth, Rizal was wrongly accused of implication in the outbreak of the revolution. No need to discuss that, it is a well known fact.


 * As for the McKinley statements, I believe they should be included, as they reflect the US position at the time. I will wait for your wise advice to point me in the right direction as to where to include them, as I'm sure you will agree, that being the official statements of the President of United States on the matter, they ought to be considered as 100% relevant to the topic.


 * Rafael Minuesa (talk) 13 April 2010

Thanks for your response. I'm not an academic, but I do have a strong interest in this topic with a focus on the 1898-1946 period. I'm currently in the middle of a house move and my books are packed. I see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, at least as a logged-in editor. and I've left a comment on your talk page. Please take the time to read that before reading this further.

I agree with your first point above, noting that it says "under Spanish Rule". Whether that amounts to "Spanish rule achieved the political unification" your edited version or "Spanish rule unsuccessfully attempted to achieve the political unification" (the pre-edit version) depends on what "political unification" is taken to mean. If it is taken to mean colonial subjugation, you're right. I don't know what, if anything, the supporting source currently cited in that lede paragraph has to say about that, but I think that chapter one of generally supports it.

Re your second point, I agree that the details you have removed did not belong in the lede. I would point out, though, that this snippet from the cited supporting source does seem to show that the removed material is supportable.

Re your third point, I can't take the time now to research the development of the educational system under Spanish rule and, as I daid, my books are packed. From what I recall, I think that it is reasonable to say that little or no formal educational system existed in pre-Spanish times, and that there was a formal system in place, probably largely Church-based, by Spanish-American War times. That war and the Philippine-American War which followed pretty well destroyed that system, and the Taft Commission built up a new educational system to replace it.

Re your fourth point, Content-wise I agree. I would point out that this is a summary style article, generally presenting an overview of topics covered in more detail in other articles. As such, it is important that the overview presented here generally agree with the details presented in the more topic-specific articles. You flatly state that civilian casualties numbered over a million, and cite sources which presumably support that. However sources disagree on that figure, and it is not appropriate for individual WP editors to cherrypick which POVs to present. Philippine–American War gives, I think, a balanced presentation but too much detail for this article. Perhaps, in "... leaving a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians.", the word "of" would be better replaced with something like "estimated by some as".

Re your fifth point, I think "implicated" here is the wrong word, and it should be "wrongly accused of involvement".

As to McKinley's statements, my understanding is that the statement, "by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression" specifically referred to Cuba, not to the Philippines. I tried to make that clear in my requote above, but I see that in my haste I botched the link to supporting material. The link should have pointed here. I've removed your reinsertion of that McKinley quote and inserted a cn tag following "... since the American government had reassured the Filipino rebels that the U.S. was interested only in defeating Spain and, in the process, helping the Filipinos gain their independence." Please take a look at History of the Philippines (1898–1946) and the supporting sources cited there.

I've also reverted your change of "Filipinos initially saw their relationship ..." to "Filipinos initially were lead to believe that their relationship ..." back to the earlier wording. That wording was supported by a cited supporting source and, though I haven't seen the source I'm doubtful that it supports such a substantial change and the former wording fits better with the more detailed information in the more topic-specific articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, I'm also a very busy man, but I'm also very interested in this topic. I partly agree with most of the edits in its current version. I will do some research as I see some points not clear enough.

Regarding the formal educational system that existed in Spanish times, I think you should be made aware of the fact that in 1863, Queen Isabel II of Spain decreed the establishment of a public school system. Ironically, it was during the initial years of American occupation in the early 20th century, that Spanish literature and press flourished.

You shouldn't trust that much American military propaganda sources when researching this topic, as their main objective was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. There are many unbiased sources that can clarify many aspects of that era, some of them written in Spanish by Filipinos, who in many cases had fought against the colonial government, so their Spain's bias is out of question. I'd be delighted to translate them for you if you need any help. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. You should be aware that sources which present information with which individual WP editors disagree should not be dismissed on the basis of such disagreement. Please read WP:NPOV.


 * Your recent unsupported content addition to the article is interesting, but I wish you had cited a supporting source. Please read WP:V. Googling around, I see that this source (which is mentioned in the Spanish language in the Philippines article) says that in 1898 (the beginning of the American era in the Philippines), at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish. (that source is in Spanish, a language which I do not speak, but I managed to get that much out of it). One report at the time in 1916, however, said, "... Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone, Spanish turns out to be more useful than English...And outside of Manila it is almost indispensable. The Americans who travel around all the islands customarily use it" (see ).


 * Though I'm personally not very knowledgeable on the history of Spanish language usage in the Philippines, I disagree with your assertion that the main objective of the Americans was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. The main objective was to set up a viable system of gevernance in the country. In a statement published on September 1, 1900, the Taft Commission commissioners announced the holding of public meetings every Wednesday and Friday to give interested parties the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on proposed legislative matters. The open sessions were mainly conducted in English and Spanish. As the Americans became familiar with Spanish, the commissioners allowed their guests to use the language of their choice. (see ).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * That source you cite that says that in 1898, at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish comes from a Spanish professor from Madrid who is giving his opinion, based on nothing else than his personal beliefs. In that very same document you'll read the opinion of another Filipino professor who puts that figure at 60-70%


 * Please re-read my statements again. I said that you shouldn't trust "American military propaganda sources", not Americans as a whole.

In my opinion, Mark Twain was a very respectable American. On the other hand, American General Jacob H. Smith, who ordered to "kill everyone over ten", obviously was not deserving of any respect at all.
 * This exchange appears to have wandered off topic. It either needs to come to a close or to refocus on improvements to this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone,

That 1916 report if you pasted it from an article written online was misinforming its readers. Where was it copied from? Was it from an article written in 2001? Googling,I saw several of the same quoted statements in articles and all of them has Henry Ford as the author of the source. The same author who wrote in the same year the following: (Note book was published prior to 1923. It is now a public domain in the USA and the book was printed in the USA)

Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work By Henry Jones Ford - Princeton March 1916 Page 213 - The Filipino gentry speak Spanish and the masses speak native dialects which are not low languages but are refined and capable instruments of thought producing poetry drama and romantic literature although deficient in science Page 215 - As an incident of the educational scheme literacy qualifications for the suffrage were confined to those who could read and write either Spanish or English. This provision while designed to stimulate acquisition of English speech had incidentally the effect of propagating grave misrepresentations of the situation. Attention has often been called to the fact that the qualified electorate is an extraordinarily small percentage of the adult male population thus indicating that illiteracy generally prevails. But this is not really the case and it appears to be so merely because natives who cannot read and write a foreign language are officially classed as illiterate. Probably it is the only instance in history in which people who can read and write their own language are classed as illiterate.

The same author also stated in the same book that more people were speaking Spanish than when the U.S.A. regime began, while at the same time the native dialects were still being used to reach the masses.

Page 217 - Meanwhile the hold of native dialect is apparently not shaken at all but on the contrary its use is being strengthened by the activity of patriotic sentiment. Native dialect is the medium through which the abundant literature of Filipino politics reaches the masses and at present it looks as if the vernacular will be the permanent channel of popular thought and feeling

The pro Spanish group has been cherry picking their sources, giving information that can be misleading. IsaLang (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

United States territory: Removal of unnecessary tags and misplaced local links
I removed the tags and local links inserted in this edit. First because the whole paragraph (where the tags were placed) is supported by a credible and verifiable source, and second because the editor did not provide an equally credible authority to dispute the paragraph's assertions(one which would justify the insertion of the aforesaid tags). Having thus failed to provide an equally credible source that disputes the factual assertions made in the aforementioned paragraph, the tags are therefore unnecessary.

On the issue of a healthcare, It would be unnecessary to point to a particular event when the system was established because this took a series of steps such as the establishment of the Military Board of Health in 1898, the Civilian Board of Health in 1901, the Bureau of Governmental Laboratories also in 1901, and the establishment of a plethora of health centers all throughout the country (both by government and the private sector) such as the Philippine General Hospital (1907), St.Luke's Medical Center (1903), Iloilo Mission Hospital (1901), the Dumaguete Mission Hospital (1901) and many others.

On the issue of education, again no clarification is needed because that aspect of Philippine history is already well-established, particularly on the coming of the Thomasites, a group of teachers sent by the American Government which eventually resulted in the growth of the Philippine public school system. Prior to this period, education for the most part was limited to the moneyed elite. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

LET'S RESURRECT THIS ARTICLE!
This article has fallen from it's featured status into bad quality because of the rash of bad editors who has degraded it's quality. However, this is not totally bad in that, it gives us a chance to change it and make it even better than before. So to jump start the resurrection process. I propose that all of us start to contribute. I for one would like to add the Sultanate of Lanao and the Aponate of Irraya to expand into the history section (Will work on it in the coming weeks) while we also need people to help streamline the lead section to make it shorter.

It's time for REVIVAL! Who's with me? We shall once again reclaim the featured status! We can do it, if Philippine history has taught us anything it is that the Filipinos are experts at Resurrection. Our nation has been burned, flooded, earquaked, landslided and warred upon so many times but we always manage to revive, stronger than before. Therefore, I would like to call forth that spirit once again and ask our contributors to help facilitate the next wave of revival.

Yours Truly

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am with you. Forgive me for any errors I make. I added a small tidbit to the pre-history section that is well sourced. Some of the genetic studies are paygated, but I can show the illustrations from the research papers that confirm it. Please message me if you have any questions. Easy772 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics
This edit added a section named The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics. The assertion "The Americans had to war ..." there strikes me as being oversimplified to the point of incorrectness, though I have not seen the source cited there to support it. Also, the word heroic in "Despite heroic resistance from these three republics against American rule" strikes me as being neither NPOV nor encyclopedic.

The final paragraph of the section preceding this new one makes the point that shortly after the Americans ceased hostilities, a Philippine Constabulary was organized to deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement and gradually assume the responsibilities of the United States Army. There were, however, some instances of direct U.S. military action subsequent to the official cessation of hostilities (see Campaigns of the Philippine-American War). I've rewritten this section in this edit. It may need more work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on August 8, 2015, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

"contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, cleanup, POV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of citation needed, clarify, or similar inline tags"

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.. (Specifically, the article contains a number of Unreliable source? tags and a Clarify tag.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Philippine "Jade Age" in Prehistory
I was wondering if anyone else would like to help me fill in the blank between early neolithic settlement and 1000 BC when four distinct groups formed. Recent research is showing that the Jade discovered in the Philippines is evidence of communication with other prehistoric Southeast Asian communities. There are also a few pieces of bronze or copper artifacts dated to this time period, but not enough to suggest a "bronze age". Any and all help or contributions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Creative writing
This edit, which changed a wikilink to China to go to China proper instead, caught my eye. Neither of those articles relates well to the historical period being discussed where the changed wikilink appears, but I couldn't think of an improvement.

After looking at this, I browsed through this article and eventually came across the The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section, which sparked this comment. That section says,

Regarding the first sentence there, according to the Tagalog Republic article, that term refers to two completely different insurgent revolutionary organizations styling themselves as governments: one formed by Bonifacio in 1896 and another under Sakay in 1902 (or maybe 1904 -- both years are mentioned, but the First Philippine Republic existed from 1899 to sometime in 1902 prior to the establishment of Sakay's breakaway republic). As far as I can see, it is incorrect to assert that either Bonifacio's or Sakay's "Tagalog Republic" was briefly formed "during the First Philippine Republlic."

In the second sentence there, I came across the bit about Aguinaldo's "gift to the USA" (see this January 2014 edit by an anon). WTF??? This appears to be a bit of unsupported unencyclopedic editorial opinionating -- a dig at the USA or a slap at Agunaldo, or perhaps both.

The The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section needs a rewrite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Stating the obvious
"The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans." Well indeed. When else might it have begun? Constant Pedant (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Big 'duh'. You're cutting off a sentence in the middle just for a laugh. But actually it goes: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats at least 67,000 years ago" which is not that all that trivial. –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The silliness of the sentence is not altered by adding the second half, it still says that the history of the Philippines began with the arrival of the first humans, regardless of how and when they arrived. The problem is solved by stating it like this: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun at least 67,000 years ago, with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats." Constant Pedant (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This sounds like nitpicking what is or is not properly defined as history. How about leaving that unargued here and just starting with something like "The first humans in the Philippines arrived [...]"? (arrived vs. are believed to have arrived is another matter, best left to a separate discussion) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking is how we get things right. I wasn't going to get into the question of whether what happened 67,000 years ago is properly called "history" (It's actually prehistory - history begins with written records.) But I approve of your solution, so we don't need to discuss that :) . Constant Pedant (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Old Mosque Lanao Del Sur Philippines.jpg
 * Sugbo trade.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Precolonial Philippines States.png

Sa Huỳnh
This discussion section concerns the The Sa Huỳnh culture section of the article.

See this article edit and edits preceding that one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about this to make a conclusion, but do you have any written sources that refer to the Sa Huyn Culture? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I know less about it than you. I looked back at my edit summary here and, from that, recall a bit about my revert there. From your edit summary, I didn't understand the reason for the removal and I was bothered by the lack of a talk page section to explain the dispute about tag. I then dug back, and see that the tag was added without explanation in this October 17, 2017 edit. I then looked at the sources cited in the two sections you had removed and I had restored.
 * The The Sa Huỳnh culture section cited two sources:
 * (1) led me to this, where I was able to view this. Text searches there for "sa hu" came up empty but "sa-hu" found hits -- among them item 9 in figure 1 there.
 * Googling the title of (2) led me to this, which appears to be a review of the cited source. I was unable to look at the cited source itself.
 * Having done this, and WP:AGFing about the insertion of the material, I'm going to let my restoration stand for now, but I probably won't argue with its removal by you or another editor if I come across that and if I am able to recall looking at it here. Hopefully, such removal will take a closer look at source (1) above than I have here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You were absolutely right to restore the content. Much of this is discussed and well-sourced in Kalanay Cave. If recent scholarship contests Solheim's hypothesis, the correct way is include the criticism in the section with a full citation (and not just an incomplete drive-by mention in the edsum), instead of deleting the material as if the final verdict was spoken and previous research can be flushed into oblivion.
 * The fact-tag is odd (maybe obsolete?), because the text does not claim anything about a physical presence of Sa Huỳnh-culture bearers in the Philippines. Maybe renaming the section to "Interaction with the Sa Huỳnh-culture" could help? –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced the Dispute about tag with since, AFAIC, there's not any dispute abut this. Inprove as needed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have resized the map, which btw was tampered in Commons as to show the Philippines among the locations of the Sa Huỳnh-culture. I have restored the correct version of the map now. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced the Dispute about tag with since, AFAIC, there's not any dispute abut this. Inprove as needed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have resized the map, which btw was tampered in Commons as to show the Philippines among the locations of the Sa Huỳnh-culture. I have restored the correct version of the map now. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Size of the Manila Galleons
This edit caught my eye, and led to a comment I've made at Talk:Manila galleon. I thought that it was more useful to make that comment there than here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Scott (1994) and Ingicco et al (2018) on the arrival of first "humans"
Refer to this edit by Chipmunkdavis. The first humans (early modern, Austronesians) to arrive by boat in the archipelago (Scott, Barangay Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society 1994 as one of the cited source in the article) are not same humans/hominins (premodern or archaic) whose evidence of activity 709 000 years were discovered by Ingicco et al (2018). Austronesians only started migrating to the Philippines at around 7000 years ago. 709 000 years ago was Middle Pleistoscene, where sea levels was low that travel by "land bridges" was possible. Though possible, premodern humans arriving by boat to the Philippines is not based on any source or evidence but mere speculation from misinterpretation. It is suggested separating "the arrival by humans/Austronesians/Filipino ancestors by boat" and "the discovery of earliest hominin activity" as the time gap between these events is at least 700 000 years. Tagaaplaya (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not my edit precisely, but the above text is unrelated to the primary issue with your changes, which was removing information about the timeline of modern human settlement. CMD (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there is no evidence that the first hominins (archaic humans, not Homo sapiens) arrived by boats and rafts in the archipelago. 300 000 years ago, modern humans were still probably in Africa where the earliest fossil was found. The sources provided was based on W.H. Scott, who actually referred to modern humans not archaic humans. Archaic humans were not the ancestors of Filipinos. And this why I suggest to just separate them as different events not hastily combined as if they occured at the same time. Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If the Austronesians only arrived late in Philippine history, as the Larena study suggests, how are their genes present in many peoples from Madagascar to Easter Island? Aren’t the Tagbanua, who are believed to be descendants of Tabon Man, Austronesian? Doesn’t that suggest that Austronesian were in the Philippines earlier than Larena wrote? Arthur Soriano (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment in passing: I'm no anthropologist -- I don't recognize the name Larena, but I note that it is mentioned neither here nor in the article containing the edit at issue here. This isn't the place for scholarly debate -- see WP:TPG. If there are disagreements between academic sources which ought to be mentioned, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the introduction cut too short?
Why is the introduction/summary stopped at 1946, no summary on post-independence, Marcos era and 5th Republic. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Tiele source
Do you have access to the source "Tiele (1877 - 1887)"? It looks as if you have copied the reference unchanged from note 52 in Babullah of Ternate, where the citation appears next to the statement A list of dependencies drawn up by the Spaniards in c. 1590 furthermore mentions Mindanao, the Papuan Islands and the Sumbawan kingdoms Bima and Kore, though these places were probably only very loosely attached. The format of the citation is really bad, but I was able to locate the source in the correct volume of the Bijdragen:. I am not quite sure how pages 161-162 of that article support the statement which you have inserted: As the Ternate Sultanate returned to Islam and rebelled against Spain, they joined in a political league with the Maguindanao and Lanao Sultanates, in which case, the Sultanate of Ternate became their Hegemon against the Spanish Empire. The source does not speak of a political league of Sultanates of Maguindanao and Lanao with Ternate, but just mentions that the area which payed tributes (schatting opbrachten) to Sultan Babullah of Ternate extended from Mindanao to Bima. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok I thought being a tributary means that you accept vassalage like in the case of the Greek states in the myth of the Minotaur where Athens which was under the hegemony of Mycenae gave a tribute of youths and virgins. I dont know about the Asian context I just assumed that those being tributary states were also vassals like the relationship between Athens and Mycenae. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the entire text is totally unconnected to the source. 1. "As the Ternate Sultanate returned to Islam": The Sultans of Ternate were Muslims without interruption. 2. "...and rebelled against Spain": Babullah kicked out the Portuguese. Spanish occupation came later. 3. During the Babullah era, Mindanao was already mentioned as part of the Ternatean influence sphere. Maguindanao and Lanao may have specifically joined forces with Ternate against Spain, but that was a century later. I have removed the text, you may restore it with a source that actually supports it. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken with the source, I was slightly drunk when I wrote that, what I meant to use as source is this paper from Academia.edu. Check it out, it stated the full extent of the Maguindanao Ternate Confederation/league/alliance. https://www.academia.edu/38617032/MAGUINDANAO_AND_TERNATE_CONNECTION_AND_DISCONNECTION_DURING_THE_AGE_OF_EUROPEAN_COLONIZATION_AN_OVERVIEW Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source. Best to find the sources cited therein, and see what they say. CMD (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll do a "Source"-ception, looking at the sources in the sources lol. Thank You. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just commenting that it's not usually necessary or desired to look at or to question or to express wonderment about what sources RSs are basing their observations or interpretations upon. However, if the reliability of a source cited to support an article assertion is questioned, one way to address that might be to look at underlying sources which might be more reliable, paying careful attention to the extent of support present there for the article assertion at issue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources are promising, (1)"Antonio de Morga, in Blair and Robertson, The Philippines Islands, XV, Pages 97-98" (2) Cesar A. Majul, Muslims in the Philippines (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press,1999), 128-129. I'll cite those in the reworked paragraph Austronesier said I can do as long as the sources are aligned. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Results of the PNAS genetic study rewriting the migration paradigms to the Philippines.
There's a new genetic study from PNAS that there were actually 4 waves of migrations to the Philippines 1st (Negritos) 2nd (Austroasiatic) 3rd (Austronesians) 4rth (Papuans) and then after that, some limited migration from India and the Spanish-Pacific world. Two more migration waves than the original Negrito then Austronesian and there is also confirmed Indian, Spanish, Austronesian and Papuan migration too. Source: https://download-files.wixmp.com/ugd/bca2c3_5e042d79d2684146ac45f1c44000c025.pdf?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJ1cm46YXBwOmU2NjYzMGU3MTRmMDQ5MGFhZWExZjE0OWIzYjY5ZTMyIiwic3ViIjoidXJuOmFwcDplNjY2MzBlNzE0ZjA0OTBhYWVhMWYxNDliM2I2OWUzMiIsImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTpmaWxlLmRvd25sb2FkIl0sImlhdCI6MTYyMjg1OTQwMSwiZXhwIjoxNjIyODk1NDExLCJqdGkiOiI2NDZiMWVmOGMyODYiLCJvYmoiOltbeyJwYXRoIjoiL3VnZC9iY2EyYzNfNWUwNDJkNzlkMjY4NDE0NmFjNDVmMWM0NDAwMGMwMjUucGRmIn1dXX0.BDxcN_jdL1xDasW4etkbCCN9pMqRb9e2oZk2Nbiqv1I&filename=SummaryReport_FilipinoGeneticOrigins2021.pdf

Should we update the history section and lead section to the findings of the genetic study? Adding how Austronesians not only supplanted Negritos but also Austroasiatics and southeastern Mindanao having a Papuan component? what do you say? -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already covered by the 4th paragraph of Prehistory. CMD (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick response points from wtmitchell:
 * I'm presently busy in real life and don't have much time for WP editing. I'm keeping my finger in, though, and this response is part of that.
 * I occasionally edit re this subtopic but I don't really know much about it.
 * I note that the domain for link above is http://wixmp.com and that attempts to sign in there navigate to an END OF SERVICE message. That, and "The report below serves as a companion report to the recently published scientific article entitled Multiple migrations into the Philippines in the past 50,000 year [...]" in its intro leads me to wonder about the status of the linked article and how it might be appropriately cited.
 * Following on CMD's response above, I see that the article titled as bolded above is currently cited in this article
 * It occurs to me to wonder what impact these items have or should have on other WP articles, e.g., Models of migration to the Philippines; are edits needed there? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the paper to Models of migration to the Philippines a couple of months ago (it has been tweaked since), following its initial inclusion on this page (not by me). I don't think we should put too much emphasis on it at the moment, given it is a recent paper, but hopefully we'll see other sources start to use it to help gauge its appropriate context. CMD (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank You for input guys, it seems that the paper has already been cited, except that the more recent limited Papuan ancestry among the Sangril of the Phiilippines at Southeast Mindanao hasn't been mentioned, I'll just add that since its' also in the paper and everything will be ok.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the presence of particular genes does not mean that there was migration directly from the particular population those genes are associated with, there may have been many steps in the gene flow towards a particular location. Given that the genes are present throughout eastern Indonesia as well, it likely wasn't a single direct migration. CMD (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's get have this article upgraded to good article status
Recently, as can be gleaned in the Article History tab, I have been working to supply citations and replacement citations to several citations needed tags by scouring my personal online library, looking at the main pages of a said topic, looking at Academia.edu, and etc. in order to complete the necessary citations requirements here. Since I have more or less finished that affair I suggest that we have this article proposed into a good article upgrade, since the article is already well sourced. I'm just chiming in if anybody has additional critiques, I'm thinking of putting this article under a "Good Article Proposal" since it has markedly improved compared to when it was downgraded from being a former Featured Article. What are your thoughts on this? -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I checked a previous edition of the article back when it was a "Featured" Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Philippines&oldid=76745482), and I can say that even when we were downgraded afterwards, the actual content and quality of the article has markedly improved compared to when it was still a featured article, there are now more citations and the framework looks more complete and organic, the Featured Article version looks like a Stub Version now compared to the B-Class status this is assesed as. The last assesment happened at January 3, 2011 by the way. That's a whole decade since this was last assesed, I think it is overdue that this article be reassesed and upgraded to "Good Article" if not "Featured Article" status, since the quality now is actually better than when it was still under Featured Status.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See this edit. I placed dead link tags at links which seemed to be either completely dead or not to go to the intended target. I didn't have time to check further than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you, before we trim the content I think our very first priorty is to replace those dead links. I'll try searching the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine if there are archived version of those dead links and if there aren't, then replace them with links to the same content but other publishers. Good job bro! -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * At 117kB of prose, the article is more than double what it should be per (WP:GACR #3b). This will need some judicious trimming. A good place to start may be the more recent history, which gets a bit wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As what Dineshswamiin suggeste, I think it would be pertinent to reduce some subsections and fuse the content and then trim them.


 * Should the number of sections in the article be reduced? Dineshswamiin (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, especially on the subsections which have very little content.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jones-Bridge-skyview-with-Post-Office-1930s.jpg

Pre-Hispanic vs Precolonial
Can we settle on which to use, pre-Hispanic or precolonial (no dash)? Though both are correct, isn't "precolonial" the term mostly used in academe and the government? I don't agree with the claim (reason by the editing user) that "pre-Hispanic" is more accurate as Manila used to be a colony by Brunei. Manila and Sulu were never under direct Bruneian political hegemony in the 15th and 16th centuries. This debunking is supported by contemporaneous European and Chinese texts, Sulu oral genealogies, and archaeological evidence. . What do you think?Tagaaplaya (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Detail in the lead
This removal of detail from the lead para, caught my eye. I agree -- see the first para of WP:LEAD and, specifically, WP:OPEN. Unless I misunderstand (entirely possible), this info might fit in Prehistory prior to or as an expansion of the current Around 300–700 AD para. Also, though I don't pretend to follow the technical detail, I looked at the Larena source, and didn't see mention of Lua or Laos there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is too much detail for the lede. Also, the speculations by Larena et al. (2021) about the sequence of migrations into the Philippines should be corroborated by a secondary source. Their genomic analysis looks solid (as far as I can see), but their formula "time of split" = "arrival in the Philippines" is flawed, and I don't expect that subsequent studies will uncritically adopt these speculations.
 * The Lua people are mentioned in the source as "Htin". Since there is a working redirect Htin people, I have changed the text accordingly in "Prehistory" for a better match with the source. –Austronesier (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like for us to discuss first if we are really adding the Larena study in the lead or not. The study is too recent. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The study is too recent: Agree. It's a primary source, and not (yet) widely cited. Also, the current text "By 1 AD until precolonial times there was also limited South Asian immigration, as found in the DNA of the Dilaut ethnic group" is OR, as the source speaks about "gene flow" which is not the same as migration since gene flow can also be transferred through intermediate populations. (OR side thought: This thing again reflects what bugs me most with this otherwise very valuable paper: why do we have to assume that the gene flow occurred in the Philippines? The early Sama might as well have picked up South Asian ancestry outside of the Philippines (e.g. in Borneo) before they migrated to the Philippines.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Support re desertion rate
This was prompted by the removal of a fv tag here. The tag was added here, by me, and had a malformed reason parameter, which would not have stated the reason well even if correctly formed. My edit summary stated the reason more clearly, but that did not endure in the article. The tag intended to call attention to two perceived problems involving the term mulatto and an asserted high desertion rate among non-Spaniards. The edit summary of the edit removing the tag addressed the term, but not the desertion rate. High desertion rate is mentioned twice in that paragraph, and I still don't see support for that. I'm not questioning it but I don't see support for the article assertions about it. If sources cited do provide support for this, I've missed seeing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. While it is true that the number of soldiers who were to arrive was underwhelming, the source cited is not clear for the reason behind it. We cannot be certain if it is because of high desertion rate. Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(added) This edit here caught my eye, and I did a little more checking. The term "desertion rate" seems to have appeared in the article with this December 24, 2018 edit. The supporting source cited there is still cited in the article, but not in support of that point, and it's not viewable online. Some googling turned up That mentions "continuous desertions" and "Philippines", in the same context but not in direct relation to one another. -- for whatever use that info might be here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Republic (1986–present) section
The section Fifth Republic (1986–present) seems to focus largely on political history (economic history seems lacking), and we already have a dedicated article Political history of the Philippines (which in itself contains a well-written summary). If this section should contain only political history (or if a more comprehensive summary cannot be written for now), we might as well just use an excerpt from the dedicated article. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And/or review relative depth of coverage and significance of covered info for these two articles with WP:SS in mind, adjust as needed, and list that detail article as a main article for this section. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph moved here for discussion
I have WP:BOLDly moved the final paragraph from the The First Philippine Republic (1899–1901) section of the article here for discussion. That paragraph reads as follows:

That paragraph presents two isolated - possibly cherrypicked - statistics, apparently expecting the reader to draw some conclusion about the First Philippine Republic from them. This article is a high-level article about Philippine history. IMO, such information, if presented, ought to be in a detail article and ought to be accompanied by source-supported information about the meaning of those pretty raw statistics in the context of that detail article.

Incidentally, I haven't seen the cited source for the stat about GDP per capita, but the support for the stat about wage rates is on page 16 of the cited source, available online here. I invite editors to read that page and opine here about what that stat means means in relation to the First Philippine Republic.

I propose that this paragraph not be restored to the article. 13:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)


 * I was the one who inserted the wage information to support the previous statement on GDP per Capita, although I am of the opinion that its' factual as the statistics was published by the University of the Philippines. I also am of the opinion that the article is oversaturated or TOO LARGE already, so maybe this information is more aptly belonging in the Economy of the Philippines article or any of the Economics related articles pertaining to the Philippines rather than our very long and very saturated Philippine History Article. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)