Talk:Philippines/Archive 19

Relinquishment of sovereignty
Thia is a WP:BRD discussion following on this revert.

It seems to me that relinquishment of sovereignty and recognition of sovereignty, which is a summary of what the treaty instrument says that the treaty accomplishes, does not imply recognition that the newly-sovereign nation was independent prior to the relinquishment of sovereignty. It also seems to me that recognition of independence alone begs the inference that that independence did exist prior to being recognized. This appears to need clarification -- perhaps in a footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(added) I note that the treaty followed on the section of the Tydings–McDuffie Act headed Recognition of Philippine Independence and Withdrawal of American Sovereignty, which section follows the section headed Relations with the United States Pending Complete Independence. I infer from this that independence of the Philippines from the United States was not complete in the interim. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(added) Suggestion: Undo the revert, restoring descriptive content saying "American sovereignty relinquished and independence recognized", This seems sufficiently clear to me, and stylistically compatible with the "Spanish cession to the United States"" description which preceded it. Simply saying "Independence" with a piped wikilink to Treaty of Manila (1946) seems insufficiently clear, even for an infobox item in an article high up in WP:SS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As background, the line in question previously read "Independence from the United States", and I shortened it to just "Independence" due to the words "Independence from the United States" being a literal repeat of the words three lines up. On "American sovereignty relinquished and independence recognized", to me the "American sovereignty relinquished" part seems an exceedingly technical way to describe what is far more commonly just called "independence", and such technical language may raise more questions in the minds of readers rather than convey information clearly. On the inclusion of "recognized", I strongly feel that this is detrimental to the infobox, as specifically highlighting recognition implies it was in some ways separate from another point of independence, such as the seven year lag between the United States declaration of independence and British recognition, or the four year lag between the Indonesian declaration of independence and Dutch recognition, which was not the case for the Philippines. CMD (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "more commonly called" != "correctly termed". How about adding an intermediate step above the line at issue saying something like Commonwealth status, dated March 25, 1935 (that date is the ratification date of the Commonwealth constitution)? The linked article section re that constitution says, "The Commonwealth Constitution was ratified to prepare the country for its independence." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (added) Further (though I worry about defocusing the discussion with this), speaking to your other "points of independence", a declaration of independence does not a sovereign nation make. independence of the Philippines was declared on June 12, 1898. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, the relinquishment of sovereignty was to grant independence, so the event and meaning is the same. On your point on declaration vs actual soveriengty, I agree, however that is true also for recognition by itself. My point on that topic is that the different aspects of Philippine independence (assertion of independence and recognition) happened at the same time, so singling out the aspect of recognition indicates other aspects happened at different times.
 * That is not to say that the Commonwealth Constitution was not a significant step, as it both saw the United States effectively agree to independence, and set up the constitutional structure of the independent Philippines. I would agree it fits in as one of the key constitutional steps to leading to sovereignty. However, if we add it to the infobox we should also rebalance the History section to expand further on the Commonwealth, as the current article text doesn't really convey this importance. CMD (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've outdented after going back and looking at recent revisions re the piped wikilink from Treaty of Manila (1946) where the question here is what the rendered wikilink should say. Re any question of independence during the Commonwealth government, I note that Section 11 of the Tydings–McDuffie Act begins with: "Upon the expiration of ten years after the termination of the existing Philippine government the people of the Philippine Commonwealth shall vote for or against the independence of the Philippines." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * here, changed Independence to Independence recognized.
 * I took issue with this here, changing it to American sovereignty relinquished and independence recognized.
 * here, ' Chipmunkdavis reverted it back to Independence.
 * I mis-took this as a reversion of my change, not as a reversion of both of those changes; my comments above were in that context.
 * I'm OK with Independence.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020
Spanish is also spoken in the Philippines. テリヤキ(Talk With Me) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: One could argue most languages are spoken in most countries, the languages listed are the most common for a country or are specifically native to it. — IVORK Talk 23:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the Languages section mentions that Spanish is spoken in the Philippines, giving some detail about that, and, per WP:SS, links a main article with more detail about Languages of the Philippines. That detail article in turn links a detail article with more detail about Spanish language in the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Just because the other article contains Spanish doesn't mean you shouldn't contain it also here. --テリヤキ (Talk With Me) 08:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Spanish is mentioned in this article in multiple places. CMD (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and see WP:SS, which I mentioned above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar
Hi Wikipedia, The semi-protected article "Philippines" has excellent grammar for the most part, but here and there a few minor grammar things could be changed. For example, on verb tenses, under Mass Media it says: Philippine media uses mainly Filipino and English, though broadcasting have shifted to Filipino

Comment. Because "broadcasting" is a singular noun, its verb would also be single, "has shifted" rather than the plural "have shifted."

Thanks, Bird Flier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird Flier (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bird Flier, this is done. CMD (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020
Kidhacksd (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Can we please Edit Please
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 00:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's delete the 3.6% Stanford European percentage myth
I was rummaging through old Wikipedia archives and it seems like we re-inserted the old Stanford Study estimate that said that only 3.6% of Filipinos have European descent, which previous consensus and discussions rendered null and void.

These archived discussions point to the sampling of the Stanford estimate to be lacking (Only 28 people to represent a then 98 Million Filipinos) and likewise previous Wikipedians agreed that the Stanford study is sorely lacking in credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADemographics_of_the_Philippines/Archive_1#Stanford_University_study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEthnic_groups_in_the_Philippines#Only_3.6%_of_Filipinos_have_European_blood_is_false._It's_a_myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEthnic_groups_in_the_Philippines#Removed_text

So several Wikipedians removed that stat before across several discussions, yet we reinserted that 3.6% myth in the ethnic group subsection. I suggest we either remove that 3.6% mention or replace it with more updated genetic or classification studies. What say you? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, if that study uses such a ridiculously small sample, it shouldn't be cited as final wisdom. I'm fine with adjustments as long as no figures from forensic anthropological studies will be employed, which are equally useless for the purpose of establishing the contribution of European gene flow to the Philippines (as I have tried to explain ad nauseam before). –Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * }This cited 2001 Stanford source says, "Some European introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%–7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%).", and a;so says that the sample size was 28 individuals. Without reading the material at the links above, some of which probably came from me, I think that simply using that 3.6% figure from the study without clarification is misleading.


 * It has been a long time since I thought I remembered enough about statistics to be confident about anything I say in that area, but the source says that 28 individuals from the Philippines were tested and, without checking, I'm guessing that the population of the Philippines then was about a hundred million. I ran those figures through this margin of error calculator and came up with a figure of 18.52%. As I understand it, a margin of error result of plus or minus 18.52% for the 95% confidence level presumed by the calculator means, presuming that the 28 individuals sampled were representative of the population, that 3.6% of Filipinos, plus or minus 18.52% -- somewhere between zero and 22.12% (3.6+18.52=22.12) -- of Filipinos have European genes, with a 95% confidence level of that assertion being correct. I think that's right, but I'm not sure that I remember enough avout statistics to state that with certainty. Even if it is correct, it's not the sort of 2+2=4 assertion that should be made without clarification and/or support in a Wikipedia article. It is based on simple math, presuming readers remember enough about statistics to believe the math to be simple, and presuming that I have not screwed this up, but I don't think either of those presumptions are good enough for a WP article.


 * So, I think that anything said in the article about the 3.6% figure from the Stanford study ought to be clarified, and the clarification might need support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with the removal of both percentage claims. Best not to mix the concepts of ethnic groups and strict genetics as much as possible. CMD (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the 7% text is just "from one graveyard" I'm even more inclined to remove it. CMD (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to have this "dug out" too :) But to be fair, Table 1 in the same study has an overall figure of 6% percent based on 328 samples from the whole Philippines. I suggest to remove the cherry-picked data from the Manila North Cemetery (heavy-hearted—some of my loved ones lie there) and replace it with the general Philippine figure. –Austronesier (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Austronesier, we should remove the higher 7% result from Manila alone and replace it with the lesser 6% that's representative of the Philippines as a whole.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern I raised above re the 3.6% figure needing clarification applies here as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
 * At least the graveyard study, pointed out were they got their samples from and the locations of the graveyards as well as the number of samples, 328, whereas the Stanford study just said its 28 Fiilipinos without showing where they got the samples and how they got it, only saying it was from the Philippines. I think the graveyard study is more realiable simply because it has more details.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If we want to keep the quantified statement about the contribution of gene-flow from Europe among Filipinos, we still need a genetic study that contains a significant sample of inhabitants of the Philippines. As of now, there is a genetic study that includes samples from Californians of "self-declared" Filipino descent, and a craniometric study that operates on a super-simplistic K=3 model, that leads to gems such as assigning the Negrito population to an African (!) descent group. And we also still need an appropriate section heading ("Ancestry?") for this particular information, since this does not belong in "Ethnic groups". –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Austronesier that Ethnic group does not equal ancestry, for example most people with Spanish or Mexican admixture in the Philippines identify as their local ethnic groups, like Tagalog or Chavacano for example. Likewise the Tausug who have royalty descended from Arabs identify as Tausug first and the Arab is a secondary identity to their Tausug one. This means that foreign admxiture does not equate to ethnic group. Sicilians in Italy identify as Sicilian even when they have Greek and North African descent. Balinese in Indonesia identify as Balinese even when they have Indian and Austroasiatic descent. Maybe we should move the relevant information of foreign ancestries away from the ethnic groups section to the demographics section. A cursory review of the Featured Articles Germany and Japan show that they have percentages of foreign ancestries but it is not placed in an ethnic group section but is instead attached to the Demographics section. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (Addendum) Hmmm I have been scouring other Featured Article Classed Countries and the one in Canada did not consider foreign ancestries and "First Nations" (Local ethnic groups) as seperate specie and genera and grouped them together under the "Ethnicity" subsection, following Featured Article Best practices, we should copy their style and group foreign ancestries as attached to native ethnic groups too. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The section in Canada only refers to "self-declared" ethnicity including "self-declared" ethnic ancestery. That's quite a different thing from studying (under laboratory conditions) the genetic and cranial makeup of individuals who mostly do not self-identify as of foreign descent (although quite a number of non-rural Pinoys would repeat a narrative of some partial remote Spanish ancestry–and at the same time fail to mention their Chinese ancestors). Canadians do not extract DNA and measure skulls to find out to which group somebody belongs: they just ask them. –Austronesier (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we either copy the Canada format but put an explanation that there has been no racially identifying census of the Philippines ever since the end of the American era and that research work into ethnicities are from independent academic institutions not government ones or do as you said and relabel the ethnic group subsection into a more generalized "ancestry" section so that its' scope is larger and there would no be misinterpretations due to ambiguities.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your priorities. Why do race (a pseudo-scientific, ideology-laden concept) and genetics even matter in an overview article about the Philippines? If you want to understand what's going on in the Philippines, you need to inform about the manifest ethnic groups. For many people it matters very much that they're Ilokano, Visayan or Maranao, to the point of influencing their voting-patterns: that's their socio-cultural background. Even though their bones and tissue might not differ at all if examined in a lab. Mestizo elites certainly do exist, but not because of their percentage of "European blood", but again because of their socio-cultural background.
 * There's no question that we can also spill some ink about scientifically measurable ancestry, but this requires a distinct (sub-)section. –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Race is a crucial issue because due to colonization were the Spanish imposed a caste system putting Chinese and Spaniards above Malays and Negritos, there were intergenerational and historical effects of the race based caste system which affects us till this day, like the tendency of Chinese and Spanish descended people making up the upper classes, when even though ideally, all Filipinos should be treated equally and that the native Malay deserves to be sovereign in his own land, yet it's something I detest myself, the racial consequences of that caste system, but we need to show it since its' interwoven with our historical experience and also colors current social factors, like income class and perceived prestige according to amount of said foreign ancestry. If only we were like Japan which is culturally homogenous and had a powerful native civilization, which others respect, they are viewed, even by neonazis as a superior race to even Filipinos who are Westernized and Christian. Race maybe pseudo-scientific, that I agree with, since the different races aren't really that different since we all belong to just one species and that 99% of human genes are similar anyway. However, in reality, in our working society, race is still a factor coloring people's perceptions, even if we educated lot know race doesn't matter, the case of the Philippines' colonization still show a very much race-related, power structure. At least in the financial, political and entertainment industries, with the Chinese mestizos dominating the business sector and Spanish mestizos dominating showbiz. In this context, it is thus imperative that we at least show the relevant studies of some Academic Institutions have had on this so that people will not be ignorant. It's good that we showed that only a tiny 6% of Filipinos are of significant European descent, at least the majority is now informed that their Spanish descent is either extremely diluted to not matter or is fictitious. I just feel that not giving studies or percentages will leave too much room open for misinterpretations or worse, false information due to lack of definitiveness. Anyway, what I ask isn't really striking or unique and that other nations based articles also show their racial percentages. However we are of a different paradigm to Immigrant style racially diverse nations such as Canada where race is self-reported and neither is our paradigm the same as that of African countries where the people are homogenous but belonging to many ethno-linguistic groups, our's is a hybrid of these two, so we have tensions on what model to follow, the tensions between these is our birth pangs but if we manage to sort it out we can give a framework for other articles. I try my best not to have any bias in this since I just want to improve the quality of the article to FA status. So we need to cut and refine this article as we deal with the tensions surrounding it.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, you're looking in the wrong sources then. All what you refer too is sociology and history. And there's lots of sources about it. But don't mix these things with test tube result. Unless reliable sources do so too. What certainly will lead to "false information", is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR based on a "mission". The purpose of a WP article about the Philippines is simple: tell about the Philippines the things that the best sources tell too, and tell those things in the same context as the sources do. –Austronesier (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important not to mix the Spanish racial system with modern conceptions of race, as they're quite different concepts. On the topic of history, the ethnic groups subsection really needs to be better sourced and focus on the present, rather than history. Lots to do with it. At this level any bits of historical context should be added only if linked directly to the present within a single source. CMD (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of that, that's why I try my best to find good sources and only state information already stated in the said sources and that's why I'm scouring other Featured Articles for best practices. I also have a question though, what is the fine line between ethnicity and language? Since as I read the demographics section what we term as "ethnic groups" overlaps with languages as well, Tagalogs who are considered an ethnic group also speak the Tagalog language even though the Tagalogs are an ethno-linguistic group with large Chinese and Spanish admix. There seems to be an overlap between language groups and ethnic groups which caused some repetition and redundant content. I think this is an oppurtunity to reduce the size of the article by deleting mentions of ethnic groups once again included in the language group. I think its' a good option to relabel languages into "ethno-linguistic groups" and the current ethnic groups, removed of native ethnicities will just barely state the ancestries and be relabelled into "ancestries" as per your previous suggestion. What do you say bro?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity and language are different concepts, although language can sometimes but not always play a role in ethnic identity. As Austronesier notes genetic admixture is effectively irrelevant and should not be part of the topic. There is overlap in this article which should be handled, but to do that we should at least have some insight into how a few different reliable sources may have covered the topic. CMD (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have found a paper using the term "ethnolinguistic groups" of the Philippines rather than the interchangeable ethnic or language groups.


 * https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2013122


 * However, most nomenclature used in academic work refer to the Filipino ethnicities as either language groups or ethnic groups though their contents are interchangeable. Also there are some Featured Articles like that of Madagascar that don't cite census results but genetics and anthropology studies, so if FA classified Madagascar does it with no issue therein, why not apply it to us? In this light I think our discussions over this (debating whether genetic or anthropology studies are valid sources for a population estimate in our GA rated WP entry), is a bit pendantic, don't you agree? (Im not exempted from this I am Pedantic too sometimes) When higher ranked FA status entrees like Madagascar does the same (Cite genetic and anthropology studies instead of censuses) and everyone doesn't bat an eyelash.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rene, have trust in it that my reservations about how the data is presented does not purely stem from pedantry ;) And note that in Madagascar, there is at least an attempt to breakdown statements about ancestry and phenotype to specific communities or groups. Talking about the mean overall genetic makeup of a country is only partially meaningful, and meaningless under the heading "Ethnic groups", unless you also talk about the genetic makeup of individual groups. The Nature article by Delfin et al. you have cited is the first source brought up in this discussion that actually does this job, and is very helpful. The question remains: here, or in the sub-articles? The Nature article is already used in Filipinos and Ethnic groups in the Philippines, but only minimally so with some cherry-picked statements that do not give justice to the content of this valuable study. My suggestion (and I try to help to implement it if time allows): let's expand data from this paper in full in Ethnic groups in the Philippines first, and then add summaries to Filipinos and this main article. And we should have supplementing data from studies that also includes Christian l "Lowlanders" of Luzon and the Visayas. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Austronesier, your suggestion does make sense, I think we should also focus on the individual subarticles too about Filipinos and Ethnic groups in the Philippines before we edit the section here, which should at most be written in the summary style about the larger article it links too. I think we should expand on those articles and have it clarified there before we put information here. As much as I want the content here reduced, since it hasn't been totally fleshed out, then I think it's best that I delay my proposed shortening of the ethnic groups section here and respect the status-quo, only after the Filipinos and Ethnic groups in the Philippines articles have been fleshed out, should I put in tangent, the information found here to that found there. Regards! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinates
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—Windy2222222 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to me to be reasonably correct, given our precision guidelines. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide an clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Rep. of the Philippines" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rep. of the Philippines. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:59, 10 March 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) 23:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Skyway SLEX PNR.jpg

No such word as Politie
There is no such word as politie (which occurs all over this article), at least not in any dictionary I can find. Probably the word was made up by the author of this article. Can it be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.190.81 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Polity. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Anomalies in Philippine historical timeline - infobox
Hello, I recently viewed this particular article about the Philippines itself, but... I found something sort of Questionable in regards to the timeline of its history aside from "independence from USA." there also a sort of missing information in which obviously exist and well-sourced to be part of it, like 'The Formation of Republic " Gen. Aguinaldo proclaimed the republic aftermath of the Philippine-Spanish war, or Philippine revolution, and the much intriguing part was "WHERE WAS THE PRE COLONIAL HISTORY?!" maybe we should include the "Baranggay States or kingdoms" from c.900 AD up to 1570s because it is really part of Philippine history, I know the mainstream was an indirect bias towards philippine history and insist that " it was only colonial creation " sort of sayings, or like it, but when you dug deeper to Philippine history, we must know that there's a LOT to cover in philippine history, rather than that popular I should say... am MYTH.  (INDONESIA, MAYALYSA, SINGAPORE INCLUDE their early history in Infobox") which I'd personally find missing in the Philippine part and I was disappointed to this, we must reformat this infobox to a more propper and "professional" rather than an encyclopedia with a collection of personal POVs. wikipedia become the non-preferable source of info because of this "One-sided view of information" by some users and moderators. (just saying), i hope these flaws i pointed out will be fixed and clarified, Thank you! (Snopik (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC))


 * PS denies and ommision of proper history will never made wikipedia a good encylopedia, they will look only as a POV-based academics. or white washing.


 * The infobox is not a history timeline, it is the date for when the Philippines achieved independence. As the Philippines has multiple potential independence dates, they are both included, as well as the in-between entry to indicate to readers why the first declaration of independence did not achieve the desired effect. CMD (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Government section moved up!
I've changed order of section. I've take up government and politics section.  Dinesh  (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Deepest point in Philippines
How much deep is the deepest ocean point in the Philippines?  Dinesh  (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for such questions (see WP:TPG), but this source, which is cited in the article, says 10540 m. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you provide an addition source?  Dinesh  (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I could, but try Reference desk. Better yet, develop your own researching skills. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New Genetic study shows 4 waves of migration to the Philippines not 2 waves (Negrito and Austronesian only) and some minor Indian and Spanish admix too.
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 and Spanish 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)
 * Not inclined to click on a wix download link, but if this is the Larena et al. article, it is fully available on the PNAS website. How do you think the article should be updated? The paper posits that the Austroasiatic and Papuan influence was small and restricted. For Negritos it states there may have been two migrations not one, and for Austronesians, it finds at least two distinct waves of settlement perhaps from the mainland rather than Taiwan, however the broader picture of a predominantly Negrito population followed by Austronesian settlement remains supported. CMD (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the limited Austroasiatic and Papuan as well as the minor South Asian should at least be mentioned since the Denisovan admixture among Negritos who form a minority of the population was mentioned. We should also put out as many scientifically corroborated models as possible, that the Austronesian expansion wasn't the only source of migrants to the Philippines then.-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Since there hasnt been a negative reply I will modify the article accordingly, with the caveat that is so be short or even shorter as humanly possible since this article is alreadt large as it is. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the article currently ok enough for a voice recording?
In our efforts to upgrade the quality of this article, one of the things which can greatly assist on this is the creation of a voice-over or audio recording of the written text in the article. Since I plan to do it this week, first I need some assurance or a appraisal of the current state of the article and I am therefore asking the question that is this state adequate enough to be codified into sound form? I am asking the editors here. Thank You. Do you think its ok to voice record the article now at its' current state?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Rene, the quality varies between sections. Overall it's not in a bad shape. If you want to record perhaps do it section by section so you can cut and paste if any areas become radically overhauled. Maybe as you're reading you'll find things that should be changed too. CMD (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quality also varies over time, and not all variances are improvements. If you do capture a snapshot of the article in audio, please include an "as of" timstamp identification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys for your input, I will work on it this weekend! :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good :)  Dinesh  (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was waylaid last weekend since I had work and things to do, maybe I can do it this weekend. If I'm still pressed for time, I think I will just record it through segments so that even if I cannot record it in full, I would have gradual progress.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok so I got permission to have a day off this Sunday. What country article Soundfile should I use as a model for ours' I'm thinking of using that of Australia, is there any other suggestions?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I finished recording the Lead Section, tell me what to improve so that afterwards, I will work on the other sections, stitch them together and publish it here.  critique my work. Link to the voice recording (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owEUJvsaXT8&feature=youtu.be)--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My Sunday day off is about to be over, so if nobody is giving critiques up to this point, I will resume recording the article. You are still welcomed to leave critiques. However, I will just ammend my work rather than place your suggestions from the get-go.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your Sunday, it sounds clear to me. CMD (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply brother. I managed to record only until the end of the history section. I will ask another day off next week or the week after to finish the recording, after publishing the sound file, do you think that is advisable that we submit the article to Good article review or Featured Article Candidacy?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Great effort! Although a little noisy, but it is acceptable.  Dinesh  (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will just minimize the noise via Sound Editing Software, BTW after I finish the recording should we submit the article to Good Article Review or Featured Article Candidacy?--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. I think it is not ready now. We should review all sections. Maybe we can nominate next month.  Dinesh  (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I guess we reserve the change in status for next month, until then I'm gradually finishing the recording as the weeks pass by. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm a bit late reacting to your ping. Nothing much to add; you just need to manange to suppress the noise, apart from that: 👍. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm using Adobe Studio to supress the noise and so far it's good. :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Finished a 2 more sections, will ask for another day off next week to work on the voice recording.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. Congratulation  Dinesh  (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank You. I asked my boss and she gave me Tuesday next week as a day off, so I'm going to continue my work then. Sampatraya (In Sanskrit) Sampalataya (In Tagalog) and Faith (In English) brother! We will finish this :D . Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not posting any updates guys. Instead of voice recording during my day off, I used it to arrange for family members' funerals. My mother in law and cousin died. So, the day off from work I planned to use for continuing the recording was instead used for funeral arrangements. I'll aks for another day off this May, and that's when I'll continue the voice recording, I'm very sorry bros, but I have to bury my family first. Please pray for their souls. :( -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorrow! Sympathy your family. Take care of your family and yourself, first of all. You can record later. Take care and be happy. :)  Dinesh  (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank You for the sympathy, but I have good news this time, my boss granted me another day off this July so I'll be working on the voice recording then, I'm already midway finished. :D -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Religion
Thank you for the update of the religious figures based on the best source for this topic. Just one thing: how do you define 'Protestant' and 'Other Christian'? This needs to be specified. Based on your arithmetic, I can see that it's more than PCEC, NCCP, Bible Baptist Church, United Church of Christ in the Philippines and Seventh-day Adventists. –Austronesier (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we please get an explicit consensus here? We need it about the source to use, whether to specify the percentage of Protestants, and which Christian denominations are to be included as Protestant. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The new source seems to be this one. I also note that one change was made in Demographics without noting the new source here, which should be fixed. I don't think we should be specifying what is Protestant or not absent a source that does so, so if the PSA source is used I'd prefer a simple Roman Catholic and Other Christian division. CMD (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When I made the edit here which introduced the arithmetic using figures from the supporting source, I did take the figures from that source. Any errors introduced there are mine. The source cited is a list of yearbooks, and I chose the latest one listed. I would prefer that the cite link the yearbook used directly, possibly noting in the cite that the yearbook used is from the list in the source currently cited. I didn't want to de-focus from the figures themselves by complicating the edit with that concern as well.
 * As far as summarization goes, I think that echoing summarization done in the cited source is OK and that invisibly introducing a new summarization is not (and my edit may not have been consistent with that). If summarization of sects into larger religious categories is introduced editorially (and perhaps even if it is echoed from the source), it ought to be clarified in the Notes section and that clarification ought to be supported.
 * These figures are in the article infobox. There is a Religion subsection in the article. Info in the infobox ought to be consistent with info in that section, and info in both ought to be consistent with info in the Religion in the Philippines article. I have not checked to see whether this consistency exists. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with and  to use the figures from the official 2019 Philippines in Figures, which has data from 2015 on page 23. The Pew report that  insists to edit war for is based on this page, which give projections for 2010, 2020 etc based on 2000(!) figures. Just click on "Sources" below the diagram, and then on Appendix B: Data Sources per Country. On p.220 you will see that the source is the 2000 census. The Pew data is thus crystal ball reading based on obsolete figures.
 * I don't have a problem with editorially introducing larger religious categories, but then we should be aware that JW and INC are not Protestants by own definition, nor by general standards. Aglipayans are in full communion with the churches of the Union of Utrecht, which are usually not counted as Protestants. So these three should be IMO counted as Other Christians. –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: And yes, data has to be harmonized with the data in the main article Religion in the Philippines. –Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not religious, don't have much knowledge on which to base an opinion, and don't think that this should be based on opinions of WP editors. The Protestantism and Protestantism in the Philippines articles are probably good places to start looking for info and supporting sources. That last-linked article lists Philippine Independent Church (Aglipayan Church) in its List of major denominations and prominent independent churches section; I infer the implication there that it is considered Protestant by the WP editors looking after that article. At a quick glance, the article on that church doesn't seem to clarify that in the article body, and it links both the Protestantism in the Philippines and the Independent Catholic churches articles in its See also section. From that, I can't make a guess at where it ought to be categorized. In any case, though, categorization ought to be supported. (revised) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to edit the South China sea to West Philippine Sea
Please edit the boundary of sea from "South China Sea" to West Philippine Sea AyingX20 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, (1) the West Philippine Sea is a part of the South China Sea; (2) the South China Sea is a more generally recognized name outside of the Philippines; (3) the appellation, when it came into being, was intended to have aapplicability and effectiveness inside of the Philippines (see this).
 * I'm no expert on this, but that is my understanding. What am I missing? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (added) Other naming disputes and diffrences exist -- e.g., Persian vs. Arabian Gulf, Sea of Japan vs. Korean East Sea vs. Donghae/East Sea vs. Oriental vs. Korea Bay vs. Korea Seam Tsushima Strait vs. Eastrn Channelm probably more, e.g., Woody Island vs. Yongxing Island Spratly Island vs. Storm Island vs. Spratly Island vs. Nánwēi Dǎo vs. Pulo ng Lagos, Spratly Islands vs. Kapuluan ng Kalayaan vs.  Nánshā Qúndǎo vs. Kepulauan Spratly vs. Quần đảo Trường Sa, [...]. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Add: The article South China Sea, section §Names gives sufficient reason why using the name "South China Sea" in all articles of this encyclopedia with a global readership is a good choice over recent coinages, which are politically motivated and have little prevalence beyond their local reach. "West Philippine Sea" is one of these. The term might catch up in the future, but as of now, well, just look here:. –Austronesier (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Infobox "moderator's cut info
Recently i updated the Infobox by adding the new shed of information about the Prehispanic side of the Philippines what i meant here is Philippines (not by the name given by Colonizers), the Archipelago had already populated by People since the 10th century, with existing kingdoms and polities. actual history of the Philippines between 900 and 1565 begins with the creation of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription in 900 and ends with Spanish colonisation in 1565. The inscription records its date of creation in the year 822 of the Hindu Saka calendar, corresponding to 900 AD in the Gregorian system. Therefore, the recovery of this document marks the end of prehistory of the Philippines at 900 AD. During this historical time period, the Philippine archipelago was home to numerous kingdoms and sultanates and was a part of the theorised Indosphere and Sinosphere.

And i see that the most of moderators here were having a common POV when it comes to Philippines isn't a nation before ESPANA's colonialism (like there are no existing rules or system here before the colonialism come of the shores, im sorry (but in my opinion) it's likely a result of Western= POV narrative. but Books like Baranggay by H.Scott and the Boxer codex for example that Philippine society were already stratified and existing. which is definitely to be covered by infobox: Same case as Indonesia, Malaysia and other southeast Asian nation infoboxes. i felt so sorry how the Philippine page were managed by the moderators (i am not accusing anybody here). but i think it's time to be bold and correct this "missing link". upon the Philippine articles. and separate the POV or Conflict of interests of Moderators.  PS (pardon for my English grammar if it looks uneasy) Thank you! (Snopik (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC))


 * The Philippines (like Malaysia and Indonesia) are relatively young countries. They didn't exist as coherent entities before their current shape was defined (mostly through colonial history). There was a lot of history going on in their respective territories before they came into being, but that's not the purpose of a country infobox. As for the "Western POV" straw argument, see Germany, Italy or Greece for equally "new" countries. Nothing is there in the inbox about the history before the formation of the actual entities that correspond to the currently existing countries. –Austronesier (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am confused by the repeated reference to Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as to Singapore in the previous talkpage section on this. Each covers the establishment of the sovereign state, much as this one does. CMD (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

About the Philippines Sovereignty type
It was formed actually after the convention of Malolos Congress: Following the proclamation of independence Aguinaldo established a revolutionary government on June 23, 1898, under which the partly-elected and partly-appointed Malolos Congress convened on September 15 to write a constitution. The constitution was titled "Constitución política", and was written in Spanish. as i observed. American POV were the dominant elements here in infobox (just because americans viewed Philippine Republic as an insurgent entities. (Schools in USA not even recognized the Fil-Am war as a war but "insurgency") they didn't recognized the sovereignty of 1st Philippine republic.  which had  already as the first constitutional republic in Asia itself. my point was :  why did the Philippines  celebrates  and recognizes  the June 12 as independence day on the first place? otherwise it was the July 4 as the official day of independence. so if we need a reliable content, Then we need to Balance it by adding the substantial information (as it is necessary). it cannot be solve "by cherry picking" based on the West or other dominant entity's POV we need real NPOV. (as they said: "history were written by the victors or indeed, the influence-rs) that was the common concept here in wikipedia making it the "less reliable" website.

(Snopik (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)) PS: i hope that the "influential moderators" wont mess "and conflict" with the consensus. as we need to talk about this. (Snopik (talk))

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestial Monarch Bislig.png

Area of the country
The area of the Philippines listed in the article is only an estimate, it is not the exact figure. I found two sources which provided an exact figure:

Source 1: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/

Source 2: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-locations/where-is-philippines

According to the sources, the exact area of the Philippines is 342,353 km2. 2001:8003:9008:1301:D022:935E:7C1:571 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are high-quality sources. The current value is sourced to NAMRIA, so a similar quality of source would be appropriate if the value is to be changed. CMD (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
Taoshah12 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Please

I will not do a mistake Taoshah12 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 27 November 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) 03:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Philippine-National-Anthem.ogg

Unsourced P-pop content
There is unsourced content about under Performing arts section pertaining to P-pop:

"From 2010 to 2020, Philippine pop music or P-pop went through a huge metamorphosis in its increased quality, budget, investment, and variety, matching the country's rapid economic growth, and an accompanying social and cultural resurgence of its Asian identity. This was heard by heavy influence from K-pop and J-pop, growth in Asian style ballads, idol groups, and EDM music, and less reliance on Western genres, mirroring the Korean wave and similar Japanese wave popularity among millennial Filipinos and mainstream culture."

I could not find any reliable sources to back up those claims. If anybody could kindly edit that part, these sources might be of help:



—Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022
111.125.122.107 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Tagalog
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022 (2)
Tagalog 111.125.122.107 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
please change the Official Languages section from "Philippino, English" to "Tagalog, English" PosingSaucer251 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source (constitution) says that Fillipino and English are the official languages. What source says otherwise?  RudolfRed (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Undue on the Huks
I note that the section on the post-independence period starts off with a focus on the Huk rebellion, and skips discussions of the reconstruction, and the establishment and reestablishment of key institutions. I think the focus on the Huks is undue. But this being a high level page, and the period in question being a very volatile one, I'm afraid to touch it without getting thoughts on it here first. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think some content should be copied from History of the Philippines (1946–1965) to balance the focus. What do you think? Segaton (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's tricky to get a high-level summary in the format used, which seems to be sectioning things off per presidential term. If the text moves away from that format, it might be easier to bring out a cohesive summary of the period without extending the length. CMD (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems logical to me to either split or subdivide this up into the Third (before 1972), Martial Law (1972-1981), Fourth(1981-1986), Post-EDSA Provisional (1986-1987) and Fifth republic (1987-present) periods or some variant thereof, rather than individual presidencies, but I'm not sure how everybody else feels about that. - Batongmalake (talk)
 * A paragraph each for some sort of division like that would be good (if perhaps overemphasizing political history at the expense of other history), the current section skews too heavily towards recentism. CMD (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, having separate sections for 1981-1986 and 1986-87 would certainly do that, but is the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) and "contemporary" (post-EDSA) history (1986-present) an acceptable division given that it represents contiguities of broader social patterns? (And then there's the question of whether it should be 1965-1986 or 1972-1986). - Batongmalake (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've (CMD beat me to the reversion as I was writing this comment) reverted this WP:BOLD edit, which apparently grew out of this discussion. Pointing up "Nearly five decades", glossing over lots of intervening history, seems problematic there and its relation to the discussion here is unclear to me. Also, I think the edit confused the 1945 Tydings–McDuffie Act with the Treaty of Manila (1946). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Apologies for the errors. I was simply trying to cover the recognition of Philippine independence in 1942, which is strangely missing from the timeline here, as is everything from the Roxas administration. In doing so I attempted to draw from and paraphrase from History_of_the_Philippines_(1946–1965). I should have reviewed what I wrote more carefully. May I give way in this effort to those who are more familiar with the period? I'm embarrassed enough to quit. - Batongmalake (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently independence is covered at the end of Colonial rule (1565–1946), rather than the start of the next subsection. Thinking of the pre-Marcos period, at a quick glance I would say the notable events are the huk rebellion, economic expansion/diversification, the increase of executive power, and demographic change in Mindanao. I would remove the rest of what is in the current paragraph in favor of those events. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's important to talk about the establishment of a new government, or at least, of new government institutions. As it stands, it fels like the article jumped right into things-the-government-got-obsessed-with, without doing things like transitioning form the commonwealth to the third republic, moving to recover from the war, setting necessary legal precedents, establishing foreign relations, and so on. Boring stuff, but essential. As it stands, it feels like the section says the newly independent Philippines just poured its energies into blasting the huks, straight out of the gate from independence. - Batongmalake (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Politically, the government system and most institutions, including foreign relations, were set up before independence, going back to 1935. Come to it, the blasting of the huks, so to speak, also started before independence. The priority upon reconquest in 1944 was restoring political continuity with the 1941 government, which was the result of a slow process of institution building that lasted throughout American rule. CMD (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose "restoring political continuity" is pretty much what I had in mind when I said "establishment of new government institutions," although I always thought of the '40s institutions as "new" by virtue of belonging to an independent government, as opposed to a subjugated one. That's in addition to the acutal physical reconstruction of course. I really have trouble with the text jumping straight to specifics, as if there was no set of new overarching sociopolitical and economic realities. - Batongmalake (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems POVish, and needs clarification and identification of supporting sources. My understanding in this area is very sketchy, but is that economic subservience was continued after independence through constitutional amendment to accept the 1946 Bell Trade Act (out of interest awakened here, I've just edited that article to add info), that was changed a bit by the 1955 Laurel–Langley Agreement (that article needs expansion and support), and continued into the 1970s.


 * Quoted from Perhaps all of that needs some summary here; it looks to me as if it needs quite a bit of expansion in relevant WP:SS detail articles. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That feels broadly right, the moment of independence was an important constitutional moment but the immediate effect on the operation of the country was limited as institutions had already been established, and the existing economic and foreign policy control of the United States extended beyond independence. Of course, that's a lot to fit into WP:SS detail here. From my list above (the huk rebellion, economic expansion/diversification, the increase of executive power, and demographic change in Mindanao), the economic and demographic aspects (including outside of Mindanao) could be linked to the broader theme of recovery from the war, setting up a more overarching framework. A lack of overarching frameworks is definitely a significant weakness here and in subarticles. CMD (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022
In the transportation section: the "trycicle" reference just leads to a literal trycicle, here's the link for the wikipedia entry of the "filipino trycicle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_tricycle_(Philippines), ty :) M. Anievas (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#128156; melecie   talk  - 03:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022
The Philippines has two types of largest cities I think. Quezon City is the largest city of the Philippines, but the city is a city proper. Metro Manila is a metropolitan area. I want to put Metro Manila (metropolitan area) and Quezon City (city proper) in the largest city list. 115.84.95.242 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HouseBlastertalk 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022
in the [|Military] section of this article, it states that "As of 2018, $2.843 billion, or 1.1 percent of GDP is spent on military forces.". though, on the [|AFP page], it states that ₱222.0 billion/$4.40 billion is spent on the military. the reference for this is in the linked AFP article, though for convenience, here it is. i request for the budget in the military section of the philippines article to be made the same as the budget in the AFP article. thanks 136.158.28.84 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, thank you for your request :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Science
Compared to the size of the world. Manila is just a tiny spot, and it's location may be described using pair of latitude and longitude. How would you describe the location of an "area" such as the whole philippines? 49.148.224.27 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there such a bat in the Philippines that is 5ft tall? Bobbie500 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * idk 64.5.71.131 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Metro Manila as capital
I proposed that Metro Manila be removed, it confuses readers and user, whether Manila or Metro Manila is the capital. Many readers don't understand legal terms as "de facto" and "de jure". RealMeep (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, contrary to assertions in the infobox and as explained in the initial sentence of Note a in the article and supported by sources cited there, the city of Manila is the national capital, de facto and de jure and Metro Manila is the seat of government, de facto and de jure. Also see . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Manila is the capital, but Metro Manila is the province Manila is inside in 64.5.71.131 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Update the GDP per capita
Source: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/October/weo-report?c=566,&s=NGDPDPC,&sy=2022&ey=2027&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasthepogikid (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty
This is a WP:BRD discussion. Please discuss below.

Some other relevant WP articles are:
 * Sovereignty
 * Declaration of independence
 * Sovereignty of the Philippines
 * Timeline of Philippine political history

Here, I have reverted WP:BOLD edits regarding sovereignty. Philippine revolutionaries declared independence from Spain on June 12, 1898 but, as I understand it, they did not achieve status as leaders of a sovereign nation by virtue of having made that declaration. A declaration of independence by a revolutionary group does not in and of itself a create sovereign nation.

My understanding is that the Philippines became a sovereign nation by action of the Treaty of Manila (1946). WP articles linked above, other relevant WP articles, and sources outside of Wikipedia. Please discuss here as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

 * Duterte launched an anti-drug campaign and an infrastructure program. >>> Duterte launched an infrastructure campaign and an anti-drug campaign, (keep already included citations) which reduced drug proliferation but has also led to extrajudicial killings.
 * The Tabon Man >> the remains known as the Tabon Man (or something similar that establishes context)

Figured the drug war part was due weight. Cannot edit the article myself (browser freezes up if I try to do so) so put an edit request in instead — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 06:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 03:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023
change the steady in the hdi to decrease as the philippine hdi decreased from 2019-2021 Macaroni683 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Mel ma nn   13:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Change was from 0.718. See this September 9, 2022 edit that updated the number and the change direction but left the citation supporting the old number intact, this following edit that updated the cite, and this November 26 edit saying, . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)   Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Philippines gained independence from the Spanish Empire too
I suggest this edit: in the section of independence put this: Independence from Spain and the United States, because the Philippines was a Spanish colony. 157.100.111.129 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Independence was achieved from the United States, not Spain. CMD (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

1990 Luzon Earthquake, 1980s economic nosedive, and 1980s Negros Famine
The section covering the disasters of the late Corazon Aquino administration rightly mentions the Pinatubo eruption, and also mentions the sinking of the M/V Doña Paz, but inexplicably does not cite the 1990 Luzon earthquake. I'm a bit hesitant to do that on my own, so I'd like to raise it to the community first before deciding what to do. - Batongmalake (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed a similar omission in the section covering the 1980s, which fails to mention the linked topics of the debt-driven economic nosedive and the Negros famine. I'd like to add brief mention of these items, probably tomorrow unless the community would like to discuss. - Batongmalake (talk)
 * Why not? -Object404 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * None of the currently included items have great citations to support their impact. (MV Dona Paz and Pinatubo are literally cited to contemporaneous news reports.) It would be better to fix that, or to add only with much better sources that place events within a wider historical context. This is a general problem throughout the Independence (1946–present) subsection. CMD (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently, the Negros Famine has only a single sentence on the much longer History of the Philippines (1965–1986). The 1990 Luzon earthquake is not mentioned at all on History of the Philippines (1986–present). CMD (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Both the 1990 Luzon earthquake and the Negros famine have significant contemporaneous international coverage and mentions in broader history texts, so I don't think there's a problem with sources. But if the problem is their non-mention in History of the Philippines (1965–1986) and History of the Philippines (1986–present) then perhaps that indicates work needs to be done there first before here? Do I have that right? - Batongmalake (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The potential problem is due weight, with the current concern being that even the existing items do not have sources that provide an indication that the event is important enough to mention at this high level. If there are broad history texts that demonstrate the events are important enough to be mentioned in a very short summary of nearing 80 years of history, then that's ideal. Such sources should also be used to support/replace the existing text too, come to that. (There is no need of the work needing to be done first at a subarticle, they're just potential indicators of the due weight of any particular topic.) State and Society in the Philippines 2017 edition mentions the earthquake along with Pinatubo and floods, but as context to the wider issue of financial limitations rather than as focuses in themselves. Slightly less academically but perhaps of more equivalent summary level, the BBC mentions only Pinatubo, and only to contextualize the decrease in US military presence rather than a focus itself. The State and Society timeline also mentions only Pinatubo, and also in the context of US withdrawal. CMD (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a quick survey of my Philippine contemporary history sources and see what you mean about the 1990 earthquake, although the focus of most texts is poltical history, so I feel that there's a natural bias against a geologically significant event which simply had few political repercussions. Still, I do not understand how the MV Doña Paz sinking somehow rates a mention in a list of late Cory-era disasters when the 1990 quake does not, and I still think that a mention of the quake and of floods alongside Pinatubo in contextualizing financial limitations of the period is justified. (Seriously though, what has me up in arms is the Doña Paz getting such high billing in a list of disasters, in contrast to natural disasters of the era; that seems very very undue.)
 * As for the others I mentioned, I have more luck: The Negros situation is given at least three pages (pp 96-98) in Chapter 7 of Volume 9 in Kasaysayan: A History of the Filipino People (ed. Alex Magno, 1998), although the actual mention of the famine (as a famine per se) is really the conclusion of a long discussion of economic abuse in Negros. Economic crises including the "crippling debt crisis" of the 1980s are covered several times throughout Volume 9, but are summed up in p181 under the heading "a legacy of loans" and those happen to be the concluding paragraphs to which all of Chapter 12 (Life under Marcos) leads. (Kasaysayan's narrative ends in 1986, sadly, so no 1990 Earthquake there.) - Batongmalake (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The economic crisis certainly merits inclusion, that's in every book I've read covering that time period. Famine is often related to economic neglect, so I don't think it's an issue if the topics are entwined. MV Doña Paz I agree is probably undue, I don't recall encountering it in any substantial manner in history textbooks. CMD (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just implemented those two edits as suggested, placing them in one paragraph that can be further edited for brevity by other editors. (I don't know how to shorten it any further). The text is paraphrased by the citations are mostly copied whole from the various wikilinked articles. - Batongmalake (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, after giving the 1990 Luzon Earthquake situation more thought, I think I'm okay instead with the idea of deleting the Doña Paz sinking as undue. I'll label it undue for now, and delete it if there are no objections in a few days? - Batongmalake (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or just remove it, this conversation is a couple of weeks old now, always nice to see the prose improve. At what level of subpage do you think it is worth covering? CMD (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Having performed the edit, I'm still thinking about your question. Maybe I'm not the best person to answer that, given I originally thought it was appropriate at THIS level. But I suppose my answer would then be "one step down"? Hehe. Not sure what articles that means, though. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One step down would be History of the Philippines, and the relevant articles below that would be History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos and Economic history of the Philippines (1965–1986), or History of the Philippines (1986–present) and Presidency of Corazon Aquino. CMD (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nosedive and Famine are in the Marcos era articles already, I think. But the quake is not in the Aquino articles. I guess I'll work on that eventually. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Papuan and South Asian
The sentence "Genetic signatures also indicate the possibility of migration of Austroasiatic, Papuan, and South Asian people" deals with three different geneflow events that occured at widely separated times. Only one of them is unequivocally a "migration" - the Austroasiatic migration (significant components of ancestral Sama and ancestral Manobo), which happened before the Austronesian expansion (c. 4200 BP).

South Asian admixture on the other hand, is recent (and is identified clearly as such in the paper), starting with the establishment of trade routes by Austronesians to India from at least 2000 BP. Technically not even "prehistoric" anymore, but protohistoric/ancient, since it was direct contact with a civilization with writing.

The paper doesn't give a timeline on when or how the Papuan admixture might have happened, just that it too was likely recent (definitely post-Australian-Papuan divergence, likely post-Austronesian expansion). It's possible that Papuans independently developed seafaring technology after the Kuk Swamp agricultural revolution (c.10,000 BP) and migrated back to Eastern Indonesia. But it is also just as likely that it occurred after Papuan groups acquired seafaring technology from Austronesians, which could itself have happened in historical times; or that it was simply from contact, trade, or the movement of already admixed Austronesian-speaking populations from Eastern Indonesia. Especially since the geneflow is actually more an Eastern Indonesia thing, and is largely restricted to the Austronesian Sangil (who are actually more numerous in Sulawesi) and Blaan ethnic groups in the Philippines. (See Appendix 4.2 and 4.5).

"Levels of non-Australian Papuan-related ancestry in non-Negritos in comparison with the Bougainville Islander, likely as a result of more recent westward gene flow of Papuan-related ancestry into western Indonesia and southern Philippines. (Figure S4)"

"What drove the long-distance migrations of Papuan-related populations still remains unclear. Although a key event that happened in Papua New Guinea after the Papuan-Australian divergence 25 kya is the independent development of agriculture dated around 10 kya (31). Population expansion after this period, together with technological innovations in seafaring (either independently developed or acquired through interaction with a nearby non-Papuan ocean navigators), and increasing inter-island trade, may altogether have played a role in the movement of Papuan-related groups into other islands. (Appendix 4.5)"

Both Papuan and South Asian geneflow are very minimal and do not really indicate an actual movement of people (specifically, into the Philippines). i.e. Not a migration. Just contact. If they are to be mentioned, they should at least be mentioned separately, with a more accurate descriptor than the very vague "limited spread". I prefer not mentioning them at all, since the section is primarily about early migrations, not every genetic admixture that occurred. OBSIDIAN †  SOUL  13:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't cite Larena et al. when it comes to their speculations about migrations. It's a great source of raw data about genetic ancestry, although some aspects (like the assumption of a genetic profile of Cordillerans that is less admixed than early Neolithic genomes from Fujian = the Liangdao and Qihe individuals) are at odds other studies and should await further discussion in other sources before we include it here. Also, the interpretation of the data in terms of spatial population movements and the associated dating should be left to others especially when there are no ancient genomes in support of it. They generally equate split times with the time of geneflow into the Philippines, which is simply wrong. E.g. the Austrasiatic signature in Sama groups is the result of admixture that most likely occurred in Borneo and was subsequently brought to Palawan and the Sulu Island (not only that, also the arrival of MSEA farmers during Western Route expansion into the Indonesia Archipelago most likely postdated the actual split of the "Austroasiatic" and "Austronesian" lineages by several millenia). Dito with the Papuan admixture into the Sangirese population that took place before Sangirese expanded from the Minahasan peninsula and neighboring islands northwards to Mindanao. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. You're right. Since the section isn't really about genetics in the first place, I propose removing it entirely. I'm guessing this has been discussed in other more specialized articles on the Philippine demographics or genetics (I haven't checked), so it shouldn't be a problem. -- OBSIDIAN  †  SOUL  16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)