User talk:Chipmunkdavis/Philippines

Yes, Malaysia too
The MNLF claims Mindanao, Sabah, and Sarawak to be part of their country "Bangsamoro" which again is still is not recognized. I hope they stop because their the only one that will be happy, not the citizens. Please don't revert my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.44.131 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement? -Manila: Disasters and Recovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manila#Proposal:_Adding.2C_.22Disasters_and_Recovery.22_section_to_the_article.

Do you agree to my concession over this subsection?

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Classical states
Kingdoms and city states (called barangays) dominated the 1st millenium such as the Confederation of Madja-as in Panay and the Rajahnate of Cebu, Philippine prehistory ended on April 21, 900 when the Laguna Copperplate Inscription was written documenting the Kingdom of Tondo, which was ruled by the Lakandula dynasty. On March 17, 1001, the Song Shih documents the Kingdom of Butuan trading with the Song dynasty of China. Great epics such as the Hinilawod, Darangen and the Biag ni Lam-ang trace their origins to this era.

In 1380, Karim ul' Makdum arrived from Malacca to Simunul, Tawi-Tawi and established the oldest mosque in the country. The Sultanate of Sulu was established by Sharif ul-Hāshim in November 17, 1405 by converting the local rajah to Islam and marrying his daughter. At the end of the 15th century, Shariff Mohammed Kabungsuwan of Johor introduced Islam to Mindanao and established the Sultanate of Maguindanao extending it further into Lanao. Islam spread out of Mindanao in the south into Luzon in the north. Manila was converted through the reign of Sultan Bolkiah in 1500, wherein, the Sultanate of Brunei subjugated the kingdom, converting its ruler. Rivalries between the datus, rajahs, huangs, sultans, and lakans eventually eased Spanish colonization. These states became incorporated into the Spanish Empire and were Hispanicized and Christianized.

I need feedback on this edit. I am planning to add it within the next 24 hours.-- ♥  10:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my well sourced edits from the Philippine's article?
I provided 4 references for the addition of the Binuangang Civilization that was recently rediscovered in Manila Bay, yet you claim it's not well sourced. I actually contacted a member of the University of the Philippines Archaeological Society for help in making that article. Anyway I think that it's well sourced since there will be a symposium on it this May and a book is currently being written about it and that the Philippine military already acknowledged it. However, I shall assume that you have good intentions and I should refine my wordings of that the sentence about that lost civilization should be made less flowery and pea cocky.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The references provided do not meet our WP:Reliable Sources guideline. Nor do they fully support the text they are connected to. Wikipedia is WP:NotNews, and should not be used to break news. As research becomes more established, more sources will appear that Wikipedia can rely on.
 * The information is, at any rate, far too detailed for the Philippines article, which should be written in WP:SummaryStyle. The article is already far too long, and grossly unbalanced. CMD (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon the interruption but, in my humble view CMD is correct in asserting that our Philippines article is "already far too long, and grossly unbalanced"; perhaps there is enough well-sourced material for a separate article?--BushelCandle (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

About our edits to the Philippines article
Should we continue on condensing the article? I supplied some references and deleted some content from some citations needed tags, I'm working on condensing the article even further, once done, should we submit it for a Featured Article review? The article was a featured article before it lost it status, then we edited it and it regained good article status, I think it's high time that we should try to return its featured article status. Should I do a voice recording of the article before we submit it to featured status or after it? I'm in quarantine so I have the free time to voice record.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk page. CMD (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Corcerning your removal of a source in the Philippine History Article about the Manila Galleons
Corcerning your removal of a source in the Philippine History Article about the Manila Galleons...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Philippines&type=revision&diff=967638415&oldid=967636414

You removed it saying that it's not supported in the source that the Manila Galleons are among the largest then in the world, I think it is supported in the source, I will show you a screenshot of the page and passage that said it is.

https://i.imgur.com/68VriZH.png

I don't know if, that's enough for you though. Please, enlighten me, thank you.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You wrote "the largest wooden ships of the era". The underlined phrase refers to a single ship, not the whole fleet throughout the existence of the galleon route, and the rest of the sentence clearly states that this claim was potentially an exaggeration. CMD (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for the clarification. I guess I should rephrase it to just 'it is alleged that some Manila Galleons are "among" the largest ships constructed in the era." How about that? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the source does not say that either. CMD (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How about: One Manila Galleon is alleged to be among the largest ships in the world. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's putting a lot of weight on the claims of what is probably a Spanish official trying to boast about what they did a few hundred years ago. What would be the value of such a statement to the article? It's one of the least interesting aspects of that source. CMD (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, there has been other ships in the source that were in the 2000 range and that, at least they were twice larger than the ships used in Europe or the Spanish-Americas, that's according too the rest of the source.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see twice mentioned anywhere. The source supports that for maybe 20-30 years in the early 17th century there were 2000 ton ships that were larger than any others in the Atlantic. At least one or two, perhaps more, reached similar sized again in the mid-18th century. This is within the overall context of shifting regulations and competing interests that tell a much more interesting story of changing sizes. Again, I don't see the value of focusing on this singular point in the context of Philippine history. CMD (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm youre right, how about we focus on the reasons why the size changed and state that there was many contraband traded and royal size limits were violated and that Mexican and Manila merchants were in leaugue to defy Madrid's royal laws for the sake of profit. Maybe posting the background as to why the sizes were that way is more apt for the article. What doyou think? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of very useful information that the source you found could add to our article on Manila galleon. However, as I mentioned in Talk:Manila galleon, the current article has a poor structure that makes it hard to slot it in. I feel there should for example be a section focused on the ships themselves, where information about the size of individual ships would work very well. CMD (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the Manila Galleon article needs to be restructured.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

About another edit in the Philippines article this time about demographics.
This is corncerning one edit, where you removed the approximate amount of people possesing Spanish admixture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&type=revision&diff=967979225&oldid=967961574

I however agree with you that most of it is original research, however there is one source there that categorically stated that 1/3rd of the population of Luzon Island, which now hold half the population of the Philippines had varying degrees of Spanish admixture.

Jagor, Fëdor, et al. (1870). The Former Philippines thru Foreign Eyes http://www.authorama.com/former-philippines-b-8.html

I feel as if removing mention of that in the Demographics section is unfair since the same section mention the 20% of Filipinos having partial Chinese descent yet, the 1/3rd of Luzon island which has Spanish admixture was erased. What do you think? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that source is from 1870. CMD (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok lets just state that Spanish era news sources, said that then. Instead of letting original research exterpolate from that. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be very wp:undue for such a high level article. You have expressed a desire for the article to be a featured article. The criteria for that include "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". That is completely incompatible with using sources from the 19th century, not to mention that the Demographics section should cover current demographics not demographics from two centuries prior. Note that there is a source for European DNA which I kept from that paragraph and put in the earlier paragraph. I am unsure whether the Xinhua article is due and high-quality for the topic (or whether genetic admixture is due for the article at all), however, all I have been doing so far is removing bad sources and editing or noting unsourced information. The Xinhua article meets that criteria, while an 1870 source doesn't. CMD (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * How about I place the 1870 Census Data to the main article about Demographics, and the Demographic history of the Philippines article? Since there are demographics of past centuries put there anyway and then we just shorten the mention that there is European, South Asian and Latin American admixture in the Philippines in addition to the Chinese as this source said:


 * https://i.imgur.com/sJ2efLQ.png


 * From National Geographic.


 * I'm just saying so because there haasn't been an official racial survey of the Philippines since the end of the Spanish period, the last racial survey was during the Spanish era.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea of racial surveys has somewhat gone out of fashion. At any rate, it would be very poor to conflate racial surveys with modern genetic studies. They have very different assumptions, deal with very different outcomes, and take place in very different contexts. This historical surveys might fit in the main demographics article or another more specific article, but please do indicate the context. It should not be presented as current knowledge, or perhaps even as a definitive fact at the time. CMD (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, I'll transfer dated demographics information to the appropriate articles.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell me when you finishined Copy-Editing the Philippine Article
Tell me when you finishined Copy-Editing the Philippine Article and when you finish putting the citations needed tags on it because once you are done, I will do some book crawling and furnish the needed citations, hopefully our library will be opened and I can furnish it, but if it's not I'll resort to online sources. Just tell me when you're done in my talk page, since I intend to supply the missing citations. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talkpage. CMD (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on checking recent edits on Philippines
Hello, may I request you to please check on the recent edits by PCommission on Philippines. Please check if it violates undue weight, or if it needs rewriting. Also, can you please check on the sources he used? He used a source about Ferdinand Marcos written by Marcos' political rival Benigno Aquino Jr., as well as the not-so-reliable Rappler, which is known to have high bias. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sanglahi86, sorry I haven't had much time to edit lately. Looking through those edits, I would agree some additions feel undue and there appears to be a slant in presentation in some areas. On sources, even biased sources can be used with care. That said, any fact important enough to appear in a high-level article like Philippines would likely be able to be found in multiple sources, so the source discussions should probably be secondary to discussions on the content itself. CMD (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. In the meantime, I will lie low in finding reliable sources for the article as PCommission recently made several significant changes, especially in the History section. I fervently hope you could copyedit some of those additions if you have time. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Help! New Users have garbled our formerly streamlined edits in the Philippines article beyond recognition!
Help! New Users have garbled our formerly streamlined edits in the Philippines article beyond recognition! I wanted to revert the article status to your streamlined editions but I cannot use the revert function because the Mods have placed me under probation (You can check my Userpage if you want), can you please talk some sense to our new users who are bloating our article again beyond recognition. If you send them to a discussion page I'll gladly inform them on what form for the article to follow, but since I am in probation I can't revert the article back to previous versions. Yours truly! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphan cite in Philippines article
Please see this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was this Jstor paper. It's interesting, but I don't think it's needed there. Perhaps it can be included elsewhere though. CMD (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

About a source you removed in the Philippines article.
In this edit of our article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&type=revision&diff=986191530&oldid=986030800 You said that the source you removed is not related to the text, but it's only the name of the book which makes it not related to the text. Upon clicking the source, you would find the text in Wikipedia used in the book. Here's the quote: "These Peninsular officers were less committed to the people they were assigned to protect and were often predatory, enriching themselves before returning to Spain, putting the interests of the metropolis over the interest of the natives." Let me underline it for you in a picture. It's written in Wikipedia how the Peninsulares only sought to enrich themselves whereas the Google Book cited that these Peninsulares love to enrich themselves: https://i.imgur.com/uLjjCrO.png. Would you mind if I restore the reference and add a quote from the book and it's page number and ISBN? Thanks and Happy Halloween!--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The underlined text does not support the relevant quote. It says nothing about commitment to Spain, protection, being predatory, returning to Spain, or the interests of the metropolis and the natives. CMD (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Request in Philippines article expansion.
Hello, the Philippines page (under Culture section) is missing information about the introduction of comedia (komedya), zarzuela, and vaudeville (bodabil) in the country. As I am not very adept at constructing sentences from scratch, may I respectfully request you to kindly expand the article to include these information? I have found the following sources that may be of help:


 * https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=H1iFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA372
 * https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=qLQOd-PFxe4C&pg=PA69
 * https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Bl0OAAAAYAAJ

Thank you, and regards. -Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will see what I can do from the first two sources. The Culture section needs quite a bit more attention. CMD (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Magellan Cross in Philippines
Please, discuss on talk page about your great discontent, is a key part in the history of Philippines, please, explain your removal claims. --Pedro158 (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I left edit summaries with explanations each time, please read them and the links provided. CMD (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Request in revising history content regarding Balikbayan box and Overseas Filipino Worker
Hello. May I kindly request you to please revise the Balikbayan box history section regarding the origins of the box? I have found several sources such as those below linking the balikbayan box to the Balikbayan Progam in the 1970s during President Ferdinand Marcos' time, but is nowehere to be found in the article:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

And perhaps also the history section of the article Overseas Filipino Worker can be revised to include this information? Thanks.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the OFW article doesn't really have a History section, which is somewhat of a pity. Your sources do link the emergence of the box to the program, and that information fits in with the existing text on the Balikbayan box article, so would make a good addition. I'll find some time to edit the box article with a small addition, but the OFW article would require some dedicated and significant time. CMD (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
Hi. I've been working this morning to straighten out the cites in the Philippine–American War article which go to various versions of this source and I ran into a conflict with your edits when I tried to save the result of that. I've saved my edit-conflicted version offline and will suspend work on this for now. Please let me know when I can get back to this without conflicting with you -- early morning tomorrow would be a good time for me and I'll plan to let you know here when I'm done with that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just fixing up the errors I could see with my tool, all done now. Feel free to put up an in-use template if you're in the middle of something. CMD (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Dolan fixes in Notes numbered 20, 62, 125, 164 and 171 and see that there are still cites in differing styles to several different versions of that source. My fixes reworked all of those into cites to the online sversion I linked above, which is actually dated 1991 (vs. Google Books previews of print versions with differing publication dates). I've saved my edit-conflicted version with my version of the fixes at User:Wtmitchell/sandbox; if you don't mind, I'll replace your Dolan fixes with mine from there -- OK? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, my Dolan edit was just a temporary patch on the recent lead addition. CMD (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Taylor source
Hi Chip.

This is following on the edit summary of this recent edit by you. The short version is "I'm confident that they are the same". Both apparently refer to different instances of the compilation of insurgent records put together by John R. M. Taylor. The reference here came via this edit by you, copying it from the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article. I apparently put it in there a long time ago, without a wikilink to the source. That was added by me (with at least one typo) in this 2009 edit, with a link to an online source which is no longer working; attempts to go there now end up here I did find a web page where that quoted bit is visible here, but there's a lot on nonprintable chars in there; you can find the quoted text there with a text search for attack was planned. That looks like an interpretive comment by Taylor someone, not part of the compiled records. A pdf of the insurgent paper compilation, or perhaps part of it, can be downloaded here.

I don't know whether any of that is useful but, having dug it up, I thought I would pass it on in case it is.

Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding a bit, I notice that Tay6lot's intro to the compiled papers (pdf linked above) says that they show, "... that it had been fully determined to attack the Americans in Manila upon a favorable opportunity, and that in the event of the success of this attack the so-called insurgent government would not have continued even to call itself a republic." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding another bit, I've been spending spare minutes searching for a document supporting the attack was planned text in the asserted quote in the articles mentioned above and quoted in several other related articles, after not having been able to find those words and other words in that quote with text searches in this apparent instance of the cited supporting source which is linked in at least some of the articles containing this asserted quote. This morning, I found this other instance of that online, and did find that quote with a text search there. Comparing the two instances, I see that the quoted bit is present in both, but on page 6 instead of page 5 as cited here. I haven't tried to find all those other places where this quote is present and to look at the cites there, but they should probably all cite the same source instance, and should surely cite the same source; I'm not sure which of these two instances of this source ought to be linked -- the one in which text searches don't work well is easier to read. Maybe link both instances separately in the cites? Dithering. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great detective work. Personally I find the archive.org source easier to read. I have taken in some cases where there are two online options of similar value to including one in a hidden note. I see this as a backup in case one goes dead. CMD (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding a final (I think) bit on this -- I've created the pageno error from 5 to 6 and improved the cite in the articles: Battle of Manila (1899), History of the Philippines (1898–1946). United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands. cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte
Hello Chipmunkdavis. I am not sure if you have been monitoring, but Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte has become one of the longest articles. I have been working on its expansion since last year, and I tried reducing its size by condensing; I also asked for a peer review and GOCE copyedit. Other editors also successfully reduced its size by trimming/condensing/spinning off its content over the months. If you have enough time, can you please take a look at it and hopefully reduce its size. I am having a difficult time condensing its current content through summary style. The talk page may also give some insights. Thank you. Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Sanglahi, nice to hear from you. It looks like many successful sub-articles have been created, so the easiest way to trim is to look at what details in those sections can be shifted. However, I can see why this is difficult! I was looking at for example condensing the Russia section, but I don't think it's enough for its own article and also think it too detailed for the general relations article, so not sure where it could go. (As an aside, not sure it would affect this page, but there's clearly an article missing on the Philippines and its history with the ICC.)An obvious candidate for summarising is the lead, which at the moment is both too long and has a lot of unique references. These need to be shifted into the body and the lead built anew. (Also an aside, the new Wikipedia format has destroyed the page's image positions, the upper part of the article will needs its images moved. The Rodrigo Duterte Sidebar may also have to go.) A bold idea might be to scrap the First 100 days section, and mention in the relevant thematic sections "X was a priority action during the first 100 days" or similar. At any rate, it's a detailed job, and it seems like the sort of article that will end up on the long end of the scale. CMD (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Such a shame the new theme severely affected the layout of articles (I opted to continue using the Legacy theme). I agree the sidebar might have to be removed. The China and United States section appears less cohesive; it is also the article's longest section. I hope it could be further improved. I might remove some unneeded citations in the lead, though I may leave it as it is as I am at a loss on how to rewrite it. Kind regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions and input for improving Philippines citations for consistency
Hello Chipmunkdavis. The article Philippines currently uses both rp and sfn for single sources having various page numbers. For consistency, I was thinking of choosing one, but need your input and suggestions since you may have used rp while I opted to later use sfn. The reason I used sfn was because I initially did not know hot to add a link to the page number in rp. What do you think would be better in terms of maintainability/readability? I am leaning towards using rp since the references section would show the complete citation details without having to do a mouseover on the citation unlike in sfn. Currently, 16 citations use rp while sfn uses 23. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * On second thought though, upon inspection, most featured articles use sfn. rp, although showing a single/unique source in References section, does not show the page numbers on the References section, unlike sfn. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Sanglahi, I use rp as a matter of personal preference, and suspect many of the uses on Philippines are from me. I feel rp is easier to access as an editor and a reader, and integrates better with other types of sources such as websites, but that remains just a personal preference. If you wish to standardize, I have no objection to you converting references to sfn. CMD (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree sfn is quite more complicated than rp. I tend to obsess over consistent formatting but do not plan on taking it to the extreme. For now, I will then convert rp citations to sfn for consistency purposes. Thank you for your valuable input. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you revert some of my edits recently?
Why do you revert several of my edits recently? I just add a caret symbol (^) to the largest city/municipality on the list of every province as an indication. What's wrong with it? For example, in Iloilo, the capital and largest city is Iloilo City while in Ilocos Sur, Vigan is the capital while Candon is the largest city. 49.146.26.186 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all, a caret symbol is not great as it is the symbol for references. Secondly, there is no point indicating such things on sortable tables, as they can be sorted. Thirdly, the largest city is a function of how you are defining large (and city for that matter). CMD (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for content verification
Hello Chipmunkdavis. Can you please verify the citations used in Philippines Spanish and American colonial rule (1565–1946) section's sentence "The Spanish forces brought by Legazpi's five ships were a mix of Spaniards and Novohispanics (Mexicans) from New Spain (modern Mexico)." I checked the sources but could not find a source that explicitly stated that Novohispanics were included in Legazpi's five ships. The closest reliable and accessible source I could find online (which is not used as a citation for that statement) is page 102 of "The Spanish Lake" by O. H. K. Spate (2004) that simply stated "The four ships carried a total complement of 380, of whom 200 were soldiers for the settlement." Perhaps you could please check and revise the sentence according to the cited sources? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Sanglahi86, that is definitely not my writing. Appears to have been added here. Honestly I'd just remove the sentence, not sure what value it adds at all. CMD (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and insights. I have removed the sentence, also for a better overview and to reduce the section's size. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Source and content verification request
Hello Chipmunkdavis. I was expanding some references in Philippines when I found the source of the phrase "usually paid as 75 tons of silver bullion from the Americas." did not appear to support the said phrase. (page 20 direct link) I could not find any other reliable source supporting it. Could you please verify and revise/remove the phrase if needed? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sinulog images in Philippines
Hello. There is an image of Sinulog festival in Philippines article (under section Holidays and festivals) that has a bad grammar in its image caption and a missing alt text. This image replaced the previous Ati-atihan festival image in one of the previous edits which involved adding excess images but of which most changes by the editor had been reverted. This Sinulog image was left unreverted.

Do you have suggestions on what to do? If we fix the image caption and add alt text to the Sinulog image, wouldn't it be giving undue weight/focus to the Sinulog festival since an image of the said festival is already under section Religion? Should we restore the Ati-atihan image instead, or do you think it is better to use an Independence Day (Philippines) image? Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Festivals subsection should exist at all, it's not due a subsection and has except for the Christmas season note only primary sources and news reports. Images in general could use a look, I see Keroscene777 has resumed the edit war to put in their preferred image again. CMD (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that you mentioned it, I agree the list of the 12 regular holidays seems undue; I could remove that list from the subsection. If we remove that entire subsection though, do you think an even shorter summary should be included directly under the Culture section? I had based that holidays subsection on FA Japan, which mentioned their well-known holidays in its own subsection. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That Japan subsection did not exist at the time of the last FAR, and I'd remove that one too. It's almost a listicle. As for keeping summaries, I try to defer to broad summaries to help assess due weight. Something published by Oxford University Press probably fits that bill well, so that seems a good argument that it's a notable enough part of Philippine culture to mention. CMD (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will try condensing that Philippines subsection content and place it under Culture section. Thanks for the insights and useful information. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)