Talk:Tagalog people/Archive 1

tattoo
Tagalog people do not tatoo themselves. At least when the Spaniards met them in 1570's. It is one of the physical characteristics which differentiate them from the Visayans whom they call Lipong i.e. someone similar to the Chinese Jar Li-pong which has blue colored decorations. Although Spanish eyewitness accounts have said so, there is a possibility that the Tagalogs did tatoo themselves in the past, but we can only infer this from their old words such as batik, and batikan -- the latter meaning someone who is famous for being adept at something, perhaps like war, which is what a Lipong is to the Visayans, a bagani or bayani, which means a seasoned warrior. Among the Visayans, the tatoo is sort of a trophy or advertisment for the number of enemies killed, the more tatoos one might have the more people he killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.177.143 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese contact
>Tagalogs also had long commercial relations with the Portuguese. Is this true? Interesting. I wish we had more sources(?) It is possible, Magallanes was in the Philippines in 1511 instead of 1521 according to history and secretly wanted to go back.--Jondel 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * it is the kapampangans not the tagalogs who usually trade with other nations in that time in central luzon or in metro-manila area. Kasumi-genx (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On cultural influences.
Take note that the Tagalog people are also heavily influenced by Chinese culture in culinary tradition & some customs. The article must be devoid of colonial mentality thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

should i delete this
"Transliterated, tagailog means 'coming from the river' or 'native of the river', with 'the' being implied."

i think readers can figure that out from the previous sentences. this one is just superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.184.124 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the whole first paragraph is ridiculously long-winded, I actually gave up reading when it started repeating the same information all over again. And we all know what a ford is. Do you fancy rewriting it? 80.7.16.160 (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Are the Muslims of Quiapo Tagalog?
Quiapo has a Muslim population in Manila. Are these Moro Muslims or descendants of Tagalog Muslims? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Ancestry
"...are ultimately the descendants of Austronesian-speaking immigrants from prehistoric Taiwan..." While this is an established and valid theory, it is not ultimately "proven" or fact. therefore I will attenuate this passage. --84.159.191.184 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it me, or does the description of the Tagalog people as "superior" to other Filipino ethnic groups sound flagrantly racist?!

':I too agree that the Wikipedia entries on the ancestry of the inhabitants of the Philippines is extremely troubling. There is so much left out and it seems designed to give readers the idea that Filipinos are Asian (Chinese) rather than Pacific Islanders comprised of rich, multi-ethnic origins. I will say more below.'Veganwriter (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If every country that lies in the Pacific ocean are Pacific Islanders, the people of Vancouver Island located in Canada, the inhabitants of Sakhalin Island off the coast of Russia and north of Japan will have to be Pacific islanders too. Too many countries lie in the pacific ocean and they are not necessarily located where the air is balmy and the typhoon is known by its inhabitants. I just happened to have been born in Manila but I am not a Tagalog by blood, I am a product of a Bicolana and Pampangan. I do not think Tagalogs are better just for being a Tagalog. We are Asians because the closest country to the Philippines are Taiwan to the north (101.03 miles Mayan Raele road Itbayat island to Eluanbi lighthouse Taiwan), Malaysia to the South ( 8.75 miles Pulau Libaran, Sabah to Taganak island Phils), Vietnam is the closest country west of the Philippines and Palau is the closest to the South. Balut island, Philippines is only 123.80 from Pulau Karakelong Indonesia. I used to live in Paco, Manila, Vietnam was closer in geography to Manila than Palau Island is close. Distance from Paco Manila to its nearest place in Palau (Bkulangriil)is 1,038.80 miles. I'll arrive faster in Quy Nhon Vietnam because the distance from Paco Manila is 791.46. IsaLang (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in the passage. What does being immigrants from Taiwan have to do with an alleged claim to superiority? The article clearly says that the Tagalogs AND OTHER aboriginal groups are descendants of immigrants from Taiwan. I am not a Tagalog, I am an Ilocano, and so I know that Ilocanos came to the Philippines first before the Tagalogs because we are closer to Taiwan. I do not understand why Visayans make such a big fuss over it?
 * The speakers of ilocano, tagalog and most other ethnic groups in the philippines are descendants of the same people who are described as speaking proto-philippine with maybe exception is of bajau group.Kasumi-genx (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm.. you don't say i am Cebuano, which is a Visayan people and most other Filipino groups HATE that the Tagalogs think that Cebuanos, Ilokanos, Ilonggos, Bikolano, are are inferior and try to say the we say that Cebu (the city) is 'perfect' and that it isn't a good city, lol i am going to off subject here!! well anyway tagalogs are just too afraid that they arent the best to the just try to enforce their language, and beliefs onto other Filipino groupsAustralian Jezza 11:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's because Cebuanos of Cebu seem to have an superiority-inferiority complex not present among other ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines (and I've traveled a lot within the country) and try to compensate for it (like the people of Cataluña do) by (mentally) putting the Tagalogs and Metromanileños (given that the majority of Metromanileños are not Tagalog) down, and basically everyone else (including their own fellow Cebuanos raised in Metro Manila who speak only Filipino, whom they then start referring to contemptuously as "those Tagalogs"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.176.7 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Add to that is that Cebu Cebuanos seem to elevate Metromanileños onto a mental pedestal so high that they end up passionately hating the latter in the end when they get sick of their inferiority complex. That's when it transforms into a superiority complex. The outward manifestations may be different, but it's basically the same thing inside.
 * Not really. If you were raised in Metro Manila, you would surely experience some form of aversion or even ridicule towards non-Tagalog cultures. I've overheard many people in our community say something derogatory associated to anything Visayan. Same for a few of my teachers in elementary and high school which my classmates also tended to emulate. You've seen these things being mildly dished out in olden comedy movies and very overtly in recent ones like Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo. I've seen some hateful and unnerving comments on Yahoo! news sections as well. Many acquaintances have testified to insults in real life. Tagalog or non-Tagalog who blindly supports an oppressive Filipino "national identity" (a failed one because there can never really be one unless you oppress us to the point of making us curse our own identities and finally choose Tagalog), they are all misguided by the sin that is the cultural and educational system that we have as a country. Pansitkanton (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * my filipino side of my family are not Cebuanos of Cebu... they are Cebuanos of bohol... so by you argument i shouldn't have a problem with the Tagalogs, and also cebuanos are not the only ones... i know... there are alot of Ilokanos, Cebuanos and Warays in australia, and they don't like the whole tagalog being forced onto them, so they prefer to talk in english to each otherAustralian Jezza 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless the importance of Tagalog people in the history of the Philippines (which is quite easy to understand, e.g. Manila was the center of Spanish and American and lastly Independent-Republic's power) it is blatantly biased to say, they are "superior" to others. Nobody should make a statement like this (e.g. "The Tagalogs have definitely shown far more intellectual and cultural vigour compared to other ethnolinguistic groups"). --87.193.11.129 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity in the philippines depends on location where you are born not depending on your parents if you are born in manila and speak tagalog as your first language then you are tagalog and cebuano if you are born in cebu and cebuano is your first tongue regardless of your parent's ethnicity,I think since tagalog is a ethnolinguistic group people who speak tagalog as their first language should also be treated as tagalog Kasumi-genx (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it's unnecessarily generalistic to say that ethnicity is depending where you were born and what your first language (L1) is notwithstanding your parents' ancestry. It should be an open definition given a significant history of migration in the Philippines. I am genetically and self-acclaimed Visayan myself but never learned my parents' languages, yet we eat typical Visayan dishes and idiosyncrasies pervade in our home. In fact, they themselves persist I AM Tagalog (already) and want me to stick with Tagalog and avoid "the burden of learning their languages." Was ambivalent with my identity before (neither Tagalog nor whatsoever), too. What should matter is what you think you are right now. But of course, educated inquiry about your past can never hurt. Pansitkanton (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Native Tagalog people vs. Philippine celebrities/historical figures
Reason: Wikipedia is not a directory. I think the Notable people listed in this article needs to reorganized and narrowed down. They do not represent the real faces of the ethnic Tagalog people. Especially for the celebrities, just because these people were born Tagalog speakers and are now famous doesn't mean we can keep on adding more. We should restrict the number of people listed in this article and I was thinking of those Filipinos born in the Cavite City because it is the birthplace of the ethnic Tagalog people. If I get no replies I'll start making some changes.Masterpeace3 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now made the changes. Also narrowed down montage and might re-add more later on. Hope to discuss with those who disagreed with my change here.Masterpeace3 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 13:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog people → Tagalogs – Per WP:ETHNICGROUP and WP:CONCISE. Also per WP:COMMONNAME: as per Google Ngram, "Tagalogs" is far more common than "Tagalog people". Khestwol (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't make sense. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – This is the common name, is more WP:CONCISE, more WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles, and also falls in line with WP:NCET. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Per WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles including Koreans, Pashtuns, Germans, Swedes, Uzbeks, etc. Khestwol (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per all Red Slash 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support GregKaye 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the moment oppose - can the nom please run a Google Book search on "Tagalogs are" vs "Tagalog people are" to see what is used in books. Then notify all those who have commented please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tagalog people are" is uncommon but "Tagalogs are" is very common. See Google Books Ngram, where "Tagalog people are" does not even appear in the graph. Khestwol (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Support In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as nom, WP:CONSISTENCY and common name as well. Cavarrone 12:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move comments

 * Does anyone else here feels "Tagalogs" as referring to the people is unnatural and awkward especially if it's rarely heard and used even in Philippine English? Tagalog, like English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish, is an ADJECTIVE, and that's why its use is ambiguous and may refer to either people or language. The old titles actually helps to avoid confusing readers by explicitly disambiguating and describing the topic in the title. By the way, the reason "Tagalog people are" is not as commonly used anymore is because Tagalog has become the national language and therefore, any mention of Tagalog people has switched to "Filipino people" just like Castillian people becoming Spanish people and Gaelic people becoming Irish people.--RioHondo (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tagalog language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. SMcCandlish summed it up pretty well (including the comment about "strong" !votes). Number  5  7  15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagalogs → Tagalog people – The article should use the WP:COMMONNAME. This move was done hastily and should have been allowed to stay for a while. The current name is WP:CONTROVERSIAL and is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, see above -- there was a successful move request just few days ago so you should have not started this so soon. "Tagalogs" is the COMMONNAME, is WP:CONCISE and is well established, its usage is older than "Tagalog people" so there is no possibility of it being neologism. WP:ETHNICGROUPS prefers to use plural ethnonyms as titles when they are not ambiguous e.g. Koreans, Swedes, Pashtuns, Germans, etc. Adding the word "people" to title when it is not needed is not preferred. You should have checked the Google Ngram link above before requesting this move. Khestwol (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The previous move goes against WP:NATURAL. As I stated in my earlier comment, this "Tagalogs" is unheard of here and I am saying this as an English-speaking Filipino and a Tagalog person myself. The natural disambiguation is Tagalog people, let's not call Spanish people as "Spanishes" or Gaelic people as "Gaelics" as this whole "Tagalogs" sounds. Tagalog is an adjective just like Spanish and Gaelic. The historical demonym for Tagalog people are "Tagalos" though just as Gaelic speaking people are Gaels not Gaelics.--RioHondo (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: however in English-language sources the word "Tagalogs" is by far more common than the term "Tagalog people". The more suitable WP:NATURAL disambiguation is provided by the current title "Tagalogs", the plural ethnonym. WP:ETHNICGROUP also prefers plural ethnonyms as titles when they are available and are unambiguous Khestwol (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because it's common doesn't mean it's a proper terminology. And besides, we are after aiding the readers here and making sure that article titles are WP:PRECISE too, so as not to confuse them with names that can be properly disambiguated for clarity.--RioHondo (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the above user misunderstands WP:NATURAL, which is a guideline on disambiguation, not on the WP:NATURALNESS of the title. Please read policies before citing them. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WP:NATURALNESS of the AT and its WP:RECOGNIZABILITY to users of Philippine English or otherwise is a concern for me. This AT simply isn't recognizable and unnatural for it to be of any help to anyone searching and reading the article on the people.--RioHondo (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE see associated requested move at talk:Tagalog (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – This proposal is disruptive, and should be speedily closed. The previous RM just closed, and found consensus in favour of a move. Any objection to that RM closure should be taken to WP:MR. Regardless, "Tagalogs" is the most common form, the most WP:CONCISE form, and the only form that provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The previous move was not consulted with any members of the Wikiproject Philippines. It was an attempt to fix something that is not even broken to begin with. The articles should be at Tagalog people and Tagalog language, with Tagalog being a disambiguation page being an adjective. "Tagalog" and "Tagalogs" doesn't just make them easily confused with each other, they simply don't aid in introducing the topics to readers.--RioHondo (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The project for the Philippines does not WP:OWN this article. Please adhere to common usage and Wikipedia policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, but majority of readership traffic to this article is from the Philippines, so our inputs should be taken into consideration. That's why you have article tagging for country wiki projects in the first place. This article title at present is just as foreign sounding as calling Dutch people as Dutches or Dutchs. It is that bad.--RioHondo (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be. That's because "Dutches" or "Dutchs" are not words in English (they are called "Dutchmen"), whereas "Tagalogs" is the standard term for the people, and found in the preponderance of sources as specified by our policies. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support - "The Tagalogs" is unheard of and sounds very uneducated. Not everything is pluralised by adding S. You wouldn't call the Hmong the Hmongs would you? Alec Station (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't "unheard of". It dominates Ngrams, which surveys reliable English-language books. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The word may have been used widely in the past, but it isn't any more that's why it's strange to hear and unrecognizable to present-day readers, including Filipinos and Tagalog people like myself. This is like the older (albeit more proper) ethnonym of Tagalos which has also been historically used in the past but not anymore. Do an Ngram search on "Tagalos are" and you'll see they are almost as widely used as "Tagalogs" in those colonial books of centuries past. There's actually more useful information to be had if you just search Google books for Tagalos. I'd say though we do away with this Tagalos vs. Tagalogs and just name it the way it can be recognized for readers at present.--RioHondo (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging participants in previous RM – This is an absurd rehashing, but it will only be fair if the participants in the previous request are notified. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator and . It must be an archaic term. Move about an ethnic group should not have been closed after only a handful of votes and a week. RGloucester you have no business calling this RM disruptive considering your failed attempt to "prepare" an RM after the Hillary Clinton rename didn't go your way (and that RM had way more than seven votes and was open for months). Experts such as Tagalog people themselves and members of Wikiproject Philippines (many of whom are native English speakers) should be consulted. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: why add "people" to the title when the concise plural ethnonym "Tagalogs" is more common? The nom is saying "Tagalogs" is neologism but that's not true; Google Ngram shows Tagalogs' usage is even older than "Tagalog people" and has been still more common. Khestwol (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not more common. It's not a neologism but it's understandable the nom assumed it was because it's such a strange word. Tagalog is the correct term in the English language and Encyclopedia Britannica agrees "Tagalogs" sound like Girl Scout Cookies.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tagalogs" is a perfectly normal word in English-language books. Sorry we can't agree with any of nom's claims. Here the nom is claiming that "Tagalog" primarily refers to Tagalog language not Tagalog person. Do you agree with the nom? Khestwol (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please can you justify your (as far as I can see) utterly unsubstantiated claims that the existing title is WP:CONTROVERSIAL and a WP:NEOLOGISM. Perhaps you can check the times that people began to use the descriptive term "Tagalogs" and the far less frequently used "Tagalog people".  Thank-you.  GregKaye 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase used is just "Tagalog" - of course you're not going to find as many searches when you add "people" to it. It's already plural, the same way you can say just "the Irish" or "Irish" and not always "Irish people." (eg The Tagalog are the largest ethnic group residing in the Philippines... The Irish immigrated to the United States in large numbers... This valley is primarily populated by Tagalog...) etc. That's why the claimed Google numbers is skewed.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's very true also. Like I always say "I'm a Tagalog." Although, since Tagalog has become national, just like Castillian (becoming Spanish), and Gael (becoming Irish), I just say "I'm a Filipino." "Tagalogs" is indeed archaic like "Tagalos" whose common usage have been mostly in the past literature as seen in those Ngrams graph. With Tagalog being ambiguous and may refer to either language or people, we use the natural disambiguations that are precise and recognizable, which are Tagalog language and Tagalog people. "We are Tagalog". We never say "We are Tagalogs"!--RioHondo (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't give a damn about whether you say "Tagalogs", we care about what reliable sources say, and they say "Tagalogs". RGloucester  — ☎ 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, they also say Tagalos in those English-language reliable sources. Check Google books! Both Tagalos and Tagalogs are archaic and should be replaced by a more natural and recognizable disambiguation as I have been saying all along. This move is controversial because it alienates the topic from the readers, it's that simple.--RioHondo (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagalos is Spanish, not English. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So is Filipino. But its use has caught up in reliable English language literature. See this. It's actually a more agreeable ethnonym if you think about its ease of pronunciation and more romanticized more European form. There's plenty of good material which can be added to the article too with this older more academic ethnonym.--RioHondo (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Filipino" is Spanish that doesn't belong English (even if it has intruded into some dialects). What else is new? Regardless, that's not what's being discussed here. What is being discussed is the matter of "Tagalogs". "Tagalos" in any residual and minor English usage is archaic, as can be seen in the selection of sources that came up in your source. "Tagalogs" is not, and is the standard term. "Tagalos" is much harder for an English speaker to pronounce. It does not follow standard English pronunciation rules. It follows Spanish pronunciation rules, and takes gender and number. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We might as well move Filipino language and Filipino people to Philippine language and Philippine people following your English rules. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * when you say "we", who? Some people are doing exactly this.  I started with a search on "us tagalogs" and, given the views expressed here, I was surprised to find people self identifying as Tagaologs.  However I was also then surprised that a search on "we are tagalogs" only got 9 results.
 * For views that may relate to the your case I started at the beginning of the alphabet and did a search related to the native american tribe "we are Abenakis". I haven't gone in depth but there seems to be some objection to this term.  I haven't as yet seen the same for "Tagalogs".  GregKaye 03:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am referring to us Tagalog speakers. It's an issue of WP:NATURALNESS of the term and its WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that can be avoided through the use of proper, more natural disambiguation. This is unlike Filipino and Filipinos where you can just add s to produce its plural form. Tagalog is not an Indo-European language so adding S is very unnatural to Philippine English speakers when they use local terms or code-switch even. Even in standard English, the word is hard weird to pronounce, so its usage is limited compared to Tagalog speakers or Tagalog natives where Tagalog act as what it really is, an adjective, just like English and Spanish.--RioHondo (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't care about "Philippine English speakers", whom you claim to represent. We care about English-language reliable sources. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is one of the standard methods of demonym formation in the English language, and is particularly more common than all other alternatives in this case. "Philippine English speakers" do not determine article titles on the English Wikipedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose pending sources Red Slash 15:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The people are Tagalog not Tagalogs. Tagalog is preferred. One person is being quite rude here to say "we don't give a damn" about what Filipinos think. I for one care about what Filipinos think. It is factually incorrect to say adding -s is one of the standard methods of demonym formation in the English language. Adding -s merely makes a word plural and there is no reason to add -s to an already plural word such as was already demonstrated with Dutch and Irish. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NATURAL and this Ngram "Tagalogs" is more appropriate and the standard term for the people. The singular "Tagalog" also refers to topics other than the people hence is ambiguous. The nom thinks "Tagalogs" is controversial and a neologism. Do you agree with the nom and claim the Google Books Ngram gave false results? Khestwol (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This clearly shows "Tagalogs" is archaic with declining usage in favor of "Tagalog are". Tagalogs, like Tagalos, is archaism.--RioHondo (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong comparison. We all agree the singular "Tagalog" is also used in plural sense and yes, "Tagalog" is more common, but it is ambiguous as its also the language. You shoud be comparing unambiguius forms that can be used as title. Khestwol (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the issue is disambiguation, then the precise, natural and recognizable disambiguation of "Tagalog people" should be the remedy, not any of those archaic terms. Now if that is still an issue, then how about the second approach of Tagalog (people) and Tagalog (language)? That way those disambiguators are not part of the title.--RioHondo (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, "Tagalogs" is not an archaic term, nor is it neologism, what the nom claims. You guys are making contradictory claims which have been proven false. Over parenthetical disambiguation a WP:NATURAL disambiguation is more in line with WP:AT, so the current title "Tagalogs" which offers a natural disambiguation is the best option for title. Khestwol (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ngrams graph is proof that the usage of the term "Tagalogs" had only been common in the early 1900s, and by the 1960s up to the present, there is clear preference for simply "Tagalog" to refer to the people.--RioHondo (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it is a neologism but an archaic term. RioHondo is correct. Tagalog is preferable now. I do not agree it is ambiguous you have the many examples: Māori people and Māori language. Archaic term was "Māoris" but it is incorrect as Māori is already plural. Why is Tagalog people and Tagalog language different? Adding -s to an already plural term is improper English and shows great ignorance. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The evidence presented above, and in the previous discussion that found a clear consensus for using "Tagalogs", shows that "Tagalogs" is in common use and may even be more common than "Tagalog people". Pending some good reason not to use the term, it looks like the preferable choice.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The term Tagalog is much more inclusive and ambiguous than the term Tagalogs. Both may be used to describe the people but using the singular Tagalog may be preferable in order to avoid picking a side on this ambiguouity. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close There appears to be no concensus at the moment. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read this latest version of the article, the people are already mentioned as the "Tagalog" as plural in the body of the text. That is the formal, more academic, and preferrable word to use, and is not painful to read, compared to "Tagalogs" which is archaic, and hardly recognizable.--RioHondo (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have provided no evidence of the "archaic" nature of "Tagalogs". Find a dictionary entry or otherwise that lists it as "archaic". Until then, this is pure WP:OR on your part and directly contrary to RS. We can't use "Tagalog" as ambiguous, but we can use "Tagalogs" as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the language. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support More clear and more common for groups of people. Eldizzino (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not more common, and is in fact discouraged by the relevant guideline, i.e. WP:NCET. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support it makes it easier to distinguish between the language and the people. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The language is not called "Tagalogs", it is called "Tagalog". Disambiguation is provided for by the "s". RGloucester  — ☎ 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The use of plurals from foreign languages sometimes omit the s. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Adding "strong" your !vote doesn't make it worth more or get your point across better, it's just tedious.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Neologistic and not well-attested in high-quality sources. Fails WP:COMMONNAME, if you do the analysis correctly. This is not a contest between "Tagalogs" and "Tagalog people" for prevalence, recognizability, and the other criteria. The COMMONNAME analysis is between "Tagalogs" and "Tagalog" where the latter wins by a landslide. In almost every way, not just COMMONNAME. "Tagalog" also being the name of the language, it must be dismabiguated, and WP:NATURAL policy has us do this with natural disambiguation when possible. "Tagalog people" is a natural-English phrase, and trumps the parenthetic "Tagalog (people)". You actually have to  WP:AT, and follow all the logic in it, not pick the one criterion among many you like best, and misapply it blindly.  COMMONNAME does not work the way many of you seem to think it does, nor does AT policy as a whole. If you apply it programmatically, it's essentially impossible to arrive at any conclusion but "Taglog people" given the stepwise rules in the policy, and our naming and disambiguation conventions with regard to human populations.  PS: You can't just add the English -[e]s suffix to every demonym. The fact that many demonym plurals have been formed this way does not mean that every conceivable one will be, nor that every attempt at it will be well accepted in RS, which this one is not.  Someone above said that just tacking on -[e]s is the "standard" way to form demonyms. I'm an anthropologist and linguist by training, and I haven't read that standard.  Please provide me with a copy of it. What standards body issued it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tagalog people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415152209/http://www.history-centre.gov.bn/sultanbrunei.htm to http://www.history-centre.gov.bn/sultanbrunei.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228152829/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=L00000000001&page=1&epage=1 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=L00000000001&page=1&epage=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714223357/http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?igm=4&i=252 to http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?igm=4&i=252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Religion of Tagalog people
recently, i added information corresponding about the religion of the tagalog people aside to animism/anitsm there are minorities who practiced Syncretic form of Hinduism, Buddhism , (it was backed by artifacts found in Tondo ,and Batangas with its references). but a user named N0n3up reverted it and the reason was "reverting blocked editor sockpuppet of JournalmanManila" Well, "if" this user was reverting information by judging "if" that was a work of a Sockpuppet, then that was "pathetic", (since it has a backing of the legit materials not a problematic / vandalism)The other "professional" members who check a statement would tell " reverting a work for example : "Revering edits of _______ because of the statements where not supported by this "supposed" reference that you gave." and N0n3up reverted the statements just because he think that it was work by a supposed sock? well, that was inappropriate! it was clear you never check or scoped the references or any citations tagged in the statement before you decided to remove it. So this is a matter of content dispute, Members must be check the sections and its references / sourcing before he / she would decide to omit nor delete and information which is already backed by a legitimate sourcing or else , he is willing to compromise the quality of information by just of his personal thoughts. thank you!.(Enola gay0 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC))
 * PS You or anyone can reply for this message, i will reply sooner since i'm busy now, but i can wait Thank you! (Enola gay0 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

Shouldn't the Heritage towns and cities section be a separate article?
Shouldn't the Heritage towns and cities section be a separate article as this is about the Tagalog people? - Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2020 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Antipolo Cathedral facade 2014.JPG

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) 12:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tanghalang Maria Makiling Los Banos.JPG

"Taga-ilog"
Has it ever been established what river was it? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Pasig River, maybe? I don't know. A quick Google search shows Antonio Luna because he had used it as his pseudonym in La solidaridad. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some books on Google Books mentions "Taga-ilog" and "Pasig" several times, although I couldn't verify it since the books are not yet available online. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 00:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)