Talk:Philippines/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Philippines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Line 108: Dead link

General Profile of the Philippines : Geography at the Wayback Machine (archived November 4, 2005) (archived from the original on 2005-11-04), Philippine Information Agency.

Line 124: Possible bias

Philippines currently has one of Asia's fastest growing economies, and the

Line 165: Deleted space

Line 172: Deleted space

Line 201: I cleaned this paragraph a bit. The content is too much. I also removed the photo below.

Line 217: Cleaned paragraph. Moved the ilustrados photo to top. Deleted photo below.

Line 253: Added a new source at the end of the paragraph, change the size of the photo of Quezon, combined the two paragraphs into one, changed the photo of the Marcoses,

Line 317: Deleted the photo below, combined the two pragraphs

Line 332: Deleted the photo below, I accidentally deleted a paragraph (sorry)

Removed this un-sourced sentence:

The United States designated the country a major non-NATO ally. The Philippines is currently working to end its domestic insurgency with help from the United States.

Line 348: Removed dead link; I added a reference for the paragraph about the Middle East; switch one of the paragraphs a bit.

United Nations Human Rights Council. [c. 2009]. Membership by regional groups from 19 June 2006–18 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine (archived August 23, 2013) (archived from the original on 2013-08-23) . Retrieved 2010-03-21.

Line 377: Added alternate names of regions.

Line 395: Added alternate names of regions.

Line 408: Dead link

Archived from the original.

Line 423: Removed un-soured and possibly biased material

The white sand beaches that make Boracay a popular vacation getaway are made of coral remnants.

Line 437: Added a new photo

Line 465: Removed dead links and associated sentences (the sentence doesn't add any encylopedic value). Removed the photo of the tarsier and typhoon below.

Endemic species include the tamaraw of Mindoro, the Visayan spotted deer, the Philippine mouse deer, the Visayan warty pig, the Philippine flying lemur, and several species of bats. (Regalado, Jacinto C. Jr. and Lawrence R. Heaney. (1998). "Vanishing Treasures" at the Wayback Machine (archived March 18, 2009). In Lawrence R. Heaney, Vanishing Treasures of the Philippine Rain Forest. Chicago: Field Museum. (archived from the original on 2009-03-18).) (dead link)

The Apo Reef is the country's largest contiguous coral reef system and the second-largest in the world. (WWF-Philippines. (2008-09-02). Apo Reef Set to Reclaim Old Glory: park opens for tourism, closes for fishing. Retrieved 2010-04-26 from the WWF-Philippines Website.) (dead link)

Heaney, Lawrence R. [c. 2002]. "The Causes and Effects of Deforestation" at the Wayback Machine (archived March 17, 2009). Field Museum of Natural History. (archived from the original on 2009-03-17 (dead link)

Line 482: This is one of the lines discussed in the FA discussion. I deleted it.

Likewise, Tagaytay is a favored retreat.

Line 500: Removed un-sourced sentence. Re-positioned the cityscape photo to top of section

For the PAGASA, at least 19-22 storms would enter in their area and 10-13 storms would hit the Philippines.

Line 518: Restructured the Economy section, you may want to look at this.

Line 528: Same as above.

Line 534: Restructured the Transportation section, you may want to look at this. Removed the photo of NAIA "the worst airport in the world".

File:NAIA Terminal 3 2009 MC.jpg

Line 552: Restructured the Communications section, you may want to look at this.

Line 564: Removed dead link

Universal McCann. Power To The People: Social Media Tracker, Wave3 at the Wayback Machine (archived March 18, 2009). (March 2008). Retrieved 2010-03-21.

Line 576: I deleted this because it refers to the present, which may change at any moment. Content here must be something that is prospectively stable.

As of 2013, the Philippines has become the world's 12th most populous nation, with a population of over 99 million.

Line 607: Dead link and I don't know if this info is appropriate for this article.

According to the United States Census Bureau, immigrants from the Philippines made up the second largest group after Mexico that sought family reunification. (Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller. (July 2009). "Migration in the Asia-Pacific Region". Migration Information Source. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved 2009-12-17.) Some two million Filipinos work in the Middle East, with nearly a million in Saudi Arabia alone. (Ciria-Cruz, Rene P. (2004-07-26). 2 million reasons for withdrawing 51 troops at the Wayback Machine (archived July 16, 2011). San Francisco Chronicle.)

As of the 2007 census, it had a population of 11,553,427, comprising 13% of the national population. (Un-updated info)

Line 628: reconstructure a bit, removed uns-sourced material.

Other significant minorities include Americans, mostly White, numbering 300,000, and Koreans, numbering 96,000.^{[citation needed]}

Line 681: Removed trivia

As a result of Spanish cultural influence, the Philippines is one of two predominantly Roman Catholic countries in Asia, the other being East Timor, a former Portuguese colony.

Line 687: Removed dead link and info that may not be anymore factual in the present. reconstructured the Health section. Removed the "kulintang" photo which does not adequately show the instrument.

According to the Department of Education, or DepEd, there were 44,846 elementary schools and 10,384 secondary schools registered for the school year 2009–2010 (Republic of the Philippines. Department of Education. (2010-09-23).Fact Sheet – Basic Education Statistics at the Wayback Machine (archived January 15, 2013) (archived from the original on 2013-01-15). Retrieved 2010-04-17.) (dead link)

Republic of the Philippines. Department of Education. "Historical Perspective of the Philippine Educational System" at the Wayback Machine (archived July 16, 2011). Retrieved 2009-12-14.

SUCs are funded by the national government as determined by the Congress of the Philippines. (Malipot, Ina H. (2010-11-26). Students stage walkouts against cut in SUC funding at the Wayback Machine (archived May 11, 2011) (archived from the original on 2011-05-11). The Manila Bulletin. Retrieved 2011-04-16.)

Line 792: Removed Baybayin photo which is sub-par.

Line 800: Added references.

Line 807: Added references.

Line 813: I think I removed a dead link here. Not sure. Anyway, reconstructured the Sports section. Deleted the last paragraph, no need to name drop. And it had dead links.

Some Filipinos recognized for their achievements include Francisco Guilledo, Flash Elorde, Nonito Donaire and Manny Pacquiao in boxing; Paulino Alcántara in football (soccer); Carlos Loyzaga, Robert Jaworski, and Ramon Fernandez in basketball; Efren Reyes in billiards; Eugene Torre in chess; and Rafael Nepomuceno in bowling. ("Billiard Congress of America: Hall of Fame Inductees". (2009). Retrieved 2009-12-20 from the Billiard Congress of America Website.) ("9 named to Philippine Sports Hall of Fame" at the Wayback Machine (archived January 15, 2013) (archived fromm the original on 2013-01-15). (2010-04-24). The Manila Bulletin. Retrieved 2010-04-24.) (Mga Kilalang Pilipino [Known Filipinos]. (n.d.) (in Filipino). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2010-04-25 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)

Line 829: *Oxo Gang [id] (vandalism)

Line 851: Dead link

Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members at the Wayback Machine (archived August 23, 2013) (archived from the original on 2013-08-23)

• Done!--Theparties (talk)

Theparties, I think I agree with many of these edits. However, there is no way to parse through them with the manner you edited. People have already noted that you're inappropriately using minor everywhere, as well as your lack of edit summaries. For context to this discussion, can you clarify exactly which dif these line numbers come from? CMD (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I based the discussion above on this. You could easily see it by comparing the histories. I am going to explain this in the next few days but I am not in the mood right now.--Theparties (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Theparties, please feel free to fix or update the dead links and any sources, update stats and make some non-major tweaks to sentences, but please don't replace or remove any pictures for now because no one has agreed on that. The images in this article are all of value, well organised and not too cluttered. Any major removal of text based on poor judgment may also compromise the article. Cadiomals (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There's cluttering at my monitor resolution, but it is worth discussing it if there is a dispute. CMD (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can remove the image from Contemporary history and the one from Security and defense. They are the closest to clutter I see. Everything else looks evenly spread out. Cadiomals (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is more or less agreement that the page is cluttered with images. The typhoon and the airport are not necessary. and are mostly generic. The kulintang image barely shows the instrument, the Baybayin script is amateurish, and the tarsier is plain ugly. I am going to edit it, if you disagree please feel free to revert. --♥ 07:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no agreement with you on your specific changes, therefore it should be discussed here first before such changes are implemented, not after the fact. You will adhere to WP:BRD like every other civil user. If your edits are disputed they will be reverted and discussed first. So far no one has shown support for your sweeping, destabilising changes, and we will come to a compromise; for example, a few images were removed but not all of them were like you desired. Cadiomals (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me quote Chipmunkdavis: "Theparties, I think I agree with many of these edits. However, there is no way to parse through them with the manner you edited. People have already noted that you're inappropriately using minor everywhere, as well as your lack of edit summaries. For context to this discussion, can you clarify exactly which dif these line numbers come from? CMD (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)"--10:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

“

Kingdoms and city states (called barangays) dominated the 1st millenium such as the Confederation of Madja-as in Panay and the Rajahnate of Cebu,[1] 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.[2] On March 17, 1001, the Song Shih documents the Kingdom of Butuan trading with the Song dynasty of China.[3] Great epics such as the Hinilawod, Darangen and the Biag ni Lam-ang trace their origins to this era.[4] 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.[5][6] 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.[7] 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.[8][9][10][11] 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.[12]

”

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

Assuming this is the edit that you just inserted, it's well and concisely written. I feel we shouldn't include specific dates, and stick instead to years, as it seems oddly specific, especially as most of the rest of History just uses years. I also don't like the sentence about Prehistory and the Laguna copperplate inscription. The inscription is the oldest found piece of writing, but that doesn't mean writing started at that point. Prehistory itself is a vague term, and I don't think we need to focus on it. There are other sources of historical information for populations in the Philippines. CMD (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to fix it based on your recommendations. Thank you for replying immediately.--♥ 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The pearl is a much more beautiful image for the article than the tarsier. If you look at this discussion (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bohol Tarsier), the tarsier photo has a lot of problems in it while the pearl (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinctada margaritifera) has more support. The pearl is also one of national symbols of the Philippines and the country's nickname is the "Pearl of the Orient" so it fits well.--♥ 10:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's you an me so all we need is a third person to give their opinion. But if you look a the consensus at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bohol Tarsier, you'll see which image is better.--♥ 10:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about your personal opinion about what you think is "pretty" and "ugly". This is about gathering consensus if it is disputed and if the image is long-standing. Cadiomals (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition: Oh, and I didn't even mention before that you replaced the tarsier with a rock in the Flora and fauna section, aka the Plants and animals section. As such, the section is a totally inappropriate place to put that pearl image, and there is really no other section dedicated to geology, where it would be appropriate. As for below, I vote no on the removal of all those images. They are all valuable and perfectly fitting for the sections they are in. Cadiomals (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• The images clutter the page. weren't you one of the people against inclusion of the Denisovans per WP:UNDUE?--♥ 10:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The oyster that contains the pearl is an animal (Pinctada).--♥ 10:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting the removal of the images below. They do not contribute to the encyclopedic value of the article and are mostly clutter.--♥ 10:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If we removed all the images below many sections would remain void of images and it would then create a dearth/scarcity of images overall and reduce the educational quality of the article. I will wait for others to voice their opinions on what they think of each specific image. As for the pearl, it is totally inapproriate in the flora and fauna section. Cadiomals (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove all images from the lower sections, just the ones with the least educational value. The typhoon photo is very common abd has not distinguishable features. The Baybayin image looks grade school. The kulintang image barely shows the instrument. The tarsier has its tail cut off. The NAIA photo is okay but it is still the ugliest airport in the world according to a travel magazine.---♥ 10:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the current size of the Flora/Flora and Climate sections, having a single photo in each isn't causing any text sandwiching on my monitor. Whether another photo is better than the current one is a different matter. I agree with moving Baybayin, literature is done these days in latin scripts. I also have no objection to removing the NAIA photo, there's no sandwiching on my screen but I imagine a wider monitor would have some. A jeepney is a much better photo than an airport. CMD (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with the removal of just those images, and the replacement of the kulintang image. I think that is a fair compromise. Cadiomals (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This image is a better representation of the instrument.--♥ 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This whole sections needs to be removed because of WP:PROMOTION:

“

Some Filipinos recognized for their achievements include Francisco Guilledo, Flash Elorde, Nonito Donaire and Manny Pacquiao in boxing; Paulino Alcántara in football (soccer); Carlos Loyzaga, Robert Jaworski, and Ramon Fernandez in basketball; Efren Reyes in billiards; Eugene Torre in chess; and Rafael Nepomuceno in bowling.[13][14][15]

”

This is unsourced:

“

Today there are said to be almost as many Philippine fighting styles as there are islands in the Philippines. In 1972, the Philippine government included Filipino martial arts into the national sports arena. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports also incorporated them into the physical education curriculum for high school and college students.

”

--♥ 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole section doesn't need to be removed but I can agree with the info you removed above. Everything else in there looks fine. Cadiomals (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be removed for WP:UNDUE:

“

Chinese Filipinos have a prominent role in the country's private sector, and are part of the larger bamboo network, a network of overseas Chinese businesses operating in the markets of Southeast Asia that share common family and cultural ties.[16] Other significant minorities include Americans, mostly White, numbering 300,000, and Koreans, numbering 96,000.[citation needed]

”

--♥ 00:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your interpretation of WP:UNDUE at all. Sources need to be found for that salient information, not removed altogether. Cadiomals (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't want to have a debate regarding the importance (or lack thereof) of the Chinese/Americans/Koreans in the Philippine economy but the fact is Visayans compose 40% of the population and Tagalogs compose 25% but both are only footnotes. This is not Neutral. One sentence is enough.--♥ 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly all the bamboo network sentences were added to many southeast asian country pages at around the same time, so I'm not particularly inclined to keep them. That said, this might be useful for moving to the Economy subsection, rather than removal. CMD (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm chinese-fil born from fil. mother and chinese dad who was born here. we had a business formerly top 1000 corp. this is the first time i've heard of so called "bamboo network". this is probably an opinion masquerading as fact inserted by a racist historian with dubious integrity.i'm glad it was taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.92 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC) there is a book by an american called the bamboo network.its an unproven theory and probably involves fewer than 1percent of all phil. businesses.furthermore theres a 60-40 capitalization rule in phil.corps. whoever added that "bamboo" theory is speculating.it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.92 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed t. There was a complaint before.--♥^(Theparties) 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I just merged the first two very short paragraphs, re-added two pertinent details about the etymological origin of the country's name and the Philippine diaspora, and fixed messy grammar and language for readability. The diffs don't really make that evident. Cadiomals (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding these two in the history section because of this website. Pretty much everyone there is already in the History sections so I guess these to should be there too.--♥^(Theparties) 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am not (anymore) a fan of Pacquiao (after he aligned with Binay and Erap) but you have to concede that his achievements are historically significant.

With Lapu-Lapu, I think page views does speak a lot about democracy so he should be here just for that, apart from his role in the world's first recorded successful circumnavigation.--♥^(Theparties) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Placed Pacquiao in Sports per objections.--♥^(Theparties) 23:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a summary style article. The history has already been expanded beyond the summary it was when this page became a Good Article, and no person should be given an entire paragraph. Sports is already quite long despite being only a small part of culture. CMD (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted AGF this edit, which changed prose reading, "...; Vietnam sits west across the South China Sea;" to say "West Philippine Sea" instead, citing http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/05/administrative-order-no-29-s-2012/ in support. The edit summary said, "The West Philippine Sea is an internationally recognized name for the portions of the South China Sea that are inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. Philippine President Benigno Aquino's Administrative Order number 29 binded this change." I'll comment on the points made in the edit summary in reverse order.

• Chapter 2 Section 3 of the Administrative code of the Philippines says "Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders." As I understand AO29 (s.2012), it directed organizations within the Philippine government (NAMRIA, DFA, DEPED, others) to take particular actions within their respective areas of responsibility. NAMRIA was directed to produce maps. DFA was directed to "deposit, at the appropriate time, a copy of this Order enclosing the official map reflecting the West Philippines Sea with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and notify accordingly relevant international organizations, such as the International Hydrographic Organization and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names."
• AO29 would not appear to have any direct effect outside of the Philippines. Items deposited and notifications made by the DFA sometime after AO29 was issued might at some point have an effect outside of the Philippines.
• One such effect outside of the Philippines might be action by organizations and governments outside of the Philippines to recognize in some fashion this internal renaming by the Philippines of a portion of what is generally referred to as the South China Sea. As far as I know this has not happened thus far to any significant degree.

Also, please note the final two paragraphs of the Names section in the South China Sea article and supporting sources cited there re Luzon Sea and West Philippine Sea.

Also, re the prose in the article saying, "Vietnam sits west across the ...", it would be inappropriate there to say West Philippine Sea because the western boundary of what the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea is not at the coast of Vietnam. Rather, that boundary is at the western boundary of the Philippines EEZ (see [1]).

At least that is my understanding. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points and I agree. Similarly, Koreans call the Sea of Japan the "East Sea" as nothing more than an F-you to Japan but that is not how it is referred to in the English speaking world so it is not used in this encyclopedia. For now this "name change" was signed into law and recognized in the Philippines alone purely for political reasons, but internationally and at least in the English-speaking world the whole body of water continues to be referred to as the South China Sea (and it is not Wikipedia's job to popularize this "new name"), so for now we will retain the status quo. Cadiomals (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the map of the Philippines: Since the Philippines still sees Sabah as part of its territory, shouldn't the map at least color Sabah in light green, to entertain that issue? 112.198.90.205 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the North Borneo dispute article it is a "dormant claim". In practice Malaysia has full control over that area. Cadiomals (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Before, Theparties' mass edits were implmented, the version subsiting for the part which is now considered "Classical States" had the founders and rulers of the non-muslim countries of Prehispanic Philippines, mentioned. I.E. Datu Puti and Negrito chieftain Marikudo for Madjaas and Sri Lumay for the rajahnate of Butuan. Now, theparties' version erased them and only mentioned the Muslim founders of sultanate Maguindanao and Sulu but the non-muslim states don't have any pre-eminent ruler or founder mentioned. That sort of thing is unfair and breaks the neutral POV since the article should give due weight to every personality, irregardless of his religion. I just ask that the people here permit me to restore the removed content so that the Sultan may be given equal footing with the Rajah and Datu when it comes to have their respective names mentioned in this wiki. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to present a draft text here in discussion so we can see what you propose? CMD (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not mind the re-addition of that content. Classical states was already quite short and I never understood the justification TheParties had for continuing to make it so short compared to the others. Cadiomals (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. I will post the edited version here later. Thanks for the concern ^_^Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we go! It's basically just a rehash of the old version which was deleted. ...Classical states...

Some of the societies scattered in the islands remained isolated but many evolved into states that developed substantial trade and contacts with the peoples of Eastern and Southern Asia, including those from India, China, Japan and other Austronesian islands. The 1st millennium saw the rise of the harbor principalities and their growth into Maritime states composed of autonomous barangays independent of, or allied with larger nations which were either Malay thalassocracies led by Datus, Chinese tributary states ruled by Huangs or Indianized Kingdoms governed by Rajahs. For example, Datu Puti ruled over the Confederation of Madja-as after he purchased his realms from the Negrito Chieftain, Marikudo. The Rajahnate of Butuan, attained prominence under the rule of Rajah Sri Bata Shaja,^[17] the Kingdom of Tondo, was ruled over by the Lakandula dynasty^[2][18] and the Rajahnate of Cebu^[19] which was led by Rajamuda Sri Lumay. Other nations in this era include the Sinified kingdom of Ma-i, represented by Huang Gat Sa Li-han and Sulu which, before its Islamization, was also an Indianized Rajahnate under its first ruler, Rajah Sipad the Older.^[20] The great epics; the Hinilawod, Darangan and the Biag Ni Lam-Ang trace their origins to this era.^[21]

The 1300s heralded the arrival and eventual spread of the Islamic religion in the Philippine archipelago. In 1380, Karim ul' Makdum and Shari'ful Hashem Syed Abu Bakr, an Arab trader born in Johore, arrived in Sulu from Malacca and established the Sultanate of Sulu by converting Sulu's rajah and marrying his daughter.^[22][23] At the end of the 15th century, Shariff Mohammed Kabungsuwan of Johor introduced Islam in the island of Mindanao. He subsequently married Paramisuli, an Iranun princess, and established the Sultanate of Maguindanao. The sultanate form of government extended further into Lanao.^[24] Eventually, Islam spread out of Mindanao in the south into Luzon in the north. Even Manila was Islamized through the reign of Sultan Bolkiah in 1485 to 1521, wherein, the Sultanate of Brunei subjugated the Kingdom of Tondo by converting Rajah Salalila to Islam.^{[25][9][10][26]} However, states like the Animist Igorot, Malay Madja-as, Sinified Ma-i, and Indianized Butuan still maintained their cultures. In some kingdoms, anti-Islamic fervor was present. As a result, the 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.^[12]

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first half of the first paragraph appears entirely unsourced. I noticed this when it was originally removed, and agree it should be gone in that state. The first source [2] also seems like it's not a reliable source. The second paragraph is also more concise in its current form, and again, better sourced. Do you know of any good sources detailing pre-Hispanic states? CMD (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok just disregard the first half of the paragraph. It's a hang-on sentence anyway. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but if that's removed, what exactly needs to be added? Could you specify a specific point of information, or somehow else illustrate what the changes would be? CMD (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll I suggest that we remove or shorten this part: It's pretty obvious...

"Some of the societies scattered in the islands remained isolated but many evolved into states that developed substantial trade and contacts with the peoples of Eastern and Southern Asia, including those from India, China, Japan and other Austronesian islands."

And I'm going to provide sources for these stament.

"The 1st millennium saw the rise of the harbor principalities and their growth into Maritime states composed of autonomous barangays independent of, or allied with larger nations which were either Malay thalassocracies led by Datus, Chinese tributary states ruled by Huangs or Indianized Kingdoms governed by Rajahs. For example, Datu Puti ruled over the Confederation of Madja-as after he purchased his realms from the Negrito Chieftain, Marikudo. The Rajahnate of Butuan, attained prominence under the rule of Rajah Sri Bata Shaja"

Which doesn't have sources which is the main bone of contention anyway.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case we should build off the more concise wording that's in the article now, and add text like the bits you want to find sources for based off good sources you find. CMD (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A browse through my bookshelf turned up

• Juana Jimenez Pelmoka (1996). Pre-Spanish Philippines. J.J. de Pelmoka, E.P. Ujano. ISBN 978-971-91788-0-4. Chapter III there is Laws and Government. Without nailing down a timeframe, this says that the concurrence of many authors was that the prehispanic governmental situation was "anarchical where only the strong dominated." it goes on to say that some towns had policemen without any political government, and that those who conquered dominated. It describes the level of prehispanic Philippine politics as comparable to medieval Europe and the politics of the last days of the Arabs' reign in Spain. Using the government of Mindanao as an example, it says that although the theoretical supreme authority was the Sultan, individual town governments were sufficiently strong to be fully independent. It describes independent communities ("Balangay or Barangay") as independent in principle from each other and likens them to the communities in ancient Greece.
• William Henry Scott (1984). Prehispanic source materials for the study of Philippine history. New Day Publishers. ISBN 978-971-10-0226-8. Chapter 6, Summary and Conclusions, says that Butuan was trading with Champa (Vietnam) and Ma-i (Mindoro) with China in the 10th century AD and that in the 15th century Pangasinan and Luzon sent tribute missions to China, Mindoro or Marinduque sent a Muslim envoy, and three Sulu rulers went in person. Scott asserts that there is considerable discrepancy between what is known about prehispanic Philippines and what is written about it, saying that the popular picture includes details for which there is no evidence and leaves out details for which plentiful evidence exists.
• William Henry Scott (1992). Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino: And Other Essays in Philippine History. New Day Publishers. ISBN 978-971-10-0524-5. Miligros C. Guerrero says in the Forward that in 1992 the task of reconstructing and reinterpreting Philippine history in light of centuries of misinterpretations, distortions, and omissions was still formidable and overwhelming, and lauds Scott as having done much painstakingly researched work on this task. One of the essays in this book, Oripun and Alipin in the Sixteenth Century Philippines writes of the difficulty of trying to apply European political concepts to Philippine social classes in Visayan and Tagalog Philippine societies.

The History of the Philippines (900–1521) article cites some other apparently relevant sources. Also, per WP:SS ("A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."), should not the Prehistory section here essentially summarize that other article? If there are questions about the details and about support for those details, shouldn't discussions about that take place on that other article's talk page rather than here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting quotes Wtmitchell. With regards to WP:SS, there is still a need to consider balance. As we mention the Muslim states, all things being equal we should also mention other states (if all else is not equal, such as Muslim states being more prominent, that would be different). Alternatively, they are all further summarised. CMD (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My point WRT WP:SS was that an article section which presents content which is treated in more detail in another article, especially an article spotlighted in the section by a {{main}} link, should not present details beyond what is covered in that more detailed article. That more detailed article is the place to get into the details. I don't see any conflict between this and WP:BALANCE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of what Gintong is saying is that the Muslim states are overrepresented compared to non-Muslim states in this article, which is not a WP:SS issue. What is a SS issue is the level of detail for all of them. Relative and absolute, if you get my meaning. CMD (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of what Gitong is saying. As I understand WP:SS, this is an SS issue if the detail to be added here would introduce content which is more detailed than rather than a summary of related content contained in the History of the Philippines (900–1521) article. See the part of the snippet which I quoted above from SS which begins "The original article should contain ...". See also WP:SYNC. I recognize that SS is not a WP policy, but is instead an editing guideline (see the hatnote there). I also recognize that this may not be the only SS issue regarding the relationship between these two articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. If there's more detail here than a subpage, we can always just copy paste it over with attribution. SS issues are due to WP:Main article fixation, which was the cause of the whole history section here being expanded from its GA form in the first place. CMD (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any follow-on activity in the History of the Philippines (900–1521) article came out of this. However, in the process of moving house I've come across a couple more books which I'd like to add to those listed above:

• Jainal D. Rasul (200?). Philippine History: From Thousand Years Before Magellan. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The English in ungrammatical but the content is interesting and is derived largely from other sources named therein.
• Patricio N. Abinales; Donna J. Amoroso (2007). State and Society in the Philippines. Anvil. ISBN 978-971-27-1672-0. I bought this some time ago and have not gotten around to reading it. Glancing through it now, it looks interesting and pertinent.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry guys. I have been very busy with my offline activities to focus much on my proposal, but once my hands aren't tied, I'd get back tot this as soon as possible. Since, I still feel that this portion of the article is breathy and shortened. Vis-a-vis other articles. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok I finally finishes supplying the needed sources to append citations in every paragraph of my new proposal (more like a revert to the original version)

THE APPENDED VERSION WITH ADDED CITATIONS.

...Classical states...

Some of the societies scattered in the islands remained isolated but many evolved into states that developed substantial trade and contacts with the peoples of Eastern and Southern Asia, including those from India, China, Japan and other Austronesian islands..^[27] The 1st millennium saw the rise of the harbor principalities and their growth into Maritime states composed of autonomous barangays independent of, or allied with larger nations which were either Malay thalassocracies led by Datus, Chinese tributary states ruled by Huangs or Indianized Kingdoms governed by Rajahs.^[28] For example, Datu Puti ruled over the Confederation of Madja-as after he purchased his realms from the Negrito Chieftain, Marikudo.^[29] The Rajahnate of Butuan, attained prominence under the rule of Rajah Sri Bata Shaja,^[30] the Kingdom of Tondo, was ruled over by the Lakandula dynasty^[2][18] and the Rajahnate of Cebu^[31] which was led by Rajamuda Sri Lumay. Other nations in this era include the Sinified kingdom of Ma-i, represented by Huang Gat Sa Li-han and Sulu which, before its Islamization, was also an Indianized Rajahnate under its first ruler, Rajah Sipad the Older.^[20] The great epics; the Hinilawod, Darangan and the Biag Ni Lam-Ang trace their origins to this era.^[32]

The 1300s heralded the arrival and eventual spread of the Islamic religion in the Philippine archipelago. In 1380, Karim ul' Makdum and Shari'ful Hashem Syed Abu Bakr, an Arab trader born in Johore, arrived in Sulu from Malacca and established the Sultanate of Sulu by converting Sulu's rajah and marrying his daughter.^[33][34] At the end of the 15th century, Shariff Mohammed Kabungsuwan of Johor introduced Islam in the island of Mindanao. He subsequently married Paramisuli, an Iranun princess, and established the Sultanate of Maguindanao. The sultanate form of government extended further into Lanao.^[35] Eventually, Islam spread out of Mindanao in the south into Luzon in the north. Even Manila was Islamized through the reign of Sultan Bolkiah in 1485 to 1521, wherein, the Sultanate of Brunei subjugated the Kingdom of Tondo by converting Rajah Salalila to Islam.^{[36][9][10][37]} However, states like the Animist Igorot, Malay Madja-as, Sinified Ma-i, and Indianized Butuan still maintained their cultures. In some kingdoms, anti-Islamic fervor was present. As a result, the 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.^[12]

So, What do you think guys?

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, since there seems to be much support for this judging from the contributions of the 4 people here as we'll as their avid suggestions, I'm interpreting this as approval of this expansion. I will now post this edit in the mainpage. Thanks for the contributions and suggestions everyone! ^_^

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

i added more information like the formation of the The Classical states,which is every Islands had its own rulers and it form a states like Kingdom of Tondo, and other Kingdoms and States at Visayas and Mindanao, these States have a Diplomacy in the Chinese Empires , India and to its fellow neighbors. this is the true formation of the Philippines, not only because the pleased given by the Westerners (Spain and US). which is more reliable.

In Addition i add those at the establishment events of the wikibox instead for more Accuracy. i will observe this article so i can add an more accuracy on to it cheers! (P.Andrew (sgd) (✉) 02:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

The infobox discusses only the existing entity. While the various kingdoms of the pre-colonial era are part of the history of the area, they did not play a role in creating the Philippine state. That state was created by colonial boundaries. CMD (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

180.191.106.214 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the Denisovans to this article. I don't know what people's problems are but I think that it would be more inclusive to include them since they give insight on the ancestry of the Mamanwa and the Negrito.--Theparties (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Denisovans are of tangential importance to human history in the area, or if not, no importance has been found. Human migrations happened anyway, and there was a little interbreeding, but it by no means defines the ancestry of any group. Very few Denisovan genes remain in the H. s. sapiens genome. CMD (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would be useful to restate this in less technical and more WP-oriented terms. As I understand it, Chipmunkdavis is saying that this material does not have enough WP:RS-supported topical relevance to meet WP:DUE requirements for inclusion in this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonable approximation. I find it unlikely we'll discover Denisovans did play a significant role anytime soon, but then again it's impressive how much we know after just a couple of years. CMD (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I voice my agreement that Denisovans are insubstantial here, so it's 3 to 1 for removing it. While we're at it let's add a detail on how Filipinos, like all humans, trace their roots to the australopithecines that originally lived in Africa (sarcasm)... Cadiomals (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cadiomals, your "vote" did not add anything relevant nor encyclopedic to this "debate". It's so sad that's it's juvenile. Then, again... never mind. I am not going to add it again until more research comes up, until then.--Theparties (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My "vote" did add something relevant: It's called consensus and that's how things are done around here. Cadiomals (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully disagree with the statements of CMD and Cadiomals plainly because of this:

“

...when modern humans ventured out of Africa themselves, they encountered Neanderthals in the Middle East and Central Asia, and to a limited extent interbred with them. ...this mixing most likely occurred between 67,000 and 46,000 years ago. One population of modern humans then continued east into Southeast Asia, where, sometime around 40,000 years ago, they encountered Denisovans. The moderns interbred with them as well and then moved into Australasia, carrying Denisovan DNA. ("The Case of the Missing Ancestor". National Geographic, July 2013)

”

It's pretty clear that they settled near the area and the appearance of their genes among the natives is more than mere gene flow. The exact nature of this though is unclear.--Theparties (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is taken from the Archaic human admixture with modern humans Wikipedia article:

“

...indicating that the Denisovan admixture event happened in Southeast Asia itself rather than mainland Eurasia. (Reich, D. (2011). "Denisova Admixture and the First Modern Human Dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 89 (4): 516–528. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.09.005. PMC 3188841. PMID 21944045. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))

”

The article pretty much said that Denisovans lived there rather than merely passing by. Honestly can't understand why this is not enough.--Theparties (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Denisovans lived in the area does not mean that such an event is significant enough that it should be included on this page. On the side, it seems a textbook example of what "mere gene flow" is. CMD (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? isn't the reason why people are included in this article is because they "lived in the area". I don't know why a people who probably lived here for thousands of years can't be part of it's history.--Theparties (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What role did they play in the development of the Philippines? We don't mention every type of people in the very short space we have for history here. Please see Wikipedia:Main article fixation, I copied your addition over into the actual history article awhile ago. CMD (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from being the first inhabitants of the islands and the ancestors of at least two groups in Mindanao, I don't know? You can't expect the homo habilis to have as much of a role in the development of the modern state of Kenya as much as Uhuru Kenyatta or the homo sapiens idaltu in Ethiopia as much as Haile Selassie but it doesn't mean they are less significant. The genetic data shows that the admixture happened in the area otherwise the Andamanese people would also have their genes.--Theparties (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it faulty to use the information from those sources to make and add the conclusion that Denisovans lived in the area of the Philippines. It's possible, but it's an inference that the sources do not state. The most that can be suggested is where Denisovans and modern humans interbred (somewhere in SE Asia). Even that has not been pinpointed with such precision, so how did that evolve into that Denisovans lived in the Philippines? I've written most of the current article "Archaic human admixture with modern humans" by the way. It should be removed from the article "History of the Philippines". --Cold Season (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

wiki makes it appear that the u.s. bases packed up because of pinatubo. this is false, the u.s.- phil. treaty was up for ratification. the philippine senate rejected the treaty due to its numerous onerous provisions. please check. the entire phil. senate debate on the voting regarding this was televised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.90.97 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I heard the Americans were staying no matter what until Pinatubo erupted, which caused to leave no matter how the vote went... –HTD 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard that, but that's not the way I remember it. Also, I don't know what your source might have meant by "no matter what".

The anon's comments don't seem to relate to this article's content, or to the content of the History of the Philippines (1986–present) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Re the strikeout above -- they do relate. I had searched for "bases" and "lease" before making the stricken comment. I see what the anon means after searching for "Pinatubo". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I was in the Philippines for several weeks prior to the June 15, 1991 eruption and had conversations with a number of people about the lease negotiations (bases leases were to expire in September), the anti-bases demonstrations, and the possibility that Pinatubo (which was rumbling and grumbling, and had been doing so since July 1990 (Reilly 2009, p.64) might erupt. The Philippine government was offering a seven year bases lease extension at $825 million per year, and the U.S. was seeking a ten year extension at $325 million in annual compensation plus some other benefits not directly related to the bases (Axline 1994, p.118). 1991 was at the end of the Cold War era, and some in the U.S. were arguing against renewing the Philippines bases lease (McMahon 1999, p.209 -- this source also says that the Pinatubo eruption "settled the issue"). The Pinatubo eruption devastated Clark, effectively closing it down (Kerns 2004, p.141). When the Philippine Senate voted not to renew the lease and proposed a three-year phase-out plan, the U.S. shortened it to one year (Tyner 2006, p.197). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, the reason the us bases left is that the philippine senate, the very first senate freely elected by the people after the dictatorship of marcos, a close ally of the u.s. and booted out by people power, voted not to renew the bases agreement. A little help please from those with access to the senate transcripts(it contains the reasons why it was rejected). To the commenter above, are you saying that the u.s. will not relinguish the bases even if the philippines rejected the treaty? its like hongkong after the lease expired. The eruption had nothing to do with it. There were 2 bases clark and subic which are now export processing zones.There were only ashfall in those areas. they weren't destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.90.183 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which commenter you refer to as "the commenter above". I'm presuming that it is HTD. Re your certainty about what drove the decision on the part of the U.S. to leave -- you'll need to cite a WP:RS in support; WP is not a proper forum to express editorial opinions. Info in senate transcripts re the reasons for rejecting the treaty would be good support for assertions regarding the reasons for that rejection, but would not be good support for the reasons the U.S. left (and an assertion that the U.S. intended to remain even in the face of a treaty rejection -- i.e., no matter what -- would be an exceptional claim needing solid support. Re the bases having being not destroyed by "only ashfall", I said "devastated" above -- not "destroyed", and cited a supporting source ([3]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're a foreigner and you haven't been living in the philippines. I don't need to cite any book as i've lived it. from which point of view does wiki want to perceive history? if its from the american point of view and you make it appear so... then you're probably correct in your view. after all such a small country as the philippines cannot make the u.s.a. leave without it wanting to do so.if however you take history from the point of view of filipinos. then we made america leave by rejecting the treaty and pinatubo was just an excuse that america used to "save face". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.63.97 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I missed this comment when it was made. I am a foreigner, and I have been living in the Philippines for the past 18 years. I was living in the U.S. at the time of the Pinatubo eruption and had been in the Philippines a few weeks before that but was back in the U.S. when the eruption occurred. Regarding Filipinos not needing to cite sources, see WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The primary reason for the closure of the US base at Clark and Subic had nothing to do with Pinatubo eruption. Immediately after the eruption, the bases were evacuated. However, forces returned a few months later and by 92, the bases were up and running, alongwith Olongapo.

The primary reasons were 1) The Phil government was increasing (doubling) the ammount of money to be paid by the US government to Phil government for the use of these bases every year, right since 1984. This reached unreasonable proportions in 1990 which were not acceptable tot he US government.

2) This led to the senate to declare only 2 options for the US govt - (a) Pay the double amt beign charged or (b) leave. In all probability they expected (a) to happen. Gradually, they also realised the (short term gain of) vote swinging power of such a decision.

Factors that may have aided the decision (but were not the main decision) may have been labour issues by Filipino workers in Clark right since 1984.

The CIA files of the above are open information to anyone who seeks them - available online. The same can also be checked through articles in NY Times and by a number of authors including Stanley Karnow.

Notthebestusername (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC) link about some discussions on us bases http://joeam.com/2014/04/29/to-whom-mr-obama-was-talking-what-he-said/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.162.172 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Philippines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

203.87.150.25 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This {{bar box}} was pretty stable in the article for a long time, though the supportive sourcing and the correspondence with the numbers with the sources cited wasn't crystal clear (see e.g. this version). I recently made some edits trying to improve that, without arriving at a completely satisfactory result; my changes improved the sourcing and content, I think, but had bad cosmetics. (see this version). Another user has reverted my changes to the bar box.

Wikipedia's WP:SS Summary style editing guideline describes itself as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." The Religion in the Philippines article is WP's "detailed" article on that topic. The Religion section of this article is what SS calls a "summary section". See WP:SYNC re the relationship between detailed articles and summary sections.

The detailed article on this does not contain a bar box, and does contain a {{pie chart}} addressing the same topical area. The bar box in this article bears little resemblance to the pie chart in that detailed article in either numbers or sourcing. I propose that the bar box in this article be junked in favor of a duplication of the pie chart in the detailed article, and that care be taken to keep the two in sync.

Discussion? Comments? Disagreements? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Having seen no disagreement with my proposal, I've made the change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)