Talk:Filipinos/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why Vina Morales?

Can anyone tell me why Vina Morales' picture should be in the list of notable Filipinos? I have nothing against Vina, but surely, a multi-awarded singer named Leah Salonga is better known around the world and possibly in the Philippines, and in that respect, is worthier of inclusion in the pictures? Maybe Cecil Licad too. Then too, there is short-story writer in English, Jose Garcia Villa, Carlos P. Romulo (a Pulitzer prize winner), and statesman Ramon Magsaysay.

Rrcs law (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of term 'Mongoloid'

The following passage needs rewriting or removal. The Wikipedia entry on 'Mongoloid' begins by discrediting it as a term still in use. The following passage assumes the theory of the races is still considered accurate by scientists:

"Physical anthropologists who have examined the Tabon Man skullcap are agreed that it belonged to modern man, homo sapiens, as distinguished from the mid-Pleistocene homo erectus species. This indicates that Tabon Man was Pre-Mongoloid (Mongoloid being the term anthropologists apply to the racial stock which entered Southeast Asia during the Holocene and absorbed earlier peoples to produce the modern Malay, Indonesian, Filipino, and "Pacific" peoples[citation needed]). Two experts have given the opinion that the mandible is "Australian" in physical type, and that the skullcap measurements are most nearly like the Ainus or Tasmanians. Nothing can be concluded about Tabon man's physical appearance from the recovered skull fragments except that he was not a Negrito.[citation needed]" (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a supporting cite. I have a dead-tree copy of the cited book, and have verified that it does support the assertions in the paragraph to which I have attached it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"happy Lingo" under "Languages"

I have deleted the "Gay Lingo" entry under Languages. Let's stick to official languages and dialects per region in the Philippines. There is no region in this country where all the inhabitants are gay (i.e., Baklacandia or whatever), so technically this one does not exist.

Gay rights is one thing, but to categorize an insignificant mediocre language (it's bastardized tagalog for chrissakes) under the official languages and dialects is downright stupid. Might as well include "tadbaliks", "salitang kanto", "salitang conyo Lasalle taft dialect" and "wara wara" (the one where you put the syllable "ra" after every syllable in the sentence) as official languages too.

--Gilgal1 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, let us no trivialize our country's heritage with slang, let us keep this section along wikipedia as a source of knowledge. --ParthianPrince (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Hispanics as a relative ethnic group

Filipinos are not spanish or chinese unless they have relatives to connect them to being half of that. But besides that you are Filipino. I'm pissed off by for putting Luiz Manzano and John Prats as spanish / chinese and where is it that says that they are Filipino? No where! First of all they are more Filipino then spanish or chinese. They have pride in being Filipino so it's ridiculous to say that they are spanish / chinese and not Filipino. They know the culture more and they have no relatives that can say that they are more chinese or spanish. Also, imdb is making them look like a Filipino citizen but not a Filipino descendent and that spanish and chinese is actually their descendents which is not true. How can that be when his parents look so Filipino? Is it because he looks so good looking to be Filipino so they put that he is of spanish and chinese descendents? Someone please fix their profile. I've noticed that imdb are taking out the credit for being Filipino in our actors's profile. Saying that they are more spanish or chinese which they are not even full blooded. Just because they look pretty or the opposite of a normal filipino people always think they are half or full which they are not!

Also, our culture is almost the same but I don't think we should be told that we are spanish or chinese when we don't even have relatives or parents to relate with being one. Just like Luiz and John Prats! John is a mestizo as well as Luiz but I doubt they have any close relatives that are spanish or chinese. Like my friend who is chinese looking but he's filipino and he does not have any chinese relatives. He does not find him self chinese but Filipino as well. But other people will say he's chinese and not filipino but I doubt he cares about his chinese side since he relatives are not chinese but Filipino.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm sick of people analyzing a Filipino person by blood especially when they mestizo. Analyze a Filipino by blood if they really have foreign parents not when they have full Filipino parents. This goes for other Filipinos who like to analyze their bloodline and what they are as well. If you look mestizo you are more Filipino but if you really are mix then you are mix. No need to break down your bloodline unless you came from an interracial parents.'gnun

I am Filipino and I consider myself hispanic, my Mom is spanish and I by blood I am 1/2 Spanish. I dont understand why there are people in the Philippines who would deny this claim. The Chinese people should stop pushing down other ethnicities in the Philippines so the can claim they are in the highest ladder of the social status, when they are left alone with aborigines.

Oh the Taiwanese, may I remind you that before the Spaniards came, none of the Filipinos look like the Taiwanese so stop brainwashing the Filipino people that you are the original ancestors of the Filipinos. Stop invading the Philippines.

referencing from the wikipedia page on "Hispanic" it says and i quote:

"Although most Hispanics have a Spanish surname, not all do, and while most Spanish-surnamed people are Hispanic, not all are (e.g., there are tens of millions of Spanish-surnamed Filipinos, but very few, only about 3.5%, would qualify as Hispanic by ancestry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandela (talkcontribs)

It has nothing to do with ancestry or descent. Many Hispanics do not have Spanish ancestry, for example. It has to do with culture (aka ethnicity). Maliwanag na ba, pare? --Chris S. 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because the infobox is not saying that Filipinos are Hispanics (I resent being called a Hispanic, by the way) but that Filipinos are RELATED to Hispanics due to Spanish influence. --Chris S. 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ok then, i will also add chinese and taiwanese, because of the influence that chinese culture has had on filipinos aswell as the theory of Filipinos originating from Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandela (talkcontribs)

Apples and oranges, Jandela. The Philippines was never a colony of China. 10% of Filipinos never spoke Chinese as they did with Spanish according to the Ford report in the early 20th century. The Chinese never introduced Roman Catholicism. Filipinos were never Chinese citizens. Do you see what I'm getting at? --Chris S. 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

oops i did forget to sign my comments, thank you for filling that in. Chris i actually don't think chinese or taiwanese should be inserted but my point is that we should just focus on promoting us as Filipinos rather than trying to over-analyse who we are. It almost seems like other nations are mentioned just as much as ours in this article that is supposed to be about Filipino people. I know that you are a proud Filipino and so am I and thats why i respect you and don't mind a little debate but i think we both want the same outcome. Anyway lasing ka na ako and its time for sleeps. Paalam. --Jandela 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This thing brings to mind that Filipinos never consider themselves as 'hispanics' the way Latin America does. The article Hispanic says so. The Philippines is never (and doesn't consider itself) considered to be a part of the 'Hispanic world' (just look at that map on the article). There is such a very big difference between what is Hispanized (that state of being Hispanic - The Philippines never considered to be in this state) and Hispanicized (to become hispanic - that process of being hispanic (which is a tendency in this wikipedia). Take for example the City of Zamboanga. This city cannot claim to be 'hispanic' in the sense that the whole Philippines does not claim to be hispanic. However, it can, in a process, be 'hispanicized' becuase of the fact most Zamboangueños speak the Spanish-based creole languages Chavacano. In fact, the city right now calls itself (and has every right to do so), Latin City of Asia. In light of this, there is no such thing as 'hispanic' in the Philippines in the 'ethnicity' context. Weekeejames 12:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when has relgion have anything to do with wether your hispanic or not?? Do you guys actually think that Spanish people or people associated with Spain are the only people who are Roman Catholic??? It almost looks desperate that the Filipinos here who are trying to argue that "Hispanic" is a related 'ethnicity' to 'Filipino' people are trying so hard to find little threads of connection to Spain and being Hispanic, when to so many its obvious that we plainly are not. Someone here has boasted that in 1982 or something aournd 10% of filipinos spoke spanish....SO WHAT, is that supposed to be good?? is that supposed to be an amount even close to being able to relate the other 90% who couldnt to Spain??.

A few are referencing to an outdated and misleading definition of the word ethnicity.

I have read here on wikipedia in the Hispanic page that 30 odd years of American rule have had more influence than 300 years of Spanish rule. Should American be a related ethnic group?? NO, i dont think it should either.

The argument is stupid and is an argument that could only happen on wikipedia where dillusional people use this page as a "propaganda" like machine to try and portray themselves as something that deep down inside they know they are not.

and why was the rest of the discussion articles deleted and where can i access them if need be? --Jandela 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

hispanic can't be considered as a related ethnic group because most filipinos who have spanish heritage would have actual family members who came from spain or mexico or anywhere else... so by adding hispanic as a realted ethnic group would mean that all filipinos (including myself an i am is half filipino-chinese and the other half english-french) would be hispanic in some way, which wouldn't be true. but it WOULD make sense to add taiwanese because doesn't it say somewhere that filipinos are most closely realted to a particular aborigninal taiwanese tribe/ it is either here or in the Philippines article i think.

Chris S says Many Hispanics do not have Spanish ancestry, well.... EVERY SINGLE hispanic person would have to to spanish because if you look up in the DICTIONARY! it says.... Hispanic adjective 1. of people of Spanish descent: relating to people descended from Spanish or Latin-American people or their culture 2. of Spanish-speaking people: relating to Spanish-speaking people or their culture

so technically it would be very difficult to be hispanic without being spanishAustralian Jezza 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion war regarding filipino ethnicity

I suggest that the currently ongoing reversion war be put on hold while the issue is discussed here. The war seems to hinge on a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the term Ethnic group. Perhaps a perusal of the wiki pages on Ethnic group and Ethnicity might be helpful. -- Boracay Bill 06:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be glad to...although I'll be retiring about now, so tommorow it is. Cali567 07:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I further suggest that the original proponent of this sub section submit this article for protection or semi protection, based on your statements, Bill. --Ate Pinay (talkemail) 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Filipinos' relation to Hispanics

I have removed Chinese and American from the related ethnic group category. The reason is that these groups do not compare. Here are some points to consider:

  • The majority of Filipinos are Roman Catholics.

> again another forced religion by the spaniards, roman catholicsm was a forced religion by the sword, originally there were only two types of 'filipinos" : the muslims and the hindu/budhist animist mix. not christianity.

They are not Taoists, Confucianists, or Buddhists.  This means that we celebrate religious holidays and other festivals that the Spaniards started like Nuestra Señora de Peñafrancia, Undas (Honras) aka Día de los Santos, Sinulog (to honor the Santo Niño), La Hermosa, El Círculo Fernandino, Santa Cruzan, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (especially in my father's barangay of Guadalupe Nuevo in Makati), Nuestro Padre Jesús Nazareno, Semana Santa (Cuaresma), Flores de Mayo (my grandmother was Reina Elena), oh, and of course Christmas which is called Pasko or Paskwa (derived from Spanish Pascuas de Navidad) depending on what Philippine language you speak. And on Christmas Eve we do Noche Buena. Peter Horn 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 

---> again, these are all "programmed" practices forced by the spaniards, and always had an animist flavor to it. the spaniards left their churches and schools and used force to brainwash filipinos to practice their culture. again not everyone partakes in this.

What Chinese festivals do Filipinos celebrate except for those who live in China Town during the Lunar New Year? Do the majority of Filipinos consider feng shui anything more than a passing fad? How about Halloween? Or Thanksgiving?
  • The Spanish created the Philippines by uniting these various islands and ethnic groups into one country. Historic trade with China does not mean we are related to the Chinese.

> correction, the spanish occupied the philippines, the created that name. but did not "unite" the tribes. this is evident even today. all of this is forced.

  • The Philippines was part of Spain for over three centuries. China never colonized the Philippines. The US was only there for 46 years.

--> not really, the moros are a good example. mindanao was not conquered.

  • Even during the infancy of US colonial rule, the Philippines was functionally a Hispanic country with over 10% of the population being able to speak in Spanish - this is according to the Ford Reports conducted by the US government during the 1910s. Why, here's an image of a San Miguel Beer ad from 1924, from a Spanish-language magazine in the Philippines.

--> irrelevant, the occupring spanish forced their language on the filipino people. thats why only 10% even cared to use spanish as a language despite the spaniards proclaiming spanish as the official language at some point, which fortunately has been trashed. it is irrelevant what a product wants to carry even being an oxymoron of religion and alcoholism another vice prohibited even by christianity.

  • Philippine music and dance has a lot of influence from Spanish. Take these traditional dances like the fandango, la cariñosa, curacha, escala, la jota mancadena, la catalana, lanceros de negros, mascota, pantomina culebra, dos amigos, soriano, polka antigo, and others. Haranas are from Spanish "jarana."

---> again this "influence" was forced from the beggining and was made to be conditioned into the filipino Psyche, these practices are'nt purely our customs, remembr the spanish where occupiers and held power to force everyone to do as they please.

  • The Hispanic-based philosophical thought of Filipinos is evident in terms such as amor propio, delicadeza, and palabra de honor.
  • Philippine architecture - if you have been around the Philippines like I have, you can see the similarities with other Hispanic countries. Intramuros is a good example.

---> intramuros is originaly an Islamic area. remember rajah sulayman?

  • Family structure - The structure of the Philippine family is more Hispanic-centered than Chinese. With Filipinos, both sides of the family are important but with the Chinese, it's patrilineal.

--> irrelevant, the chinese have been in the phils centuries before the spanish. "mano po" is a chinese practice and several many others that are visually an everyday routine in filipino life.

  • The food, oh yes the food - adobo, pandesal, lechon, polvoron, chicharon, asado, I could go on and on.

---> correction.. adobo is a condiment.

This message is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise, but I really want you guys to understand that the Hispanic component in Philippine culture is not limited to mere superficial influence which reflects the extent of the American and Chinese cultural influences. The Hispanic component has permeated the Filipino inside and out. It is reflected in his thought and dress. People may see this as me proposing that Filpinos are Hispanic. I am not proposing that at all - since most Filipinos (myself included) do not consider ourselves Hispanics (probably because of this). However, Filipinos know that there is a bond between us and them. That we are considered a part of the Hispanidad.

--> the spanish influence in the philippines are'nt natural occurences of practices it is really just superficial. you can tell by placing a real authentic spaniard beside a filipino.. in less than five minutes you will see the real differences. we cannot agree with your statements because they are superficial habits hammered down by the spaniards to control the filipino psyche mentally and emotionally, the spaniards must issue a formal apology for desecrating and abusing the filipino people.

And again, I repeat that this is not about genetics or bloodlines or race. Remember that ethnicity transcends race'. It has to do with culture. And the dramatic cultural shift - the Hispanization process - that indigenous Filipinos have undergone since Magellan first set foot in the archipelago is paralleled by many other groups in Latin America. The majority of the inhabitants of Paraguay, the Guaraní, are a perfect example for they have largely preserved their indigenous tongue but yet are still considered Hispanics.

--> ethnicity has to do with genetics and BLOODLINE. an enforced trait/practices against anyone's will does not make one a certain part of an ethnic group, there may be a spanish "inlfuence" but definitely it does not automatically mean filipinos are hispanics. not by a long shot, not even through science, through blood tests. the majority of filipinos are malays. and definitely has a chinese root to it. all these are inherited. not enforced. the spaniards used force to try to get their way and try to bastardize the filipinos, the filipinos were always against the spanish, always resented them, always attacked them. there were always uprisings. filipinos are a proud warrior race, they do not fold or will not allow to be wiped out like the mexicans or other "latinized" countries. even to this day , deep below the spanish pretensions , the filipino's know they are not spanish. and would go as far as say they are asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you guys reflect profoundly upon what I have written here. This is not some mere fascination with me wanting to be associated with Hispanics - far from the case. It reflects the facts that I have come to gradually learn in my studies of my own ancestral homeland. --Chris S. 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Really..this is getting ridiculous. Your argument only has clout as long as you keep distorting the word "ethnicity". I don't even want to go into how much Filipinos are "ethnically" related to the Chinese and Americans. The fact that most Filipinos are Catholic is of no consequence...If a village in Africa were to be converted - would that mean they're a part of the same ethnic group as Irish people? Please do tell.
Filipinos know very much about American culture and they follow it very can't tell me they don't! To take away the influence of the Chinese in one swipe is just stupid. You know people will not just let this go. In all fairness, the inclusian of Chinese and American are very important. I'll beleive Filipinos are ethnically related to Hispanics when they are welcomed by Hispanics themselves.
"*The Spanish created the Philippines by uniting these various islands and ethnic groups into one country. Historic trade with China does not mean we are related to the Chinese."
This is just a space filler...where does it help your argument?
...And the music thing!!! Latin America's Polka's were introduced by German, swiss, etc. Mexicans, Cubans, and Guatemalans are a part of the same ethnic group as Germans...(well, probably more so than Filipinos are related to Hispanics)
Architecture...architecture, architecture! This means people are related to other people?????? Please, all of your points are not really helping you! Although, if you're right, I'll be Italian next year when I build my house in the Italianate style! and the Spanish names too, that doesn't help you! They were inforced, not inherited! Just let it go...C.Kent87 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Be civil please. My opinion on this topic is that, if it is referenced, it should be included. If, say, Ambeth Ocampo, a respected and well-known historian of the Philippines, says in an article or book that Filipinos are ethnically related to Hispanics, then it should be included here. Same goes for the Chinese or Americans. If there is none for either or all, then it shouldn't be included. Although personally I agree with Chris S arguments, Filipinos are more related to Hispanics than they will ever be to the Chinese and Americans, but who says what should be included should not be left to us since it is a technical matter. Better leave it to an authority and attribute it lest we border on original research or assumptions. Berserkerz Crit 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--> an opinion of one person does not equate to facts. just because ambeth ocampo make statements. he doesnt speak for us filipinos. nope, there is a deep connection between the chinese and the filipinos, you just havent looked enough to find these facts. it is seen everyday. filipino culture will never be complete without the chinese. all you see is a superficial spanish influence in the shallowness of filipino society. not an authentic one. again filipinos are not hispanic. never was. never will be. you have overlooked the elements that define the filipino culture because you guys want to prove a fact that we are hispanic even when this is untrue. look deeper. makikita mo ang sagot.

I agree with C.Kent87, being Catholic is a minor connection, The people who are saying Filipinos are related to Hispanics just forget about Chinese, people from Taiwan, and of course, Americans! why? why? I'll ask again why? because they themselves want the connection --even if they know it's not 100% true.

---> americans? definitely not. chinese-> yes., hispanic-> superficial influence only.

How would it be that the Chinese didn't have any influence when they make up more than have of the Mestizo's ancestors! Spanish Filipinos only make up 2% or so....It's an Asian country - no connection yet? hmmm....

--> exactly.

Ethnicity is obviously a subjective thing here. Cali567 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly why people shouldn't really be editing articles with subjects that they closely identify with, per WP:COI. Shrumster 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Try some talk about the subject at hand, not Comments about people...Cali567 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with the inclusion of Americans and Chinese is that if we include them then we must also include other ethnicities, such as Malays Indians, Arabs, and Japanese, since they also influenced (although less visibly) Filipino culture, flooding that section. So I think the best solution is to have a limit and I think the limit should only include Hispanics since they are the least controverial, I mean they have an article explaining their affinities with Filipino culture, unlike the Americans or the Chinese.--23prootie 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--> not culture. an influence. please correct your statements. thank you

I don't agree with Chris S. I think the American culture should be included as they subjected the Philippines under colonial rule. We should also consider the fact that our goverment is based upon that of the US. The Chinese should also be included. They were trade partners even in Pre-Spanish times. Their influence can be reflected in our language (like ate and tsinelas). As for the other cultures such as Malays, Indians, Arabs, and Japanese they do have influence in culture especially the Arabs as they introduced Islam to the Philippines (I don't know if its indirectly or directly). As Berserkerz Crit said, it all boils down to verifiable and authoritative references. If there are few references for that ethnic group/s then clump these groups into one section. If that ethnic group has a large amount of refs, create a new article with that in group's influence in mind, create a summary in this article with a link to the new article (see also: or Main Article:).

--> i cant agree on the americans. especially the spaniards.

Sir Ambeth Ocampo's (force of habit, he was my teacher in my Phil. Institutions class)works are good sources of historical info as he will even go against the viewpoint of most Filipino historians if his sources proves that viewpoint is wrong or in need of revision. I'm not saying he is the best authority in Phil. History but he does show a different viewpoint compared to other Phil. historians.

--> ambeth is not a reliable source. his biasness is spaniard inclined. why doesnt he mention the malays with emphasis?

As for Cali567 and C.Kent87, please use a more neutral tone in correcting or reacting to statements that other Wikipedians post. I do not know if you correct and respond to people in your culture with that kind of tone but I think you should not use that for people from other cultures as well. If any Filipino wikipedian has wronged you, please correct them or point the problem nicely rather than hitting them head on with an equally offensive post. Also when countering, add a verifiable and authoritative reference to strengthen your argument. You wouldn't counter immaturity with immaturity, would you?--Lenticel 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Berserkerz Crit nailed the solution to this: follow WP:A -- Boracay Bill 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when has relgion have anything to do with wether your hispanic or not?? Do you guys actually think that Spanish people or people associated with Spain are the only people who are Roman Catholic??? It almost looks desperate that the Filipinos here who are trying to argue that "Hispanic" is a related 'ethnicity' to 'Filipino' people are trying so hard to find little threads of connection to Spain and being Hispanic, when to so many its obvious that we plainly are not. Someone here has boasted that in 1982 or something aournd 10% of filipinos spoke spanish....SO WHAT, is that supposed to be good?? is that supposed to be an amount even close to being able to relate the other 90% who couldnt to Spain??.

--> there are alot of muslim filipinos and counting.

A few are referencing to an outdated and misleading definition of the word ethnicity.

I have read here on wikipedia in the Hispanic page that 30 odd years of American rule have had more influence than 300 years of Spanish rule. Should American be a related ethnic group?? NO, i dont think it should either.

The argument is stupid and is an argument that could only happen on wikipedia where dillusional people use this page as a "propaganda" like machine to try and portray themselves as something that deep down inside they know they are not.

and why was the rest of the discussion articles deleted and where can i access them if need be? --Jandela 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

double post but, i thought this might be useful to some. The definition of Hispanic from the wikipedia Hispanic page : " Hispanic is one of several terms of ethnicity (meaning that it uses only one of the several terms that define an ethnicity) employed to categorize any person, of any racial (racial meaning genetically which is one of the several terms of ethnicity) background, of any country and of any religion (which removes the religion argument) who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain.." All in all this deifnition means that only around 2% of the Philippines may be considered Hispanic --Jandela 04:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that people actually knew a thing or two about the Philippines...just by checking out the internet, I've read lot's of things about Filipinos -all in about 5 minutes...So, please before everyone starts telling me how to act...look here:

  • "The majority of Filipinos are Roman Catholics. They are not Taoists, Confucianists, or Buddhists. This means that we celebrate religious holidays and other festivals that the Spaniards started like..." -Chris S.

---> please check Muslims in the phils.

Well, I've read "The Spaniards introduced Christianity (the Roman Catholic faith) and succeeded in converting the overwhelming majority of Filipinos. About 83% of the total population belongs to the Roman Catholic faith. 9% of Filipino people are Protestant, 5% Muslim, and 3% are Buddhist or some other faith."

--> by use of the sword @ christianity.

To me, this says...he's wrong..look at the percentages...3% Buddhists? That more than there are Spanish-Filipino mestizo's in all the Islands of the Philippines! But, what if Filipinos are Catholics...Religion doesn't make anyone part of any ethnic group, Sorry!

  • "Family structure - The structure of the Philippine family is more Hispanic-centered than Chinese. With Filipinos, both sides of the family are important but with the Chinese, it's patrilineal." -Chris S.

Well, guess what I've read..."The Filipino character is actually a little bit of all the cultures put together. The bayanihan or spirit of kinship and comaraderie that Filipinos are famous for is said to be taken from Malay forefathers. The close family relations are said to have been inherited from the Chinese..."

That says alot, right? Not for some, I guess.

  • "The Spanish created the Philippines by uniting these various islands and ethnic groups into one country. Historic trade with China does not mean we are related to the Chinese." -Chris S.

I read: "The history of American rule and contact with merchants and traders culminated in a unique blend of East and West, both in appearance and culture of the people of the Philippines."

So the Spanish united, but the Americans did too! No denying...

--> spaniards did not unite the phils.

  • "The American occupation was responsible for teaching the Filipino people the English language. The Philippines is currently the third-largest English speaking country."

If the population of the Philippines as a whole never used Spanish or spoke it at home, but use English (from the Americans) that says the U.S. has done a great job at a Unified Philippines...Hispanics can at least all talk to eachother, right??? Well, not the Filipinos...but they can talk to Americans...

Reply: Good for you. Funny patriot, your making me laugh. Get over it. JfdrU 17:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

--> true.

  • "The food, oh yes the food - adobo, pandesal, lechon, polvoron, chicharon, asado, I could go on and on." -Chris S.

How about the Chinese: "...Filipino-Chinese food came to be. The names identify them: pansit (Hokkien for something quickly cooked) are noodles; lumpia are vegetables rolled in edible wrappers; siopao are steamed, filled buns; siomai are dumplings."

So the Chinese influenced the Filipino foods long before the Hispanics...noodles are Asian, right? -> true

  • Architecture in the Philippines is not all Hispanic-looking...-------> [1] and (scroll and read)[2]...this is all native architecture in the philippines, read about it [3]...these people today walk around cities where Spanish boroque styles may be..but would their ancestors have known what they were looking at? Probably not.
  • I've read: "A multicolored, hand-woven silk jacket and chiffon silk skirt is inspired by Muslim culture in the Mindanao region of the south Philippines; a hand-woven, hand-beaded crop-top and skirt set takes inspiration from the Igorot tribe of northern Luzon."

Chris S. sent me a note from a "Spanish" guy telling me that Spanish dress has permeated Filipino attire...what about native dress? Filipinos dressed like that long before they "became" Hispanic, Did they not? and Filipinos are Westernized, right? They dress like Americans, not Latin Americans.

--> again true.

  • American Idol, Hamburgers, etc...they would fare quite better in the U.S. than in Mexico.

There is no denying...Filipinos are quite a mixture, and they may have little connections to Hispanic culture here and there...but they are largely Austronesian and influenced greatly by other Asian groups and the U.S.... If I'm animated, that's just the way I am...stop criticizing me... Thank You. Cali567 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

--> influenced on spanish culture, not much.

"I've read" statements are not good arguments. I just searched some of Chris S. earlier works and judging by the scope of his research I think your arguments would not stand a chance. Again, try to put sources. In my opinion, only journal articles (there are many free journal articles floating in the net, specially old ones), government sponsored or university sites from the Internet can stand up against "offline" reference books for issues of this kind. Sorry for criticizing you but I think your new post better than before--Lenticel 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Cali567 & C.Kent

Before I reply, I'm removing myself from the revert war until I have located some reliable sources. I am in the process of obtaining works related to this subject, such as Jaime de Veyra's 1962 La Hispanidad en Filipinas among others which make mention of "la Hispanidad fiilipina" (Philippine Hispanicness). Some web sources (though I don't believe they'are academic - especially the personal account which is the last link) so far: [1], [2], and [3].

---> one sided references. sorry.

For Cali567 and C.Kent87, you guys have told me to stop it or let it go or whatever. I'm sorry, I'm here to stay. I'm willing to work with you two, so I ask the same of both of you.

Now on to the points addressed by C.Kent87:

  1. I am in no way distorting the word "ethnicity." I quote the following from the textbook from one of my two anthropology courses last year (Anthropology: A Global Perspective by Scupin & DeCorse).
    1. From page 577: "In chapter 10, we discussed the concept of an ethnic group, which is a collectivity of people who believe they share a common history, culture, or ancestry. We also discussed how ethnicity is based on perceived differences in ancestral origins or descent and shared historical and cultural heritage." This is in sharp contrast with "race" (note the scare quotes), which deals solely with bloodlines and physical features as a result of which. This is further confirmed on page 578 which says that "In other words, one's language or culture is not inherited through biological transmission or genetics. Boas stressed that culture was for more significant in explaining how people in different ethnic groups behaved than any biological factors."
    2. Also from page 578: "The objective aspect of the ethnicity is the observable culture and shared symbols of a particular group. It may involve a specific language or religious tradition that is maintained by the group, or it may be particular clothing, hairstyles, preferences in food, or other conspicuous characteristics. The subjective aspect of ethnicity involves the internal beliefs of the people regarding their shared ancestry. They may believe that their ethnic group has a shared origin, or family history, or a common homeland in the past. ... The subject aspect of ethnicity entails a "we-feeling," and a sense of community or oneness, or a distinction between one's own "in-group" versus an "out-group." It doesn't matter whether these beliefs are historically or scientifically accurate, genuine, or fictional."

      How does this all tie in? As I mentioned above, it is pretty clear that Filipinos are not considered Hispanics. The simple reason is that Filipinos do not see themselves as such and neither do Hispanics them as such. However, both Hispanics and Filipinos do feel they have a connection because of their common histories as Spanish colonies and the legacy that Hispanic culture has left upon them. In fact, the Philippines is considered a part of the "Hispanidad" - I was surprised that editors from both this & the Spanish Wikipedia saw it fit to include the Philippines there. Furthermore, many Filipinos believe they have Spanish blood (my family especially, and I have yet to confirm this). I don't know what the true figure is (the 3% figure is from User:Matthewprc's misinterpretation of statistical data from a Stanford University study). Whatever the figure is, it's not important - what's important in this case is that Filipinos believe they have a drop of Spanish blood not the fact they actually have it (see subjective aspect above).

  2. You wrote "Filipinos know very much about American culture and they follow it very can't tell me they don't! To take away the influence of the Chinese in one swipe is just stupid. You know people will not just let this go. In all fairness, the inclusian of Chinese and American are very important. I'll beleive Filipinos are ethnically related to Hispanics when they are welcomed by Hispanics themselves." You are not getting the point. There is a difference between having your culture drastically transformed by the Spaniards and by singing Britney Spears songs. The field deals with related ethnic groups not sources of cultural influence. So no, I do not deny the fact that the Americans and Chinese have made significant contributions to Filipino culture, but their contribution is pale in comparison to what the Spaniards contributed.

---> the spaniards ENFORCED their practices on the ancestors of the filipinos. it is not inherited.

  1. You wrote "This is just a space filler...where does it help your argument?" I apologize if my point was not made clear. That point was that because the Spaniards founded the Philippines, they had a larger-scale impact on the various ethnic groups of the archipelago. To reiterate an example I gave in an earlier comment, the current Filipino family is more oriented towards Spanish family structure and not Chinese. This is another concept in anthropology called kinship and descent.
  2. As for your other two comments and also the one about Catholicism and African converts, it doesn't really help much isolating my statements and then refuting them by engaging in straw man tactics. It has to be taken as a whole.
    1. With your religion example, you are comparing apples and oranges. Simple conversion of Africans by Irish to Roman Catholicism does not make those Africans related to the Irish. Now, if the Irish were in Africa for centuries and completely changed their way of life, then there's a different story.
        1. Anthropologists who specialize in the Philippines categorize Filipinos in four or five broad categories like Muslims, Hill Tribes, and Lowland Christians. Lowland Christians are the largest group in the Philippines and they are characterized, among other things, by being the most Hispanic out of all those groups as well as being mostly Roman Catholic. As a matter of fact, anthropologists like the late W. H. Scott make reference to "Pre-Hispanic Filipinos." So I wonder what the opposite of that is, then? Hispanic Filipinos? Hmmm.. Hispanicized?
    2. Architecture, music, dance, etc. are all examples of cultural artifacts (see objective aspect above).

Now, I have some questions for you and Cali567.

  1. What does ethnicity mean to you?
  2. What is a Hispanic?
  3. What is a Filipino?
  4. What are some of the most significant contributions by Americans and Chinese people to Philippine culture?
  5. What reliable sources do you have to corroborate that?
  6. Have you ever been to the Philippines?

Thanks for your time. --Chris S. 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've already worked with you...Chinese, Hispanics, and Americans are all "related ethnic groups" of Filipinos...They have greatly influenced the Island...The Hispanics have not been the only "contributing" factor...Filipinos know in their heart who they are...and Hispanics/Everyone else know that Filipinos are not Hispanic. Period. Cali567 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think we're finished, then I'm afraid you're wrong. We have yet to build consensus. --Chris S. 06:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
PS ~ are you even reading what I am writing? No one is claiming that Filipinos are Hispanic. --Chris S. 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just barely...So, if no one is claiming that Filipinos are Hispanic, why a big fuss about including as a related "ethnic group"? If you go on the Spanish people and Italian people articles you'll see that the only ones included are Blood relatives/ethnic groups...You should go over to the Italians and tell them to include Filipinos because Filipinos are related to Spanish/Hispanic people and Spanish people are ethnically related to Italian people (which I believe, unlike the other "related" example)...Then you'd fulfill your yearnings! Are you going now? Cali567 06:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---> FILIPINOS ARE NOT HISPANIC PEOPLE, NEITHER ARE THEY SPANIARDS. yes i live in the philippines, am full blooded. born and raised. the spaniards have burnt so much pre hispanic books and have done so much to erase the Filipinos orignal roots to make us look like savages. which we are not. the islands have had culture centuries before the spaniards mistakenly "found" us.

Patriotic person, good for you, you sound like an idiot. Get over it. hahaha. -- JfdrU 17:52 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Fillipinos are related to Hispanics-the vast, vast majority are Asian/Pacific Islander related to Polynesians. The US Census Bureau does not see Fillipinos as Hispanic. Anyways, WP policy can solve this quite easily. Is there are reputable source claiming Fillipinos to be related to Hispanics? I doubt it. Signaturebrendel 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, the US census is the wrong source to consult. This isn't a matter of saying that Filipinos are Hispanics, it is a matter of saying that Filipinos are related to Hispanics. So of course you won't see it on the census as such. The census is not going to say, for example, that Russian Americans are related to Czech Americans (as both groups are Slavics). --Chris S. 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--> Chris, we are not related to hispanics and are not hispanic. if some others claim that, it is just to brag. but technically we are not spaniards nor are really related to them. what is difficult to understand? i find your claims an insult to our people. you can have an opinion but dont make it out that we agree to what you state here.

The US census does not count. Its oversimplified and does not distinguish between specific ethnic groups such as thos from India and the Philippines, and anyway who gave th US government he right other people's indentities.--23prootie 07:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I think there's a political motivation why Americans did that, because by doing so they are proving that they are better at colonizing than Spain.--23prootie 07:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--> not so, the americans unlike the spaniards did not meddle on religion or society.

The US government is simply one respectable opinion on the issue. This is a non-factual issue- there is no wrong or right. I don't beleive that Hispanics should be mentioned as a related ethnic group- you do. So my question is: Do you have a reliable source? As this statement is disputed a reliable source will be needed. Signaturebrendel 07:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put in an interlibrary loan request for a book at my library called La Hispanidad en Filipinas (The Hispanicness in Philippines). Another book that I will be requesting is Filipinas, país hispánico (The Philippines, a Hispanic country). There are also works from Ateneo de Manila anthropologist Dr. Fernando Zialcita who has written at length on the subject. So to answer your question, yes, there are several reliable sources to substantiate that claim. Now, the people on the other side of this debate are not doing the same as far as reliable sources on Chinese and American are involved. Arab and Indian will need to be removed (or replaced with Muslim). --Chris S. 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--> replace with Muslim then because thats more sensible. saying the Philippines is a hispanzed state is a slap to out faces.

The 3% you say is not actually a misinterpretation, the study itself says that 3.6% of all Filipinos are of part-European descent. Furthermore, a survey I conducted as part of my academic requirements (n = 139) clearly indicate that at least among the upper and middle socioeconomic college students in Manila, about 69% are of pure Filipino descent, 12% are mixed Chinese and Filipino descent, 6% are of Chinese descent, and another 6% are of mixed Spanish and Filipino descent, while the other 9% are of various combinations of Filipino, Chinese, and European descent. -- Matthewprc 06:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

--> based on what?


I'm rather disappointed by the lack of serious responses by both Cali567 and C.Kent. What is it guys? Are you guys just going to revert and not address the arguments I am presenting? Where is the consensus building?

Anyway, here is an excerpt so far of an academic source from Dr. Kevin Nadal of University of Michigan and appears in a peer-reviewed academic journal called Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development:

"Moreover, many have classified F/Pilipinos as "Hispanic" because of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines for over 300 years (Trevino, 1987)."

--> no, this isnt notable evidence. mindanao was never conquered by the spanish, the moros also claim filipino, but they were never under the spaniards.

"In fact, there are two major differences between Asian culture and Philippine culture. First, there is a strong Catholic presence in the Philippines, which can be accredited to the Spanish rule of the Philippines for over 300 years. Agbayan-Siewert (1995) reports that over 80% of Filipino Americans are Catholic, without including the number of Filipinos who are Christian. Because of this Catholic/Christian-based culture, Filipinos will share many of the same cultural values as Hispanic/Latino Americans (Esperitu, 1992). Moreover, Filipinos will share more cultural experiences with Latinos who are Catholic, than they would to Asian Americans who are Buddhist or Hindu. Secondly, Philippine culture thrives on a very gender-free society. Pido (1986) notes that, 'Filipinos give recognition, deference, and opportunities to any family member, regardless of sex, who show potential to increase the family's status and position.' Unlike their Asian counterparts, Filipino women are not taught to be submissive or passive.

> filipino women are not taught to be submissive? let me guess... you are not filipino right? please go to the philippines. religion has nothing to do with it, christianity in the phils was forced on the filipinos by the sword, the spaniards had meddled into filipino affairs and had killed and forced both the muslim and animist filipinos to become christians. there is a huge resurging movement of muslims in the philippines mind you.

Filipinas saluda dvd.png

By the way, look at what I got in the mail yesterday (click image to enlarge). It's from the head organizer, a native of Venezuela, of Suramérica y Filipinas saludan a Centroamérica (South America & the Philippines salute Central America) and it involved a cultural event celebrating the Filipinos' Hispanic heritage and relationship to Central Americans. How about that? It was held last year in LA. The accompanying letter that was sent stated "May I extend my deepest, extra gratitude for ... joining me in projecting the Hispanic side of the Philippine community in Los Angeles, into such vast crowds." This event, by the way was televised on the Spanish language channel Univisión. An article about this event can be read here.

That's it for now. I have to thank you guys for motivating me to learn more about my own culture while reviewing various sources. Maraming salamat & muchísimas gracias. --Chris S. 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---> this does not prove that filipinos are hispanic. that is an opinion of a brainwashed confused filipino wanting to be hispanic and celebrating what she wants on america soil. she does not speak for us real filipinos. sorry, kulang pa yang alam mo bata. mag aral ka pa, at umuwi at tumira ng tama sa pilipinas ,sadyang katangahan yang sinasabi mo tunkol sa mga pilipino. maling pagiisip at maling daang kailangan ituwid.

Chris, this may be nice sentiment, but Filipinos are a bit like "Honorary Whites" or "Honorary Hispanics", if you will. You try to bring Latin Americans and Spaniards into your arguments as if it will help make up our minds. Many may believe there is a "connect", but when all is said and it really real.

--> thanks for making this point.

I apologize for the lateness of my reply to you; I've been busy. But you said it right there - "honorary Hispanics." You acknowledge the special relationship that Hispanics have with Filipinos. --Chris S. 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, uum, that means they are not Hispanics yet some give them the mean that's good enough to prove Filipinos are a part of the Hispanic ethnicity?...???Cali567 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--> thanks for this point again.

  • First, there is a strong Catholic presence in the Philippines, which can be accredited to the Spanish rule of the Philippines for over 300 years. Agbayan-Siewert (1995) and "Moreover, many have classified F/Pilipinos as "Hispanic" because of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines for over 300 years (Trevino, 1987)."
....I just don't seem to see how this makes an Asian group part of the Hispanic one...mentality-wise...loosely, but I can love the British and our music is influenced by them and I speak the language (which I'll add again, Filipinos do not speak Spanish, it's a fact. And I mean as a whole) and say they ruled the U.S. colonies and we are a "related ethnic group"...yet I'm not of English extraction -I only empathize with them. So, maybe if you use a word other than related "ethnic" group...and even then it's still pushing it. You'll say "Apples and Oranges", but's not.

--> thank you

I do consider Brits to be a related ethnic group to Americans. Extraction, the word you use, is another word for ancestry or descent. Ancestry does not necessarily make an ethnic group. Especially in the case of Hispanics, because Hispanics come from various ancestries - Europeans, Asians (the Japanese immigrants), and Blacks. What links these people together is their culture and language, which was brought over by the Spanish.
I just want to get you and I on the same page - I want you to define, in your own words, what an ethnic groupis. --Chris S. 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You know what? The whole world is related ethnically then!... pick another word to communicate the connect...Uum...the definition of "ethnic" is usually thought of by all as two or more groups related to eachother by blood who share many characteristics...Persians, Arabians, etc...Filipinos, Taiwanese, etc...French, Italian, Spanish, etc...Mexican, Cuban, Argentinian,..and even the latter group with the European group...Everyone usually thinks of ethnicity in this matter...but Filipinos and Spanish, Mexican, Argentinian...not really!. Cali567 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I am disappointed that Chris S. could not get a straight answer to a simple question there. Not being Filipino, I don't have a horse in this race. I do have a few comments, though --
  • The wiki pages on Ethnic group, on Ethnicity, and on other related topics seem clear that ethnicity involves more than genetics. The intro to the Ethnic groups page reads: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1987). Recognition by others as a distinct ethnic group is often a contributing factor to developing this bond of identification. [1] Ethnic groups are also often united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits. [2] Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis.
  • looking at Template:Infobox Ethnic group doesn't produce much help for understanding what a "Related Ethnic Group" might be
  • looking at pages which use that template, taking a look at individual pages listed there, shows me that most existing pages lean hevily towards genetics in choosing what to list there, though there do seem to be rare exceptions.
I think that the Related Ethnic Groups section of the infobox ought to be omitted if a consensus cannot be reached about what it ought to contain. Perhaps the body of the article could contain a section on Filipino ethnicity, or perhaps there ought to be a separate article which discusses Filipino ethnicity in richer detail than the subject can be presented in the infobox. Perhaps the Related Ethnic Groups section of the infobox in this article could point to the relevent section or separate article where a fuller discussion of this topic can be found. -- Boracay Bill 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Pido (1986) notes that, 'Filipinos give recognition, deference, and opportunities to any family member, regardless of sex, who show potential to increase the family's status and position.'...Unlike their Asian counterparts, Filipino women are not taught to be submissive or passive."
Hispanics do not grant that much control to the female sex, many suppress them quite a bit...But, again, mind-set isn't a good enough reason for an inclusion into ones ethnic group. What if two different cultures from opposite sides of the world (with no contact) had a great many things in common...would we say they are related ethnic groups? (And no, stop thinking apples and oranges :} ...) This seems, otra vez, to make Filipinos seem to be an un-Asian ethnic group...not the case.

-> his statement was very wrong on the filipino women not being passive.

  • "Filipinos will share more cultural experiences with Latinos who are Catholic, than they would to Asian Americans who are Buddhist or Hindu" -Chris S.

--> i disagree. the brand of cathlicism of filipinos arent even pure. animistic practices are mixed in there. also not all filipinos are hardcore religious catholics

I think that's shallow of you to say...Buddhists and others make up about 3-4% of the population...Filipinos can share cultural experiences...just because Catholics may not share doesn't mean they can't -and on the topic of other religions -if one truly believed Filipinos were part of "Hispanidad", it'd be important to note the many contributions of muslims to the Hispanic culture...many Spanish names, words, thoughts, blood lines, etc have their origins in muslim Spain...therefore, so does Latin America (and I've seen quite a bit of architecture to prove it). So Catholics aren't the only ones to come out of the Philippines (and Spain + Latin America).

---> great point, the spaniards have muslim roots. just incase you forgot.

First of all, I didn't say it. That comes from the academic source that I quoted, Kevin Nadal. Second of all, it appears to me that you view a religious as unimportant or of some insignificance to a particulare culture, which is far from the truth. The Spanish brougth over their customs to the Filipino - Roman Catholicism with a Spanish twist. Have you ever attended a religious festival in the Philippines - if not, perhaps you should, you'd be surprised to see the many Hispanic elements therein. --Chris S. 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---> i have, and to tell you directly, it is all superficial.

Honestly, no, I wouldn't be surprised...I knew (and have been constantly reminded by you) that the Spanish conquered the Philippines..."Spanish" Roman Catholocism isn't a weird thing to find wherever the Spanish went...Cali567 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---> correction, the spanish did not "conquer" the philippines. they didnt quell rebellions, neither did they the moros. so this statement must be corrected.

  • "Lowland Christians are the largest group in the Philippines and they are characterized, among other things, by being the most Hispanic out of all those groups as well as being mostly Roman Catholic. As a matter of fact, anthropologists like the late W. H. Scott make reference to "Pre-Hispanic Filipinos."
Religion...It has started wars more than any other thing. People convert...that is all. It doesn't change ethnicity. Catholicism is a part of a Hispanic's life (assuming we are talking of Catholic ones), Catholicism didn't make them Hispanic...Filipinos are not "related to Hispanics" because they adopt customs, food recipes (they changed many of the recipes), dress (that doesn't mean most Filipinos wear "Spanish dress"), and religion. Religion is a mentality.

--> yes you are right. the spanish words in filipino arent even the same thing in meaning and spelling.

What does religion starting wars have to do with the apples and oranges (grin) in the Philippines? And you are mistaken, religion does change ethnicity. As soon as a sense of oneness is created, once a sense of "us and them" has started, there is an ethnic group. The Jews are a prime of example of an instance where religion plays a huge part of their culture. Many still call themselves Jews even if they are atheist. I take that back, you're right - religion does not change ethnicity. Instead it is the lifestyle and culture centered around the religion that changes the ethnic group. For Filipinos, being a Roman Catholic isn't simply a set of beliefs - it's a way of life that's ingrained into their culture. --Chris S. 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--> wrong again. jews are racially hebrew/aramaic people. cris dont generalize all filipinos when you point out religion. most of them dont even practice catholicism properly.

Sorry, that was extra! don't pay attention to that...but, RELIGION CHANGES NOTHING...Filipinos can hold on to Roman Catholicism all they want...that's of no consequence. Let's not talk religion anymore, it doesn't change your ethnic group. If that was true, I'd be English right now...???Cali567 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--> true. religion hasnt anything to do with it. theres a lot of korean christians.

  • "...and it involved a cultural event celebrating the Filipinos' Hispanic heritage and relationship to Central Americans. How about that?..."
"Honorary Hispanics" comes to mind again...yes the Latin American countries and the Philippine Islands were ruled by Spain (actually, the islands were ruled by Latin America) and there is that connection. Filipinos borrowed many things, but for me to go to France (even as a baby) and be "immersed" in French everything will not make me a Frenchman -to a point (and I give you the benifit of the doubt)...some Filipinos may be very pro-Spanish, but it doesn't mean they live in a Hispanic country. Just because Whites bestowed "Honorary White" status didn't mean those who recieved it were trult white. Now my argument may not be very strong to you, but please don't refer to me as a person with a "lack of serious responses"... Gracias por todo... Cali567 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Your choice of France works against you. A lot of people immigrate to France. During the controversy with religious dress in French schools a few years ago, I watched an interview with Muslim teenagers in France of Arab or Persian descent. They said they considered themselves French. For them, they consider themselves as part of the French ethnic group. Another example is Zinedine Zidane, a French soccer player. His parents are Algerian, but he was born in France. And he is considered French.
Now, what're the criteria to be considered Hispanic or related to Hispanics? Let's take Cuba. The first settlement was established in 1511. Just 10 years latter, Magellan landed in what is now the Philippines. Both, along with Puerto Rico (which was established around the time Cuba was) lost their status as Spanish colonies in 1898. Now, Puerto Ricans and Cubans are undoubtedly HIspanics. But why not Filipinos? --Chris S. 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your Kidding....this is never ending...just say on the page that Filipinos have some history with Spain, but don't go erroneously saying to everyone who will read this article that Filipinos are related to Hispanics...just don't...Cali567 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---> true, Filipinos are first and foremost malays related to the indonesians and Malaysian peoples. that is our roots. Hindi kami kastila.

Reply: Funny patriotic person, good for you haha. User: JfdrU 17:54 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My responses to Cali567's messages from 3/20th:

  1. Well, are you or are you not going to define, in your own words, what an ethnic group is? C'mon, let's be serious here, and not engage ourselves in slippery slope logic. To me, you are defining ethnic group in the same stripe as race, which isn't entirely true. Because of your confusion over the meaning of the word, you are blind to the fact that Hispanic and Filipinos are related.
  2. Not only did the Spaniards conquer the Philippines, they also conquered the Americas and parts of Africa. Equatorial Guinea is a Spanish-speaking country in Africa, for example.
  3. How can you say religion changes nothing? Don't you know anything about Philippine history? Read up on W.H. Scott's Barangay - Filipino culture was dramatically changed because of Hispanic culture, of which Roman Catholicism was a huge part. I infer from your "I'd be English now" comment that you're infering that I believe that Filipinos are Hispanic. Again, let's be on the same page here,

I'm not.

> scot does not represent us filipinos. he isnt even filipino. your reference is irelevant.

  1. Yes, saying that we Filipinos have a history with Spain is true, but that's only telling half the story. Our direct relationship with Spain ended 108 years ago. However, our relationship with the Hispanic world still continues. --Chris S. 18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

--> no. we cant even hold a decent conversation with hispanic people. its only History that we can share, the same brutal history where the spanish hurt our people.

To Boracay Bill: I'd say that your opinion certainly counts. As an American expat in the Philippines, what is your take on all this? --Chris S. 18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

--> we are not hispanic. period.look deeper.

Reply: Good for you. --User:JfdrU 18:00 13, May 2009 (UTC)

Postscript - Claro Recto

A quote from Claro M. Recto (original Spanish and English translation below)

No es, ciertamente, por motivos sentimentales o por deferencia a la gran nación española que dio a medio mundo su religión, su lenguaje y su cultura, que profesamos devoción a este idioma y mostramos firme empeñó en conservario y propagarlo, sino por egoismo nacional y por imperativos del patriotismo, porque el español es ya cosa nuestra, propia, sangre de nuestra sangre y carne de nuestra carne, porque así lo quisieron nuestros mártires, héroes y estadistas del pasado, y sin el será trunco el inventario de nuestro patrimonio cultural.
(It is certainly not for sentimental motives or deference to the great Spanish nation that gave her religion, language and culture to half of the world that we profess devotion to this language but because of national egoism and because of imperatives of patriotism, because Spanish is already ours, our own, blood of our blood and flesh of our flesh, for so willed our martyrs, heroes and statesmen of the past and without it the inventory of our cultural patrimony would be wrong.)

> brainwashed, and scared of the spanish. that is the answer. how dare he forget the fight of our ancestors against the spaniards. he is a disgrace.

Reply: You people are a bunch of funny patriots. You sound like an idiot, hahaha. Get over it. User:JfdrU

--Chris S. 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ---> answered all your statements, FILIPINOS ARE NOT SPANISH AND NEVER WILL BE. SPAIN HAS ONLY A HISTORY AND HAD ONLY EXPLOITED FILIPINO PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD GIVE AN APOLOGY. do not equate us to spaniards, they are not worthy.

Reply:: Good for you. hahaha idiot, are you proud? Get over it, hahaha. JfdrU 18:01 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now Arabs and Indians?

Who put them in the related ethnic group? And Malays are redundantly included (twice). This is getting ridiculous. I forgot a WP guideline for this dang. Anyway, I leave this discussion up to others since I really have no clue on the difference between race, nationality, and ethnicity. I have vague and ambiguous notions of each concept. Maybe when I study sociology and anthropology (late this year on my curriculum). @[email protected] Berserkerz Crit 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this was getting ridiculous; there is a difference between traces of cultural influence and cultural impact and the way it was presented made it imply that all were one and the same. In any case, I've simply removed the whole field until all can be corroborated by reliable sources. --Chris S. 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the best thing to do. Once you have proof to back up your claim, no one can dispute it and go into an edit war. ^_^ Berserkerz Crit 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's fairly well accepted that the Austronesian people, including Filipino people can be reliably traced via linguistics and perhaps DNA testing back to Taiwan. That does not make them "Chinese." Now, where the ancestors of the Austronesian people were before Taiwan is a bit less clear, though they were on the Asian mainland somewhere. As for other groups.. Spanish etc... they came much much much later. :-) --Ling.Nut 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I totally agree with you. Austronesians will returned to that field. --Chris S. 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can Filipinos be just Filipinos? We could just leave the Austronesian relation to separate Filipino ethnic group articles. I mean its less controversial. --23prootie 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but this debate has to do with whom Filipinos are related to and not who they are. --Chris S. 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A Clear Definition of Hispanic

The definition of Hispanic from the wikipedia Hispanic page : " Hispanic is one of several terms of ethnicity (meaning that it uses only one of the several terms that define an ethnicity) employed to categorize any person, of any racial (racial meaning genetically which is one of the several terms of ethnicity) background, of any country and of any religion (which removes the religion argument) who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain.."

All in all this deifnition means that only around 2% of the Philippines may be considered Hispanic, in my opinion no where close to even consider "Hispanic" as a related ethnic group. In fact places like Macau, are probably more ethnically related to "Hispanics" than we are. --Jandela 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: To User:Jandela! Your comment on Macanese people being hispanics are "WRONG". Since when or who ever said Macanese where related to Hispanics?? Who invented this stories. That's crap!!!. Portuguese mixed with chinese are not hispanic. They are Portuguese-Macanese people. How can you be Portuguese and be Hispnaic at the same time. Portuguese are "not" even Spanish people. And also the majority of people in Macau are chinese descent and Mestiços those of mixed Portuguese and Chinese ancestry form 1% of the population. Once again Macanese are not Hispanics!! Geesh.. thanks!--Gonzalo 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Calm yourself...It's not entirely wrong to say that the Portuguese are Hispanics...they share genetics and are both from the Iberian Peninsula...It's almost like comparing the French to Belgians...relax. If they are part Portuguese then they are closer to Hispanics than other Filipinos are...big deal! Cali567 08:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, what does genetics have to do with it? What does genetics have to do with a black Dominican and a Japanese Peruvian who are both Hispanic? And French and Belgians are related - the French-speaking Walloons in Belgium. --Chris S. 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Sorry but, I am calm down. The problem is that there are to many ignorant peoples who lack common sense. And also do you have sources and facts to back up your statements??-Gonzalo 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ay, naku - heto na naman tayo. Ethnicity is not limited to ancestry or blood. This is not outdated. This is taught in anthropology courses. My anthropology textbook is dated 2005.
Take note, this is from the very Hispanic page you purport to quote:

"Hispanic" specifically refers to Spain, and to the Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas, as cultural and demographic extensions of Spain. It should be further noted that in a U.S. context, a Hispanic population consists of the people of Spain and everyone with origins in any of Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas, regardless of ancestry of the latter (including Amerindians). In the context of Spain and Latin America, a Hispanic population consists of the people of Spain, and when regarding the inhabitants of the Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas, includes only criollos, mestizos, mulattos, and others with Spanish ancestry, to the exclusion of indigenous Amerindians, unmixed descendants of black Africans and whites or other peoples from later migrations without any Spanish lineage.

Also remember, there is a difference between being related to someone and actually being them. The article is not claiming that Filipinos are Hispanic, but instead is that Filipinos have a special relationship with them, that they are related because of the shared legacy. It has nothing to do with genetics. --Chris S. 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Chris is right!!, At last somebody understands. Also, The term Hispanic is "only" given to true Filipinos who are of "Spanish or Mexican ancestry". -- Gonzalo 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think only two people "understanding" something makes it correct...also, the "true" number of those Filipinos is misleading...and even more so because of the intended inclusion of Hispanics as a related ethnic group...This all leads to one thing.....Filipinos do have a "history" with Spain -but that's not good enough for you people (!)...and they are not related as an ethnic group. Cali567 09:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply: I'am talking about the minority of Filipinos who posses Spanish or Mexican ancestry. Not the entire indigenous population. Do you have facts or sources to back up your statements. --Gonzalo 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Err.... I'm just commenting from the sidelines here, but it strikes me that it might be instructive to peruse the Wilipedia articles on Hispanic and Hispanic cultural legacy in the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution to is to forget that section altogether since people are not gonna agree ever about which ethnic groups are related to Filipinos. Cali567 has a point, not all Filipinos are related to Hispanics. I mean if you consider Moros, the Igorot, the Mangyan, and the Lumad as Filipinos then classification of Filipinos as related to Hispanics is absulutely wrong. None of those groups are nearly-related to Hispanics. I think that Austronesian shouldn't be mentioned also since not all Filipinos natively speak an Austronesian language. I mean some natively speak English, Chabacano, or Lannang so relating Filipinos to Austronesian excludes them. Besides, the invalidity of genetic relations and terms such as the Malay race mean that Malays and Polynesians cannot be included. --23prootie 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An unsigned revision to the above (timestamped 01:29, April 10, 2007) drew my attention back to the point of revision, and from there to Malay_race#Philippine_context. It seems to me that the info presented there deserves some mention in this article, or at least a ==See also== link. A solid supporting cite or two would be nice, though. -- Boracay Bill 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said, the section will be left for now until my sources arrive. And yes, you're right, not all Filipinos are related to Hispanics, which is why I am planning putting "other Muslims" in the field too. The Filipinos who don't speak Austronesian languages are the rare exception and not the rule. We can strive to be as comprehensive as possible, but in the end we won't be able to cover everyone. --Chris S. 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, this discussion is getting pointless fast to the point of being ridiculous unless the other side produce some hard references. I was hoping to observe how people with academic expertise in the Philippine Social Science argue but I think I was not able to learn anything at all. I was inhibiting myself in actively participating in this discussion since I believe I do not have the background to argue efficiently. However, your posts are really getting more and more annoying so I must take action. Look, if I use Wikipedia, "simple logic" and Google searches as references for academic purposes, my professors will surely grant me a failing grade. I assume that professors from the Social Sciences will do the same.
For starters I believe you should cite these terms first (only gov't sources, journal articles and books on social studies are acceptable):
Race is related to genetics (I believe Science has discussed this recently)
Definition of Race, Ethnicity, Nationality (Kind of hard to digest really. I studied these terms on one of my General Education courses for an entire semester and I still don't get them)
Guys the goal of wikipedia is to share knowledge by arriving at a consensus not to win discussions because you don't like the article's section. Stop acting like little children and act like real scholars! I hope nobody here just obtained their "expertise" over the internet. Such knowledge should not be used on serious and academic articles like this.
I'm sorry if I was getting offensive, I tried to be neutral but my annoyance at your actions just surface every time.--Lenticel 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing about the internet is fast and it's easy. It gives the prelimary searches. It has given me the titles, for example, that I need to peruse to put this debate to a rest. However, obtaining the source is taking time - I have requested these titles via interlibrary loan at my local library and in my experience this takes two to four weeks. And by the time they arrive things will have cooled down (and this appears to be the case). This is one of the principle reasons why the debate doesn't look so scholarly. Now, I am hoping that people who disagree with me are doing the same but I don't see any indication that they are doing the same thing. --Chris S. 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the argument is stupid and shouldnt exist, I do however think that it does exist because some people feel its a need to mislead the world (wikpedia markets to the world) by even entering a section that lists related ethnic groups, especially when it comes to the Philippines. My argument is that if we put Hispanic as a related ethnic group then we have to put Chinese, American and even Anglo-Saxan as ethnic groups, which is ridiculous. A few have argued we were never Chinese citizens, 10% never spoke chinese like they did spanish according to some report that nobody has even heard about, it makes me laugh that people trying to act like they know Philippines and they have all the recources would even use that argument. Chris getting 1 or 2 or even a hundred South Americans who probably dont know anything substantial or real about the average Filipino's (born and raised in the Philippines) lifestyle to believe that they are hispanic really means nothing, and dosent make it true. More people believe that Chinese and Japanese are the same, does that make it true? And to reply to Gonzalo, i think you misunderstand alot of what im saying and i don't think you know the entire background of this argument so i wont really take the time to explain it to you, but rather i recommend reading all the posts from the above titles. All opinions of pro-hispanic Filipinos and opinions of non Filipinos written in books are NOT reliable scources and are not fact, If any scource were to be even cosidered, it would be from the government of the homeland Nation of the people being discussed, in this case The Philippines, the rest is personal opinion based on different experiences and views.--Jandela 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument turned it like it did because people have their own ideas about Philippine Hispanicity, and they are very strong about them. That's fine. But, Jandela, none of you guys have given reliable sources or even answered some of my questions so that we can be on the same page about things. What does this tell me? It tells me that you guys aren't serious and that all you are interested in doing is putting forth your own biases. It's hard, but I'm doing my best to assume good faith here; so I hope you guys could prove my impressions wrong. And as of yet, it looks like that this is happening since your fail to formulate a coherent argument. I mean all you're doing is giving your opinion on the arguments here, as well as basing your strongest arguments on the fact that nobody has heard about a particular source (which does not necessarily make it invalid!) or to consider reliable source as only Filipino (which does not make it valid!) Where are your sources that say that Filipinos are not related to Hispanics?
You wrote "they did spanish according to some report that nobody has even heard about". In 1916, Henry Ford submitted a report to US President Woodrow Wilson concerning the Philippines. I quote him about the issue of Spanish:

"There is, however, another aspect in this case which should be considered. This aspect became evident to me as I traveled through the islands, using ordinary transportation and mixing with all classes of people under all conditions. Although based on the school statistics it is said that more Filipinos speak English than any other language, no one can be in agreement with this declaration if they base their assessment on what they hear..."

Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone, Spanish turns out to be more useful than English...And outside of Manila it is almost indispensable. The Americans who travel around all the islands customarily use it." (The Ford Report of 1916. No. 3. The Use of English, 365-366.)

You then wrote "Chris getting 1 or 2 or even a hundred South Americans who probably dont know anything substantial or real about the average Filipino's (born and raised in the Philippines) lifestyle to believe that they are hispanic really means nothing, and dosent make it true." You say this without having read a word of what they said. How do you know what they say is true? Do you even know who my sources are? I did not even quote any South Americans. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter what the author's national or ethnic origins are.
I quoted Claro M. Recto above. He is as Filipino as you can get and is one of the most important historic figures in Philippine history. Another one was Jayme de Veyra - another pivotal figure in Philippine history. I am also quoting Blas Piñar's work - who is from Spain and has studied Philippine culture. Another is John Leedy Phelan's The Hispanization of the Philippines. I have a body of academic sources (which, again, is not limited to government sources). Where are yours? Remember, this Wikipedia, cite your sources. Find reliable sources that would justify removing Hispanic. Otherwise, you don't have any justification. --Chris S. 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for being rude in my last post. Perhaps real life work has taken a toll. With that out of the way, I want to discuss your replies.

Then who is the authority in the Social Sciences then? Without a main consensus (say, evolution) the world of Science will crumble. So how does the world of Social Science survive then if they ignore authorities just because they don't like their view. If we ignore the opinions of non-Filipinos as unreliable sources then almost all of our history should be discarded as most are studied or documented by foreigners in their own personal view like say the death of Magellan? Also shouldn't there be bias when citing references from your own gov't? I mean if I am assigned to show the world what a Filipino is, I'll make my people look good in my presentation. I'm not doing a straw man attack here as I don't give a damn whether we are Hispanic or not. I want to learn how those in the field of Social Science work.--Lenticel 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not just one authority - there are many. --Chris S. 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Role of Filipinos in the Mexican War of Independence

During the Mexican War of Independence, Mexicans of Filipino ancestry played a key role. One of them was General Isidoro Montesdeoca who was a Mexican General, and a Lieutenant commander of Vicente Guerrero who fought the Spaniards in the War of Independence of 1810-1821. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Broken refs and unsupported population figures in the infobox

I just noticed that the {{ref label}} links in the infobox do not have any matching {{note label}}s. All those links are broken, and all the population figurdes which the links ostensibly support are actually unsupported. The {{ref label}}s appeared in the infobox in this revision. I presume that the {{ref label}}s in this infobox were copied from another article (indeed, I vaguely remember adding them in myself to some article somewhere), and that this other article did have the matching {{note label}}s which are missing in this article. Does anybody know where those missing {{note label}}s are? -- Boracay Bill 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I've found and fixed the problem. Someone had copied the Population section of the infobox from the Overseas Filipino to the infobox in this article without also bringing the supporting cites over from that page. I've done that, reformatting the supporting cites somewhat to fit the layout and content of this page vs. that one. -- Boracay Bill 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The statistics for the Filipinos in the Philippines need to be added as well. I was surprised to see that there were only 10 million Filipinos listed. hehe. --Chris S. 08:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed that. -- Boracay Bill 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ummm.... i don't totally agree with the reference for australia because it only says for those born in the Philippines and moved to australia it doesn't list those who are full or part filipino born in australia, because i am sure that (the number of people) would be a tiny bit higher! not only that isn't a bit suspicious that it says there is only 10 million filipinos??? lol i mean seriously there are like 90 million people in the philippines and at least one of them would have to be filipino, wouldn't they?Australian Jezza 11:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox assertion is supported by a cite, but it is possible that the cite does not actually properly support the assertion. I've looked very briefly at the cited source, and seen that it does not mention the number which it is cited to support. At this writing, it is late at night for me and I am not presently disposed to take any strong WP actions. I'll let it be even though it seems someone should challenge or remove it. -- Boracay Bill 12:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, It's now nearly 8AM and I've had my morning coffee. Let's see.... The intro to this article (reformated somewhat) says:
  • Filipinos are
  1. the citizens of the Philippines, located in Southeast Asia.
  2. The term (feminine: Filipina) may also refer to people of Philippine descent, regardless of citizenship (i.e. Filipino Americans, British Filipinos, Canadians of Filipino descent, etc.).
As I understand it, that includes (1) everyone who is currently a citizen of the Philippines and (2) everyone having any ancestor who is or was a citizen of the Philippines. Looking at Philippine nationality law, I think that includes people who meet or had any ancestor meeting criteria explained there back to 1902 or perhaps 1899, and anyone born in the Philippines before then or having any ancestor born in the Philippines before then.
I doubt whether stats for that are available from any citeable source for any country in the world, including the Philippines itself. On that basis, all the source citations of infobox population figures should be removed and the figures themselves either tagged with {{fact}} or removed as unsupported and unsupportable. As it is, the figures in the infobox are either not supported by a source citation (someone's wild guess?) or supported by cited sources where Filipino-ness criteria may not precisely match the criteria in the article intro. Perhaps what should be done is for someone to analyze each cited source and add a note to each source citation describing the character of the Filipino population figure asserted by that source. Perhaps also, all unsupported figures should be deleted.
Comments? Suggestions? -- Boracay Bill 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (copyedited 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you to whoever...

Thank you to whoever changed the pictures back to a more realistic view of the average Filipino rather than having all the pictures represented by mestizos that only account for 2% of the population. --Jandela 09:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The {{NPOV}} tag was added to this article in Revision as of 19:42, May 23, 2007 by anonymous user, with the edit summary: "marked NPOV, due to heated discussion on Hispanics, including data on number of Filipinos in Hispanic countries". The discussion about that seems to have ended in April. I've removed the tag. Add it back in if I'm being too bold. -- Boracay Bill 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Weren't Filipinos Pacific Islanders? Since many get emotional and hateful about being lumped with Asians because they feel they're superior to them because of their diversity, isn't best to put this in the Pacific Islander section. Also, can someone please provide to me what's the connection that Filipinos have with Blacks? Hip Hop doesn't mean nothing to me nor intermarriages with Afro-Americans. Apparantly Filipinos having black/African ancestors makes them black, there for not truly Asian. They complain about their American, Spanish, Japanese opressors, yet brag about being mixed of same said opressors.

Which is it Filipinos, are you Asian or Black/Pacific Islander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinZenielPerez1990 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous Half-Filipino Descent American Tumbler

I apologize for seeming random, I just wanted to reference that one of the most youngest skilled tumblers in the world is Zane Bezesky, who has trained with internationally famed Troy Maillis in Flordia, U.S.A [] is half-Filipino on his mother's side, she being full born to two Filipino parents in the Philipines. For those interested in this reference:

I referenced a visual, & audio clip below.

All Star tumbling tumbling video, . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


I've read the article but I'm confused. Are they more asian, indian, spanish or mixed? Or is it saying that those mixed races live in the Philippines?CN Guy (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Ancestry" section of the article explains that, according to modern genetic testing, the majority of Filipinos (the native Austronesian-speaking ones) are related to Taiwanese aborigines, Indonesians, Chinese, and Koreans.
The sentence in the introduction about American Filipinos, Chinese Filipinos, Indian Filipinos, Japanese Filipinos, and Spanish Filipinos is just there to let people know that, although the majority of Filipinos are of native Austronesian origin, not all modern Filipinos (in the sense of "citizens of the Philippines") are of native Austronesian origin, as there are significant minorities of people living in the Philippines that have other ethnic origins. Ebizur (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


they are not fillipino they are an idigenous group but are not fillipinos,it is sort of like the saami people of northern europe situation,the ayta are called this for a reason if they were fillopinos they would just be called that snd not have a seperate name to describe them.also the ayta have a whole seperate page devoted to these people, so the picture of the ayta man should be taken down and they should only be mentioned in the demographics--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article reads:"Filipinos are the citizens of the Philippines, located in Southeast Asia." Are you seriously suggesting that this excludes Filipino Aytas? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

they are not fillipinos as an ethnic/racial group they are there own ethnic group and have there own article,this article is not a article that proclaims fillipino citizenship,ayta should be metioned in the demographics only with a portal to there article--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is in fact the case, then the lead sentence of this article, quoted above, appears to be wildly incorrect. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

read the begining again it says reguardless of citzenship in other words anybody who is ethnicly fillipino not citizens, that is what i stated earlier this article is not about people who are citizens only,which was your point for includeing ayta in the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Requoting from the lead, with emphasis added to point up certain parts:
(that final requoted sentence needs rewording, but let that go for now)
The point at issue here, as I understand it, is whether or not your assertion that Philippine Aytas are not Filipino is correct. I believe that your assertion is incorrect — that Philippine Aytas (as well as other Philippine Negritos such as Philippine Atis) are Philippine citizens, and are therefore are Filipinos according to the definition given in the article lead. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

so i guess ayta article should be up for speedy deletion being they are already represented in this article than right--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:SPEEDY. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

this article makes no damn sence at all is it proclaiming citzenship or is it proclaiming it as an ethnic group, this is idiotic than the article will be changed to fillipino citizens,there is a difference if you leave the tile as fillipino people it sound like an ethnic group but the article itselfs as you proclaimed--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Filipinos represent a bunch of other ethnic groups too. We have ones for the Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Visayans, and others. Remember, the term "Filipino" did not come to mean those groups until in the late 19th century/early 20th century because Filipinos back then were Spaniards born in the Philippines and what we now call Filipinos were once called Indians (indios). The Negritos are certainly Filipino and are as Filipino as the Tagalogs are. The difference is that perhaps the Negritos' ancestors came to the archipelago before the Tagalogs did. And back then, there was no such thing as a Filipino. --Chris S. (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chris S. It's just like arguing that American Indians are not Americans. Aetas together with the Igorots, Tausugs, Mangyans, Tasadays, Badjaos and other ethnic groups are all Filipinos. --Gilgal1 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Even moreso than American Indians — see the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 article. In contrast, the Philippine Organic Act (1902) provided: "That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight." Subsequent Philippine nationality law generally provided that children of Philippine citizens were Philippine citizens at birth. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Concern re copyright status of infobox image

The infobox currently contains this image. The montage image was uploaded May 20, 2008, by User:M93, saying: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." The image is a montage of six other images, all of which appear to have been commercially produced. I am concerned about the copyright status of this image. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


why most filos in the infobox are of mixed race? don't get me wrong, i know that all filos have mixed blood but can you please, just please feature more filos who look like southeast asians. they're beautiful too anyway. how about judy ann santos or piolo pascual? angel aquino, manny villar instead of zobel, lani misalucha, mar roxas or any non-celebrity filos just for the sake of posting a filo or how about feature filos of different ethnicity: a chinese filo, filo-american, filo aeta, filo-igorot, filo-muslim, filo-jewish.

be real for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yueyouko (talkcontribs) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm gonna remove Hui as a related ethnic group.

Hui's are Sino-Tibetan while Filipinos are Austronesian Jcdizon (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Original Research in "History

This paragraph in the history section sticks out like a sore thumb:

"On a more sombre note, the connotation of "indio" would have far-reaching consequences; racism being the largest. Filipinos were often colletively scorned and called, of course, "indios", and after the larger revolutionary movements came into the scene, "filibusteros" and, "subersibo". "Indio" became not only a brutal essentialism, but was also developed into a full-blown discursive construct, which often produced stereotypes. And thus, even after Filipinos were able to prove that they were not ignorant savages, the Propagandists in Spain (Rizal, etc.) were still collectively scorned because of their brown skin. From a stereotype, the term had been assimilated by dominant ideology, and the signified was now the target of systematic exclusionary practices."

It's completely different in tone from the rest of the article, uses unnecessary POV phrases like "of course" and "ignorant savages", and swerves unnecessarily into post-structuralist jargon. Even if everyone agrees that the colonization was terrible and awful, the Philippines were hardly unique in this respect. This is an attempt to insert out-of-place post-colonial commentary with barely any actual information, and about the only useful thing in it is the list of other names. I'm changing it accordingly. (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Filipinos are not Eurasians

Why are they categorised as Eurasian? Yes, there may be a European contribution to the gene pool, but it's hardly notable (only 3%). To put that into perspective, that's only about 1/32th of their genes coming from European ancestors. Hardly significant and too small to be visible in their phenotype! ElijahTM (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

and thats no even 3% of each filipinos gene pool, the 3% only means that 3 out of every 100 filipinos have some amount of european genes small or large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What are Filipinos?


There seems to be some disagreement here on what Filipinos are in terms of their cultural identity. During the Spanish Colonial Period, the term "filipino" (spelled with a small "f") referred to the ethnic category of white criollos who were persons of pure-blooded Spanish ancestry native-born in the Spanish Colony. The term "Filipino" (spelled with a capital "F") was used by the illustrados to refer to themselves, i.e., Spanish-speaking indios and mestizos de sangley. The reason why they called themselves "Filipinos" was because they wanted to become Spanish Citizens and sought the integration of the Philippines as a Province of Spain. But Spain refused to grant them Spanish Citizenship because the white Spaniards didn't want "Filipinos" to be their "little brown Spaniards". However, Spain did grant Cubans and Puerto Ricans Spanish Citizenship in 1897. In 1898, when Aguinaldo declared the First Philippine Republic, he did so in Spanish. If the Filipino Nation thus born adopted Spanish as the ONLY official language and promoted the Hispanization of the Filipinos (defined as Citizens of the Philippines), then Filipinos could have turned out to be "little brown Hispanics" even though 99% of them were not white filipinos by ethnicity. Indeed, in Latin American countries with a majority population of brown indios such as Bolivia and Guatemala, the pure-blooded indios are reasserting their indigenous languages, religions and cultures AGAINST the dominant white Hispanic culture created by the white Spanish Conquistadores and their white descendants, the criollos. The distinction between filipino as ethnicity and Filipino as Nationality should be obvious in the same way that indios are not Hispanics by ethnicity although they could be Hispanics (or more precisely Latin Americans) by Nationality. This is why Mexican immigrants to the U.S. prefer the term Latino (for Latin American) to denote their national origin instead of Hispanic to refer to their ethnicity.

So, what is Filipino? One word: CHO-CO-LA-TE. Because it is brown on the outside but white inside. Anti beast (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing (published 1999), p. 19 says that the word "Filipino" (capitalized in the book, but I'm not sure that's significant) was first used in Spanish times to define a Spaniard who was born in the islands, as opposed to an indio (a non-Spaniard) or a mestizo (product of a mixed marriage), or a Castila(who came from Spain or the New World). This info is currently present in the article's lead section, but unsupported. I'll add a cite.

Assertion moved here from Ancestry section

I've moved the following {{fact}} tagged assertion here

Filipinos also share about 53% of their paternal genetic composition of the modern-day Fujianese, who are nevertheless considered as Han Chinese.[citation needed]

My problem has to do with a {{contradict-other}} problem, not with the {{fact}} tag. Chimpanzee#Taxonomic relationships says, in part:

Groundbreaking research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees, although research since has modified that finding to about 94% commonality, with at least some of the difference occurring in 'junk' DNA.


  • Mary-Claire King, Protein polymorphisms in chimpanzee and human evolution, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (1973).
  • "Humans and Chimps: Close But Not That Close". Scientific American. 2006-12-19. Retrieved 2006-12-20.

If all humans have 94% to 98% identical DNA to chimps, differences between Filipino and Fujianese DNA cannot be as much as 53%. It may be that I misunderstand the precise point which the assertion I've moved here is attempting to make. If that is the case, please try to make the point so that it is easier for dunderheads like me to understand. Also, please cite a supporting source. Thanks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This simply means that of the 2% difference between humans of other races, only 47% are not similar with the Chinese.

Why Filipino?

...and not Philipino (or Philippino)? Just something I've been curious about and I didn't see it anywhere in the article. Djibouti (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1898 (fem. Filipina), from Sp., from las Islas Filipinas "the Philippine Islands."
see here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Official Government Website of the Philippines & U.S. Department of State

State Department Background Note: Philippines

Official Government Website of the Philippines Background Note: People

I'd like to see some of this information incorporated onto the Wikipedia page. I notice that there are a lot of debates and arguments between who the Filipino people are. However, since this information is coming from a official government website, I'd think it should be taken into account.


The Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish and Arab blood. The Philippines has a population of 76.5 million as of May 2000 (with a projected population of 88.7 million for 2007), and it is hard to distinguish accurately the lines between stocks. From a long history of Western colonial rule, interspersed with the visits of merchants and traders, evolved a people of a unique blend of east and west, both in appearance and culture.

The Filipino character is actually a little bit of all the cultures put together. The bayanihan or spirit of kinship and camaraderie that Filipinos are famous for, is said to be taken from Malay forefathers. The close family relations are said to have been inherited from the Chinese. The piousness comes from the Spaniards who introduced Christianity in the 16th century. Hospitality is a common denominator in the Filipino character and this is what distinguishes the Filipino. Filipinos are probably one of the few, if not the only, English-proficient Oriental people today. Filipino is the official national language, with English considered as the country's unofficial one.

The Filipinos are divided geographically and culturally into regions, and each regional group is recognizable by distinct traits and dialects - the sturdy and frugal Ilocanos of the north, the industrious Tagalogs of the central plains, the carefree Visayans from the central islands and the colorful tribesmen and religious Moslems of Mindanao. Tribal communities can be found scattered across the archipelago. The Philippines has more than 111 dialects spoken, owing to the subdivisions of these basic regional and cultural groups.

Some 80 percent of the population is Catholic, Spain's lasting legacy. About 15 percent is Moslem and these people can be found basically in Mindanao. The rest of the population is made up mostly of smaller Christian denominations and Buddhist.

The country is marked by a true blend of cultures; truly in the Philippines, East meets West. The background of the people is Indonesian and Malay. There are Chinese and Spanish elements as well. The history of American rule and contact with merchants and traders culminated in a unique blend of East and West, both in the appearance and culture of the people of the Filipinos, or people of the Philippines.

Hospitality, a trait displayed by every Filipino, makes these people legendary in Southeast Asia. Seldom can you find such hospitable people who enjoy the company of their Western visitors. Perhaps due to their long association with Spain, Filipinos are emotional and passionate about life, in a way that seems more Latin than Asian.

Ethnic Groups: 91.5% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay ,1.5% Chinese and 3% other.


Two official languages --- Filipino and English. Filipino, which is based on Tagalog, is the national language. English is also widely used and is the medium of instruction in higher education.

Eight (8) major dialects spoken by majority of the Filipinos: Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon or Ilonggo, Bicolano, Waray, Pampango, and Pangasinense.

Filipino is that native language which is used nationally as the language of communication among ethnic groups. Like any living language, Filipino is in a process of development through loans from Philippine languages and non-native languages for various situations, among speakers of different social backgrounds, and for topics for conversation and scholarly discourse. There are about 76 to 78 major language groups, with more than 500 dialects.

U.S. Department of State

People Nationality: Noun--Filipino(s). Adjective--Philippine. Population (2009 estimate): 92.2 million. Annual growth rate (2007 estimate): 2.04%. Ethnic groups: Malay, Chinese.

PEOPLE The majority of Philippine people are descendants of Indonesians and Malays who migrated to the islands in successive waves over many centuries and largely displaced the aboriginal inhabitants. The largest ethnic minority now is the mainland Asians (called Chinese), who have played an important role in commerce for many centuries since they first came to the islands to trade. Arabs and Indians also traveled and traded in the Philippines in the first and early second millennium. As a result of intermarriage, many Filipinos have some Asian mainland, Spanish, American, Arab, or Indian ancestry. After the mainland Asians, Americans and Spaniards constitute the next largest minorities in the country.

[4] -- PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That cite appears to be a dead link. An archived version can be seen here. Unless that can be supported as a cite as the current view of the RP Government, I don't think it should be included unless it is disclaimed as a formerly-stated view. If it is citeable as the current view (perhaps the dead link status I'm seeing is a glitch), perhaps this might be placed in a section headed something like Philippine government view with subsections on History, Language, etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the link. It looks like they were making some changes to the website. The information I posted could be found in the "General Information" part of the website. Hopefully it works for you now, if it doesn' can simply Google it. Type in "Official Philippines" and it shows up. I've been trying to add some of the information onto the main article, but others keep undoing it. Perhaps someone can place it in a more appropriate context so that people won't get easily offended?

[5] --

I also want to thank you, as a link you have provided pertaining to information about the Philippines also states similar information. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


IQfur01 and PinoyFilAmPride please stop this edit war -- neither of you is providing a reference for the ethnicity of Filipino people. Please give a website, a book, or some other verifiable source of the information. Banaticus (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You two are both right. Check out this citation in the article, "the Austronesian people called Malayo-Polynesian". Austronesian, Malay, it basically comes out to the same thing. Let's discuss a compromise. Banaticus (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before and have already provided several times, referencing the Official Government Website of the Philippines. I'm not even using my own words, which I was also being accused of "Weasel Words", I simply provided the information that is also shown on that exact website. His accusiation of the website being corrupted is simply his opinion...someone can state the same about the CIA: World Factbook that provides information about the Philippines.

I also think he contradicts himself when he becomes offended that Filipinos are referenced to the Malay background (which is actually stated several times on the website), yet he has no objection towards the Chinese or Spanish mentioning on the website. Also the 2nd part where it lists the ethnic groups, he clearly removes the Malay part and replaces it with FILIPINO...yet still keeps the references from the very exact OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE of the Philippines that he claims to be corrupted.

Ethnic Groups: 91.5% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay ,1.5% Chinese and 3% other ( ). It clearly states those exact numbers. If he wants to replace the Malay with Filipino, I think he needs to provide a different source than that one because the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE of the PHILIPPINES states otherwise.

It's clear that many Filipinos here are offended and are unsure of the background of the Philippines. Just look at all the discussions found here. You can take the Pacific Islander section as another example, there are many people who will remove Filipinos from the Asian sections or add Filipinos to the Pacific Islander section just because they think it's true. Yet none can provide any information to support their claims. Whether they believe it or not, or believe the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT of the Philippines is corrupt is just their opinion. Just like if some random person thought the Official Government Website of the United States of America was corrupt...that still does not give them any right to change that information. I suggest they dispute that information directly with the people who provide that information on that website.

Why are you offended?. We are simply researching information, and discussing the difference between the term Malay, and Austronesian. We are not talking about politics. --IQfur1 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talkcontribs)

For now, I think I'll just leave the Background part from the Article and just leave it as it originally was since too many Filipinos are unsure of their background.

PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Malayo-Polynesian" is actually part of the Languages category. I also just want to let you know this website from the U.S. Government also references the Malay background.State Department Background Note: Philippines

People Nationality: Noun--Filipino(s). Adjective--Philippine. Population (2009 estimate): 92.2 million. Annual growth rate (2007 estimate): 2.04%. Ethnic groups: Malay, Chinese.

PEOPLE The majority of Philippine people are descendants of Indonesians and Malays who migrated to the islands in successive waves over many centuries and largely displaced the aboriginal inhabitants. The largest ethnic minority now is the mainland Asians (called Chinese), who have played an important role in commerce for many centuries since they first came to the islands to trade. Arabs and Indians also traveled and traded in the Philippines in the first and early second millennium. As a result of intermarriage, many Filipinos have some Asian mainland, Spanish, American, Arab, or Indian ancestry. After the mainland Asians, Americans and Spaniards constitute the next largest minorities in the country.

So both the Philippines and U.S. Government acknowledge it =).

PinoyFilAmPride 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply:Filipino, Malaysian, Indonesian, Polynesian, and the people from Madagascar are descendants of primitive Taiwanese aborigines who spoke the Austronesian language, and Formosan language. The Taiwanese aborigines are the original Austronesian people. They settled in the Philippine archipelago, the Malay archipelago, and made their way to the Polynesian islands, and Madagascar during the Prehistoric period, by using boats. They are all part of the same ethnic group, however each ethnic group have their own different nationality, culture, and language. IQfur1 11:38 8, May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talkcontribs)

State Department Background Note: Philippines

Pre-Spanish Period

The first people in the Philippines, the Negritos, are believed to have come to the islands 30,000 years ago from Borneo and Sumatra, making their way across then-existing land bridges. Subsequently, Malays came from the south in successive waves, the earliest by land bridges and later in boats by sea. The Malays settled in scattered communities, named barangays after the large outrigger boats in which they arrived, and ruled by chieftains known as datus. Chinese merchants and traders arrived and settled in the ninth century, sometimes traveling on the ships of Arab traders, introducing Islam in the south and extending some influence even into Luzon. The Malays, however, remained the dominant group until the Spanish arrived in the 16th century.

Official Government Website of the Philippines Background Note: People


The visitor to Metro Manila commonly sees the Philippines as the most westernized of Asian countries and in many ways, it is. But there is also a rich underlay of Malay culture beneath the patina of Spanish and American heritage. National cultural life is a happy marriage of many influences, as the indigenous Malay culture is assimilated and adapted to different strains in a practice typical of Malay temperament. An upsurge of Philippine nationalism stimulated a desire to preserve the ancient heritage without restricting its openness to foreign artistic influence.

The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands. It stretches from the south of China to the northern tip of Borneo. The country has over a hundred ethnic groups and a mixture of foreign influences which have molded a unique Filipino culture.

Before the Spanish explorers came, Indo-Malays and Chinese merchants had settled here. In 1521, the Spaniards, led by Ferdinand Magellan, discovered the islands. The Spanish conquistadores established a colonial government in Cebu in 1565. They transferred the seat of government to Manila in 1571 and proceeded to colonize the country. The Filipinos resisted and waged Asia's first nationalist revolution in 1896. On June 12, 1898, Emilio Aguinaldo declared the Philippines independent from Spain and proclaimed himself president. After ruling for 333 years, the Spaniards finally left in 1898 and were replaced by the Americans who stayed for 48 years. On July 4, 1946, the Americans recognized Philippine independence.

If people can admit that the Filipino culture also has Chinese and Spanish influences, whats the problem with admitting that Filipinos also have Malay influence? When both the Philippines and USA also provide that exact information. PinoyFilAmPride 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The only difference between Malay, and Filipino are the names. The term Malay tends to associate with Malaysia, and not the Philippines. Their is nothing wrong with explaning the Austronesian culture of the Philippines. We just have to used proper terms to avoid confusion between Malay (Malaysian), Austronesian people, and Filipino by using brackets on sentences to explained the issue, so that the reader do not get confused. -- IQfur1 12:03 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talkcontribs)


The same exact sources used, even prior to my edits, were already there. I was simply simply specificying the groups that were mentioned instead of using general terms such as "ASIAN" and "AUSTRONESIAN". You obviously had no problems prior to your own edits, now all of a sudden you do? LOL!

The results showed that the C302T, G428A, and fusion gene mutations were specific for Thai, Caucasians, and Japanese, respectively. The A385T mutation was specific for Asians including Taiwan aborigines. The genetic frequencies of C571T were much higher in Taiwan aborigines (1.96% to 20.4%), Filipinos (13.2%), and Indonesians (3.30%) as compared with Thai (0.57%), Chinese (0.65% to 1.12%), Japanese (0%), and Caucasians (0%). The frequencies of the G849A mutation were also higher in Taiwan aborigines (0.38% to 21.57%), Filipinos (6.80%), and Indonesians (1.48%) than in Thai (0.94%), Chinese (0-0.37%), Japanese (0%), or Caucasians (0%). Deletion of a 3-bp region (nt 688 to nt 690) was found only in Filipinos (0.85%), Indonesians (0.74%), and three tribes (0.42% to 2.70%) of Taiwan aborigines, but not in other populations.

The predominant genotype detected was SC, the Southeast Asian genotype

(PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Reply:What are you talking?. Why do you keep on refering Filipinos to other Asian nationalities?, when in fact Filipinos are an Asian race. IQfur01 talk 00:00 13, May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm pointing out the article mentions specific ethnic groups, not just "ASIAN" or "AUSTRONESIAN". That's the point, it's not that difficult to understand. They specifically state Taiwan aborigines, Filipinos, Indonesians, Thai, and Chinese. What's the problem? (PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Total Population Figures?

The figures for total population does not seem to add right. I used to see that the figure was 100+ million (probably to account for the people in the Philippines and the OFWs) and not the 90 million listed. I'm not too keen if the Philippine government counts OFW in the census counts, but I don't think that the government would count some OFWs that have decided to permanently reside in the country they are staying in. To make things short, shouldn't the total population be a combination of the country's population with the OFWs? Furthermore, I'm in dispute with validity of the source that is used to represent the 90 million figure. The CIA world factbook lists the Philippines as having an estimated population of about 98 million for 2009. To me that's seems totally crazy especially since the last census indicated 88 million people. I don't the Philippines can increase 10 million in population in just 2 short year especially with the growth rates listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elockid (talkcontribs) 21:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


I have added photos of Filipino people that mirror the Filipino population, which is over 90% Austronesian. Mestizos do not compose a large population, contrary to what Filipino media portrays. Therefore, the photo change seems to be very appropriate. Cali567 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How bout compromising and adding photos that both of you want? More images can be added to infobox but make each image smaller so that it won't occupy so much space. Ideally, what you say makes sense. However, it seems like a large part of the photos portray people with Chinese ancestry which technically doesn't represent "Austronesian" either. Elockid (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop the removal of photos. Please discuss how it is bias and how it doesn't follow POV. Before replying, consider that many articles about a group of people or ethnic provide photos such as the ones in this article. If they didn't followm POV, then they would have been deleted a long time ago. Furthermore adding photos can be professional and encyclopedic. It doesn't have to be all words.Elockid (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If you don't believe me, here's some examples of some other ethnic group pages:

There are a lot's of articles that use photos to show some people within an ethnic group. There's no reason to keep deleting them.Elockid (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Filipino People in General

Maybe a merger of the two articles of Overseas Filipinos and Filipino people should be done as both pertain to Filipino people. Some statistics used by the OFW only pertain to workers, I used sources from other govermnent websites that show people of Filipino origin.

Furthermore, the fact that the only place that Filipino people were listed under which was the Philippines, "regions with significant populations", before the addition of other places is not true as evident by the sources in the OFW page and the sources I have provided. Elockid (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A user claims that there is a big difference between the Filipino people (from the Philippines) and Overseas Filipino or rather they are not related at all. Quote, "the Philippines has nothing to do with overseas Filipinos" End Quote. From what I can see, this statement is a blatantly false. Overseas Filipinos are still Filipinos nonetheless, and the size of their communities deserve to be rank. They are still an integral part of the Filipino ethnic group or people. After reading the article, Overseas Filipinos, it is clearly evident that OFW's make a huge contribution to the Philippine economy. From what I can see, Filipino people and Overseas Filipino are definitely related. Elockid (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


A user recently blocked for edit-warring now appears to be continuing to edit war here using IP socks. I have protected the page for 1 week accordingly. (Also, if the sockpuppet investigation finds that the IP is linked to that user's account, his own block will be extended.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjanag. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I have added a merger proposal for the article Overseas Filipino be merged in to this article. OFW, written in the article states a person of origins from the Philippines or a Filipino worker working abroad. OFW's still pertain to Filipino people as a whole and is related to the group's diaspora. Perhaps a new improved section in this article. Elockid (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The OFW article is mostly discussing Filipinos around the world (mainly populations and numbers). For example what country they live in and the size of the population. This is the primary reason why I think these articles should be merged. A big part of this article deals with population size which from what I've seem is also written in the main page about the ethnic group. Check examples that I have provided above in the section "photos". Other ethnic group pages also provide a concise amount of info on the the size of the diaspora of the group. Even some of the sources used for both articles are the same (the ones before my additions). Check publications section. --Elockid (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Strongly Oppose -When an ethnic group has a sufficient population overseas an "Overseas... " article is often warranted (like in the case of Overseas Chinese or Desi). Besides, the article has been established and has yet to be challenged until now (as opposed to two years ago when vandalism was highly active). --23prootie (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Significant in populations yes. But some of the article's references for the size of communities includes broken links (Ex: Lebanon), no sources/citation needed (Ex: New Zealand, Mexico, Norway, Middle East) or links that don't direct directly to the corresponding information (Ex: Greece) which doesn't show very much verifiability in the article. Also, the Overseas Chinese and Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin (Overseas Indians) articles go through a much more concise view of history of their community than the Overseas Filipino article. Much of those articles go through detailed information for any section. Over half of the Overseas Filipino article consists of the size communities in other countries which is already represented in its infobox and some, such Ireland and Australia don't provide anything more than the size of the community. Elockid (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is better for a Template:Improve to be added to the other article instead of outright deletion. There should also be an expansion that includes the culture, history, and identity of the diaspora that would show their distinction, if any, from the native population of the Philippines. In the anthropological sense, such distinctions are usually present and should be noted. On a side note, I personally disagree with the merging of the articles because I believe there is a difference in worldview between the native population and the established diaspora, and the inclusion of the diaspora here might trivialise the identity of Filipinos who stayed in the Philippines, particularly cultural and ethnic minorities.--23prootie (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You do make sense. Let me add the template improve and remove the merger proposal template. Elockid (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Because of the size of this talk page, I'd like to propose it be set up for automatic archiving with MiszaBot (talk · contribs), with any thread more than 30 days old being archived automatically. I will set this up shortly unless there is objection. Thanks. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently reads

Filipino people refers to an ethnic group in the Philippines or of Philippine origin.

This appears to imply that the term may exclude one or more of the ethnic groups in the Philippines. I suspect that this apparent implication is unintentional. I suggest that this be recast, something like

Filipino people refers to nationals of the Republic of the Philippines and to persons having Filipino ancestry.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the second one sounds better. I agree with the points that you brought up. Elockid (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing of Pictures

What is the feeling here towards the picture layout? There seems to be some disagreement as to what pictures should be used. Towards forming a consensus, please discuss here. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good now. I think there are no problems with it, some wikipedians just have a lot of issues, I think that was the problem. Thank you for your co-operation. Orceuos (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you may think there are no problems with it, but others may disagree. As you do not own the article, it's important to achieve consensus, ESPECIALLY since this has been a source of contention in the past. Also, stating "some wikipedians just have a lot of issues" could be interpreted as a personal attack - please comment on issues, not editors. Vicenarian (T · C) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One way you could really help here is to explain why you believe these changes are needed, here at the talk page, rather than just making the changes. Thank you, Vicenarian (T · C) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of View on this article

I think there is alot of point of views on this article, political agenda, race, weasel words, favouritism, vanity and all kinds of issues from different point of views by foriegners. There isn't alot of Filipino point of views though and that's the problem. You must remember that all of those people on the picture are Filipino citizens who are born from the Philippines and have represented their country. The problem with this article is very simple and that is their is alot of wikipedian editors seeking attention or trying to prove a point, Thank you. Orceuos (talk) 18:41 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the political agenda, weasel words and favoritism that you speak of? It would help to specifically point out the problems of this article. Also, Wikipedia is a place for ALL editors to contribute constructively, not just from one editor. Almost all the edits have pertained to the article at hand. The point that the editors have been trying to get at for this article is to improve it, make it the best it can be and not cause defamation, slander, or vandalism of any kind. Elockid (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Mespanol, 18 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} According to a recent study by Mark Donohue of the Australian National University and Tim Denham of Monash University, there is no linguistic evidence for an orderly north-to-south dispersal of the Austronesian languages from Taiwan through the Philippines and into Island Southeast Asia (ISEA).


The latest genetic studies show no evidence of a large-scale Taiwanese migration into the Philippine Islands. A study by Leeds University and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, shows that mitochondrial DNA lineages have been evolving within Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) since modern humans arrived about 50,000 years ago. Population dispersals occurred at the same time as sea levels rose, which resulted in migrations from the Philippine Islands into Taiwan within the last 10,000 years.


Mespanol (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It's not clear whether you want this text inserted verbatim (if so, where?) or if you want some of the existing text altered (in which case, what text, and what exactly should it say?) As noted in the instructions for the editsemiprotected request, [this] template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". --Darkwind (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Darkwind, Thanks for responding.

The following passage would go under the "Genetic Studies" section:

A study by Leeds University and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, showed that mitochondrial DNA lineages have been evolving within Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) since modern humans arrived approximately 50,000 years ago. Population dispersals occurred at the same time as sea levels rose, which resulted in migrations from the Philippine Islands to as far north as Taiwan within the last 10,000 years.[4]

This would replace the following sentence (no citations): "These findings are consistent with the theory that ancestors of the Filipino people have originated on continental East or Southeast Asia before migrating to the Philippines via Taiwan, from both paternal and maternal lineages."

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I am Filipino and I have never seen a Filipino speak Arabic or Spanish.Please tell me where this information comes from. 9:38, 11 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If you go to Quiapo, or Mindanao, you will hear Filipino Muslims speak Arabic. If you go to Forbes Park, Dasmariñas and Urdaneta Villages, you will hear Filipino Creoles speak Spanish. Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo can speak fluent Spanish. -nightvisiongoggles- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightvisiongoggles (talkcontribs) 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of areas still speak a dialect of Spanish mutually intelligible with standard Spanish. Examples include Zamboanga, Cavite, Davao, Basilan, etc. See Chavacano language. Arabic is also very common among Filipino Muslims, as knowledge of it is required to read the Quran and/or to go on the Hajj.--ObsidinSoul 04:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language is not an official language of the Philippines and its not spoken in the Philippines. It has been abolished in 1987.

This issue has been discussed for a number of times in the past. Spanish is not spoken in the Philippines. It was abolished as an official language in 1987 by the Filipino government and since then there are no signs of any Spanish language being spoken by Filipinos to this day. However, Spanish has influenced the languages of the Philippines, but it doesn't mean that its Spanish.

I've never heard of a Filipino who speaks Spanish as their official language. Its not true. The majority of the population "do not" speak Spanish and that's a fact. Filipino and English are the official language of the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification re the number of Spanish speakers

The article currently contains the assertion, "An additional 60% is said to have spoken Spanish as a second language on the eve of World War II.", citing this Spanish language source in support. An excerpt from that source is quoted, and the assertion is made that "They report the number of Spanish-as-a-second-language speakers (60%) as a separate datum." That separate datum (in English translation by Google) is "In addition to the nine hundred thousand, Don Luciano de la Rosa, the defense lawyer for the defendants for libel for publishing root of the daily Birds of Prey Filipino Renaissance in a study quoted in the book: The Filipino: Origin and Connotation, Manila, 1960, "which is 60% of Filipinos" of his time "who had Spanish as their second language." I suspect that the "Birds of Prey" case spoken of is the 1908 case described here. If I am correct, then the 60% datum would be as of 1908, not as of the eve of WW-II. I've therefore marked this assertion {{failed verification}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bill. I added some more quotations from the same author. I hope it's all clearer now. SamEV (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I took another look at this, in google translation, and it seems to confirm that the author there asserts, among other things, that

  1. U.S. censuses in 1903 and 1905 said that the Spanish speaking population never exceeded 10% between 1890 and 1900.
  2. This means that ten percent of the population at the time had Spanish as their first and only language. (?? I don't take that meaning from the statement here, but I do recall seeing support elsewhere that these were first-language speakers ??)
  3. In addition, a study available circa 1908 (dated by a court case mentioned as quoting it) concluded that at that time 60% of Filipinos had Spanish as their second language.
  4. 10% plus 60% is 70%.
  5. 70% of the Filipino people were users of the Spanish language daily between 1890 and 1940. (?? I don't see how the author got from 1908 to 1940 ??)

Personally, I don't follow the author's logic there, but that is what he seems to say.

I also see the assertion in that source (not picked up by the article) that "the 1950 census has said that the Spanish-speaking Filipinos constituted 6 percent of the population, ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean re: 1940; it's a bit hard to follow. But the author of the 60% claim (Luciano de Rosa) apparently lived a long life; he published a book in 1960, and I think Gomez is saying that a couple of decades before that, i.e. in 1940, he made or repeated his claim about the 60%. But again, since I'm not sure, I chose not to interpret him, so I just quoted him, to avoid making any mistakes.
Mr Gomez does show that there was much clamor in the Philippines for Hollywood movies in Spanish, in the 1930s. That's additional evidence that a great deal of the population understood Spanish at that time. Interestingly, there are also claims that under US rule the use of Spanish actually increased, for decades. It was a complaint made even by American officials in the Philippines.
My issue with Mr Gomez is that he uses words like "genocide" against the US. I admit to not knowing much about the events in question, but that's too-strong language for me.
BTW, somehow I was under the impression that you spoke Spanish. SamEV (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The smaller number (6% - %10 or whatever) pertains to those who speak Spanish as a first language - namely the mestizos (Spanish-Filipinos), peninsulares (ethnically pure Spanish colonists born in Iberian peninsula), and insulares ('islanders', ethnically pure Spanish colonists born in the Philippines). Spanish is widely spoken as a second language/lingua franca in the Philippines before Americans, there is no doubt to that. My own two sets of grandparents (both around their twenties during WW2) spoke Spanish from their parents (in addition to Cebuano, Tagalog, and English). The 60% claim circa 1940 is a bit dodgy, considering the source, but still quite possible, I support cutting that part out. Interestingly, just before WW2 broke out, there was also already stirrings among filipino leaders to adopt their own language instead of another colonial language (hence the institution of Tagalog, as Filipino, soon afterwards, though English was retained as the second official language). See --ObsidinSoul 04:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


spanish is not spoken in the phillipines anymore(except for some metizo family) its a dead language !!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • sigh* See Chavacano language. I assume you're either foreign or from Luzon? Majority of the Chavacano speakers hail from Mindanao of which most northern filipinos don't pay a lot of attention to and most foreigners never visit because of its proximity to the troubled Moro regions. Particularly Zamboanga City which was once a major Spanish settlement and a fort.--ObsidinSoul 04:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still not the majority of the Philippines in general... Infact it is even considered that Chavacano is a dying language. Don't be surprised, some actual native languages are dying as well. (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

More the result of the spread of Tagalog (as Filipino) though and of the integration of minorities into the mainstream Filipino society than of any foreign influence.I have taken the liberty of appending a signature to your comments from a previous autosigning by SineBot to prevent confusion.-- ObsidinSoul 05:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Negrito Populations are not recent immigrants

I removed the sentence "About 30,000 years ago, the Negritos settled in the islands." The previous contributor justified this statement by citing David Bulbeck et al in their article "Races of Homo sapiens: if not in the southwest Pacific, then nowhere" which was published in 2006. This article has only been cited 2 other times in scholarly journals since then. It is not a relevant source and frankly its premise is ludicrous and not firmly grounded in science. Furthermore, it is contrary to the American Association of Physical Anthropology's Statement on Biological Aspects Race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That number actually comes from Beyer's wave migration theory which has several problems (expounded in the linked article):
  1. Beyer used the 19th century scientific methods of progressive evolution and migratory diffusion as the basis for his hypothesis. These methods have now been proven to be too simple and unreliable to explain the prehistoric peopling of the Philippines.
  2. The empirical archaeological data for the theory was based on surface finds and mere conjecture, with much imagination and unproven data included.
  3. Later findings contradicted the migration theory and the existence of the "Dawn Man" postulated by Beyer.
  4. Undue credit is given to Malays as the original settlers of the lowland regions and the dominant cultural transmitter.
30,000 ya does seem needlessly specific (not to mention arbitrary), especially since there are multiple theories as to the origins of Negritos. Archeological findings are of little actual help as there is no way of determining if they were Negritoes. The only thing known for sure is that they predate Austronesian settlers, and actual time range of their migrations can extend as far back as 70,000 ya.--ObsidinSoul 09:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok there are some people that should be added here...

Seriously, Diego Silang being one of them, Rajah Sulaiman, historical figures should be added... Like everywhere I go to add some of our pre-hispanic culture, it almost gets undone in a matter of minutes, like seriously wtf, colonial mentality much? Very poor articles, they fail to express the filipino people by heart... It's really starting to piss me off...— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Vector toolbar with signature button.png
The question as always, is who to place and what images are available. While I agree that Diego Silang deserves a place there, so do hundreds of others really, and choosing can be very difficult. And yeah, I too think that more historical figures should be there instead of the disproportionate amount of modern entertainment industry people. Perhaps Pacquiao and could be there, but the rest... *shrugs*
And like I said in the edit summary, the real problem is finding reasonably accurate pictures (photographs if possible) of them. Rajah Sulaiman for example, does not have a picture. The picture of Diego Silang that you added is questionable. Unknown author, unknown date, and most importantly, unknown historical accuracy hence why I think it's better not to include it (unless a better picture exists?) And please don't misinterpret my actions. Reasons as above and not 'colonial mentality', though I am not quite that nationalistic.
To be fair though, I think that 'gallery' is revised pretty frequently.
P.S. please sign your messages by clicking the button pointed out in the right picture or by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages.-- ObsidinSoul 05:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh sorry, I just get fed up with so much of spanish-centric filipinos, especially in the archived discussion page where an editing war was going on between the filipinos who claim they are asian, pacific islander, or hispanic, obviously we are not hispanic.

My picture can be questionable, but then again, there is not a better picture I believe, there is also a picture of Rajah Sulaiman I recently added, and perhaps, the only one you will ever find, although I'm looking in to see how accurate that picture is to the actual Rajah Sulaiman, obviously thats going to be pretty hard :P

There is this picture of his face which resembles the actual statue of Rajah Sulaiman, perhaps we can add the statue as a picture? That is what other articles here do, such as Luzon Sukezaemon's article. Sorry If I had offended Obsidian, I just thought it was someone else :P one of the hispanic-centrics...

P.S. if you're worried about accuracies, then you really need to check Lakan Dula's article, it should be named just Lakan Dula, not "Rajah Lakan Dula", that is incorrect, it is like saying shogun generalisimo, your adding 2 titles that mean the same thing, regardless he was not referred to as Rajah, even the spanish records just call him simple, in their tongue "Lacan Dola", which is basically "Lakan Dula".-- (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Mangacha

Heh, I prefer to keep out of the 'what are we?' debates. Our culture is incredibly confusing as it is given the very different influences on it in its history. *shrugs* :P But yeah, the only thing I'm passionate about perhaps is that I prefer Bisaya to Tagalog, LOL. Don't really care what cultural category is stuck on us. Anyway as for your points, feel free to change them per WP:BOLD or bring them up in talk pages. There is no 'you' in Wikipedia, no secret group of editors decreeing what should be in an article and what shouldn't be. All content are created by individual volunteer editors like us, usually acting alone, though getting consensus is sometimes necessary when there are conflicting opinions. I also suggest you get an account, easier to keep track of your edits that way. And yes 'Lakan' itself is already a title. Rajah Lakan Dula is redundant. But then again, 'Lakan Dula'/'Lakandula' became a complete given name later in history (The Spanish treated it as such after Lakan Dula's baptism) hence why I think most people tend to use it as a name rather than an honorific when refering to Lakan Dula.
The picture you pointed out is not released under a free license (CC-BY-SA, GPL, etc.) so Wikipedia can not use it. Pictures of statues would probably not be ideal for the infobox of this article (though it would do nicely for Lakan Dula's article, if and only if you can find a suitably licensed photo of it). I guess the important thing to remember is that the pictures in here are only representative of a nationality, they aren't meant to be comprehensive. And it's not the same as biographical/historical articles. For other examples of similar 'galleries' in the infoboxes see British people, Americans, Argentine people, Japanese people, etc.
P.S. In case you were unaware of it, the WikiProject dealing with Philippines-related topics is here Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. You can bring up issues there for discussion with a wider group of editors if needed.-- ObsidinSoul 04:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do have an account, just sometimes lazy to sign in haha. Hmm you're Bisayan then? I'm Kapampangan, and yes I do infact prefer Kapampangan over Tagalog, but before this becomes anymore offtopic, hmm yes I've seen this wikiproject group, is it even active though? It seems not as much, unfortunately, looking at all these inaccurate articles :( --Mangacha (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Bisaya. :) Yes it's active. Though, like most wikiprojects, undermanned. I rarely, if ever, write about Philippine topics myself. I'm more interested in biology-related articles and I prefer to keep out of the minefields of politics and history really. Anyway, if you want to correct mistakes, you're very welcome to do so. Just remember to reference everything and keep the tone neutral. You are already familiar with Wikipedia:Core content policies, yeah? -- ObsidinSoul 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Zabag Kingdom now Pampanga? LOL

Sorry but this definition of our ancient kingdom is infact true, we traded heavily with Japan and Ming China, but our kingdom was the same one ruled by Lakan Dula, it's capital being Tondo. Please correct other misleading information here...

More information about the Kingdom of Luzon by researcher Mike Pangilinan:!/groups/55459742891?view=doc&id=10150330487132892 (NOTE: This is a group lead by experts and researchers, I would copy and paste the article here but it's far too long)-- (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


The filipino people are not one ethnic group, we are actually a country of many nations, our different languages are not mere dialects, THEY ARE ACTUAL LANGUAGES.-- (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


I replaced two pictures by Magsaysay and Aquino respectively. They are more significant historical figures. -- (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That make-up of pictures looks less yellow-press-like now. -- (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead para in the Genetic studies section

The opening sentence, beginning "The Philippine Government has never conducted any recent genetic study ..." was added in this April 2010 edit, with a have->has correction having been applied in this edit in May 2010. It may be a WP:COPYPASTE from this web page (or the reverse may be true -- I don't know). At a minimum, the wording here needs to be improved. Actually, I think the article would be better if this were to be simply removed; what the RP government has or has not done in this regard is not of central significance to the article topic, and the assertion re small sample sizes in the latter parts of this run-on sentence is unsupported and looks like a POV insinuation that the mentioned studies are unreliable. The second sentence of the para was added in this June 2010 edit along with the supporting cite, which could be seen as a link promoting a product. I wouldn't call the link addition WP:LINKSPAM, but I do question how much value its presence adds to the article, and to what extent it supports the assertion to which it is attached. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Museum of Learning Website is a mirror of Wikipedia so it's not a copyvio. See disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Anyway I individually checked each assertion and their supporting references with the following evaluation:
  • Ref 52 is almost certainly promotional and should be deleted.
  • Ref 53 is a study on Taiwanese aborigines not Filipinos.
  • Ref 54 discusses Austronesian migrations rather than Filipinos specifically.
  • Ref 55 is also generalized and actually points out that Taiwanese aborigines share more genetic similarity to Filipinos and Indonesians and less with Thais and Chinese. Current wording is inaccurate. It also deals with Taiwanese aborigines rather than Filipinos.
  • Ref 56 uses a sample size of only 50 individuals each for Luzon and Cebu.
  • Ref 57 is a very generalized research using a sample size of 150-300 for each region. Which means the source discusses the entirety of Southeast Asia not the Philippines specifically. We do not even know if there are any Filipinos in the sample.
  • Ref 58 uses a sample size of only 28 individuals.
I agree that second sentence with the link to the advertising site should be deleted, but I disagree that the first sentence in the lead is misleading and POV. It is quite true if you look at the sources. I would agree to its deletion if and only if some of the assertions in the section are also removed, namely those from Ref 56 and Ref 58 which does use a sample size that is waaay too small to be of any real significance. 100 and 28 individuals respectively can not ever give an accurate portrait of the genetic diversity of 92 million people.-- Obsidin Soul 04:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a statistician, but I see that this tool says that the ideal sample size for a population of 92 million would be 385 for a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level, that a sample size of 100 gives a 9.8% margin of error, 50 gives 13.86%, and 28 gives 18.52%. Rather than treating the studies completely accurate vs. totally useless, perhaps it would be a good idea to add info re sample sizes and margins of error.
For a general survey from a homogenous population maybe. Calculating samples for genetic studies are a bit more complex than that, especially for a heterogenous archipelagic population. Samples from Luzon and Cebu alone are not widespread enough to avoid hasty generalization and sampling bias. Even the studies cited do not specifically discuss the results in such a way that it would warrant treating the studies as conclusive for the rest of the Filipino population.
And all of those studies except for one are of Southeast Asian peoples in general, not specifically Filipinos. Unless we can find new studies that specifically aimed to study the genetic history of Filipinos, we have to provide a warning per WP:DUE that these studies are by no means representative of the entire Filipino population. Either we retain the lead paragraph for that reason or we give a more accurate discussion of each study (including providing the sample sizes for each) and remove those which are derived from more generalized studies. -- Obsidin Soul 08:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at this but let's go a bit further down the road.
  • Re the para supported by ref 53, if I understand what the paper says, it sufficiently supports the assertion "Genetic data found among a sampling of Filipinos may indicate some relation to the Ami tribe of Taiwan."
  • Re the para supported by ref 54, the cited source (a secondary source, not the study itself -- which I have not seen) does not seem to support "from the Philippines". Without that, it seems to be not relevant to this article.
  • Re the para supported by ref 55 , the cited source seems to support the assertion, "A 2002 China Medical University study indicated that some Filipinos shared genetic chromosome that is found among Asian people, such as Taiwanese aborigines, Indonesians, Thais, and Chinese."
  • Re the para supported by ref 56, it has English language problems. It apparently speaks of one study, not "A variety of research study" and I'm not sure whether "genetic chromosome were found" speaks of a single chromosome or several chromosomes, but it does say, " The predominant genotype detected was SC, the Southeast Asian genotype".
  • Re the para supported by cite 57 (I've fleshed out that cite), the page cited does not appear to support the assertion to which it is attached, but look at the bottom of page 274.
  • Re the para supported by cite 58, the item cited is the same item cited by cite 53; the item cited supports the assertion, "it was stated that 3.6% European introgression out of 28 samples was evident in the Philippines.:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I can not access page 274. :( Nonetheless, I would support any changes that would specify the scope of the studies more accurately (and remove those which can not be verified). If we can manage that, I'd have no problems with removing the lead para. -- Obsidin Soul 10:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess the point here is that while those studies can prove genetic interrelationships with other populations, they can not be treated as comprehensive treatments of the entire population. i.e. we can't use them to say that "All Filipinos are more related to this or that population" or "All Filipinos have % genetic history from this or that population". And there should be a means to put that point across.-- Obsidin Soul 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what your access problem might be with p.275; it works for me ([6]). Re not saying that the genetic relationships described by the studies apply to (every individual in) the entire Filipino population, I don't read the section as asserting that. With the exceptions noted above I do read the section, para by para, as asserting what I have described above. WP practices (with which I personally do not agree on this particular point) currently allow excision of information and supporting citations in articles which, though it comes from sources generally considered reliable for an article topic, is determined by consensus of article editors to be untrue. Given that, I suggest, following on my analysis above, that the lead para of the section and the para supported by cite number 54 be removed and the rest of the section left as it is (as far as the impact of this discussion goes). What say you? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Of course I can agree that much of those sources are reliable, the question here is WP:DUE. None of these studies (again with the exception of Ref 56) are about the genetic history of Filipinos. Rather they are about the genetic history of closely related Taiwanese aborigines or of Southeast Asians in general. Therefore while we can use them, they simply should not be used to assert wider conclusions on the rest of the Filipino population.

The original revision of the article actually does this. It claims that Filipinos have 3.6% European genetic ancestry. It fails to mention that this was based on a study which used a sample of 28 individuals, only 1 of whom showed the presence of European haplotypes. Obviously this is WP:SYNTHESIS. How can you assess European admixture from a sample size that small? The study itself never states that 3.6% of Filipinos show European introgression, rather it simply states that European admixture was detected without deriving any conclusions of the percentage of its occurrence (merely the % value of those found in that particular sample). It simply says "It's there".

Anyway p. 274 still shows as "This page is not part of the preview" for me, which is weird, I'll leave it to you to judge whether it can be used though and for what. I agree that the lead para can be deleted but still think the other cited paragraphs should be modified to be more accurate. Specifically the following:

  • Ref 55 (which I mixed up with 53 earlier): Taiwanese aborigines are more closely related to Filipinos and Indonesians than to Thais and Chinese peoples. The abstract of the study specifically states the following which basically means Taiwanese aborigines are closer to Austronesians ("islanders", which include insular Southeast Asians, Malagasy, and Oceanic Polynesians) like Filipinos and Indonesians rather than the Indochinese Tai peoples and East Asians ("mainland" Southeast Asians). Notice the large difference in frequency of the mutation markers used between Filipinos and neighboring peoples.
The genetic frequencies of C571T were much higher in Taiwan aborigines(1.96% to 20.4%), Filipinos(13.2%), and Indonesians(3.30%) as compared with Thai(0.57%), Chinese(0.65% to 1.12%), Japanese(0%), and Caucasians(0%). The frequencies of the G849A mutation were also higher in Taiwan aborigines(0.38% to 21.57%), Filipinos(6.80%), and Indonesians(1.48%) than in Thai(0.94%), Chinese(0-0.37%), Japanese(0%), or Caucasians(0%).
  • Ref 56: Current discussion is quite inaccurate. The study states no such thing. It actually says the dominant genotype of the JC virus (a human polyomavirus found in 70 to 90% of the human population, variations of which can be used as 'trackers' somewhat for human population migration) is SC, the Southeast Asian genotype. Needless to say, this is not Human DNA we're talking about here.
  • Ref 58/53: While it can be used to support the statement on European admixture, the 3.6% assertion is simply a value in the study and not connected to the study's conclusions and should be removed. The study itself does not cover the Philippine population that well and says as much. However, its earlier use (in Ref 53) is good enough (the source of the study is the same paper).-- Obsidin Soul 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I deleted the lead para of the section.
I looked more closely at ref 57 and p.177 does apply, but additional pages are needed to support the article assertion. I've added some pages to the cite. Looking further afield, I found this, which cites Turner and wherein the second para on the page seems to more directly support what the article para containing cite 57 asserts. It says pretty directly that Sindont dental patterns occur in East Asia and Sundont patterns occur in mainland and island Southeast Asia (explicitly mentioning the Philippines). I've rewritten the relevant paragraph and added a cite (I'm well outside my expertise areas here, but I think I've got it right -- improvement welcome). The items cited here don't seem to fit the heading of the section, though. I haven't changed the section heading, but Academic studies might be more appropriate than Genetic studies.
Speaking of expertise, you're clearly much more expert than I re genetic studies. I'll defer to that expertise. Please correct the paras as needed.
I think the article is improving as a result of this. WP:BRD works. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll try to improve the word flow a bit and lump together studies with similar conclusions. Maybe add some more studies if I can find them. -- Obsidin Soul 03:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, really busy these past few days. Should have some time for this later tonight.-- Obsidin Soul 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten about this. -- Obsidin Soul 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

lead section

The Filipino People are people around the world who are mostly from the Philippines and the United States, and other regions of the world. A little bit shorter but not much lesser informations: The Filipino People are from the world. Please try a definition what Filipino people are. --Diwas (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a recent addition. Reworded.-- Obsidin Soul 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, for good and fast work. Now it is a good lead section. --Diwas (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion of edit by

I've reverted parts of this edit, which look to me to be the unsupported expression of the viewpoint of one anonymous editor.

  • insertion of "In fact, most of the "Spanish" in the Philippines were from Mexico, not Spain." : This is unsupported, and may or may not be true. Without much checking, I recall that the Philippines was considered a province of Viceroyalty of New Spain and was governed from Mexico City. I don't know about the demographics of Spanish people in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. I've removed this unsupported assertion.
  • "British conquest of the Spanish Philippines" -> [[British occupation of Manila|British attempted to conquer]] : As the wikilinked article says, this was "... Colonel William Draper's 'Scheme for taking Manila with some Troops, which are already in the East Indies' in the East. ... King George III signed the instructions to Draper to implement his Scheme, emphasizing that by taking advantage of the 'existing war with Spain' Britain might be able to assure her post-war mercantile expansion." It was a sideshow of the Seven Years War. I've changed this to [[British occupation of Manila|British forces occupied Manila]].

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes, I found out the British did occupy Manila for a while! I was flipping through my World Geography book (everything these days think its fake), I'm taking World Geography Class. We use a book called World Geography Today. I found a page that had a map of the British Empire in 1920. I could understand Malaysia, North Africa and India being in there, but the Philippines was also colored in as part of the empire. I did some further research and it turns out that yes, Manila was occupied by the British. Although there's really no traces of its existance, since Manila was still unders strong Spanish influence at the time. No Filipino seems to know either that the Philippines had some British control in Manila. Wierd. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

hmm..that's wierd.

So, it says that 94,000,000 Filipinos live in the Philippines. Yet, Visayans are 98,000,000 of Filipinos.????? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

After digging, I see that the Filipino people article asserted the population of the Philippines to be 94M, citing this source (which says that the 2010 estimate was 94.01M, and which is probably one of many sources asserting somewhat differing figures), and that the Visayans article asserts that there were 98 million Visayans as of 2010. That first article speaks of the number of persons resident in the Philippines. That second article speaks of the number of people belonging to the Visayan ethnic group. Some portions of those two universes overlap, and some do not. Checking this, I found that the cite supporting the figure of 98M in the Visayans article did not support the assertion, and I have placed a {{fv}} tag in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Just a thought. Isn't it erroneous to say that "Americans" are white people that descended from the Anglo-Saxons. Although majority of Americans are, it is erroneous to say so since there are Americans that do not descend from the Anglo-Saxons or are even white. Safe to say, not all Filipinos are descended from Austronesians. You cannot classify Enrique Iglesias, Apple d App or Joseph Estrada or Henry Sy as Austronesian. You cannot classify Filipinos as a race but a nationality that descended from many races. I am proud to be Filipino but I cannot classify myelf as Austronesian. And let's be fair, the aboriginal Negritoes are Filipinos too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ausronesian people are simply a linguistic group. They speak Austronesian languages as a native language. There's many Filipinos with European descent they are all Austronesians. It's not an ethnicity. Filipinos, Malays and Hawaiians are all seperate ethnicities within the Austronesian linguistic group. You see "Austro-" means "sailor", and maritime Southeast Asia is all islands, thus Austronesian simply is another word for "sailing islands". The languages in the Austronesian family are the "sailing languages" just like the Italic-Romance language are the "love languages". Iglesias simply has Austronesian origin since his mother is Filipino. Austronesian is just a race. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Actually Austronesian means "South Islander" from Greek (cf. Australia, from Terra Australis "southern land"; Polynesia, "many islands"; Micronesia, "tiny islands"). "Romance" in Romance language is also derived from the city (and empire) Rome. The connotations of love was because Latin-derived languages were used in the middle ages for stories about adventures of knights, which later extended to love stories. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Romance originates from the fact that the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian (etc) languages all descended from Latin, the Roman language. But these languages later became associated with love and drama, and literally. Which is why they are also called the "love language" or "sexy languages" and thus the "Romance" name fits them exactly right for two reasons. Roman-Latin descent and use for love and drama languages/movies. A lot of places that end with "-nesia" are Greek and Latin descneded. Indonesian literally can mean "indegenous islands" or "Indian islands". "Indo-" has been used LOTS of times. There's french Indochina. The Slavic languages are known as the "manly languages". PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
But yes, Austronesian is more inclusive than Anglo-Saxon, as it's both an ethnic and linguistic classification. It's the predominant "base" ethnolinguistic group and enumerating different ethnicities and numerous admixtures would be far too complicated. You can not also restrict its definition to mere nationality or "race". The former would exclude Filipinos that have since been assimilated or migrated to other countries and adopted another nationality (e.g. the Filipino populations of Guam, Palau, Hawaii, etc.), and the latter is an arbitrary classification assigned externally (unlike ethnicity which is self-identified) and would exclude naturalized Filipinos that did not descend from native stock even if they refer to themselves as such. A more accurate comparison would be to Germanic peoples or Uralic peoples rather than Anglo-Saxon or American. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Filipino is more of a nationality in reality just like Indonesian is. Because the two countries we got lots of indegenous peoples. Javanese, Sundanese, Tagalogs, Tausugs, Illokanos, Bikols and all that. But it counts as an ethnicity I can see why it's an ethnicity which breaks into smaller indegenous ethnicities. I'd see it more as a "ethno-nationality" shall I put it. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
True.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 04:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Filipino article on Ethnipedia

Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificWarrior101 (talkcontribs) 04:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking for permission to remove Charice and Bruno Mars?

A singer with a prostitute-image (Charice) does not make a good representation of Filipinos. Bruno Mars isn't even full-Filipino. I doubt he even speaks any Philippine language as a native language. Language is one of the key traits that defines an ethnicity otherwise it just becomes descent/ancestry. I understand that nobody is 100% in reality, but Bruno Mars is half Filipino and half Puerto Rican. People like Jose Rizal do count because most of his ancestors are from the Philippines, but yes he has Hispanic descent. I think Bruno Mars should go on the Filipino-American article. Someone like Brian Viloria should replace Bruno Mars or Charice. Also, where did Lapu-Lapu go too? He's regarded as one of the first national heroes of the Philippines because he was the first to resist colonial rule? Where did he go? There's some unnecessarry people in the infobox. Not because of personal interests, but it's just logics. We got a prostitute-like (not exactly prostitute but LIKE) singer, and a half-Puerto Rican taking place of a national hero (Lapu-Lapu) and example of a proud Filipino born outside the Philippines (Viloria). Viloria is born in Hawaii, but his parents are from the Philippines and he still speaks Tagalog as a native language. Viloria is even proud that he attains Filipino citizenship. This is...kind of ridiculous. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Nobody responds today, I'm changing it. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
alright then. It's 12:00 AM, let's get going. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Can we clean up this article?

It frequently includes links to pages not remotely relevant to the value of the article, e.g. universities and journals. The writing style should also be cleaned up to remove redundant information, and make it more readily understandable. The article cites a lot of references, but it interprets the data therein liberally, often arriving at extremely subjective and oversimplified conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of these People in the images gotta go

The old mosaic was much better and needs to be restored. There needs to be an equal distribution of ancient Filipinos, colonial people and modern-day.

Now it seems to be filled up with all these prostitute-like celebrities, and I will remove them. (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

one of the factors peoples assume Filipinos are not Asians is from physical appearance that does not have the typical Asian features and their culture in the adoption of the Spanish have in common with Latin American countries and islands in the south pasific. Lambertin

Only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood is false. It's a myth

The "only 3.6%" of Filipinos have European blood clause has been discussed over and over again across various forums in the internet and from reading on the various discussions about it one can gain the following conclusions.

1) The methodology by which they concluded that only 3.6% of Filipinos are European is woefully inaccurate firstly because they only sampled 28 individuals from a single place out of an estimated 98 Million Filipinos. A sample size of 28 to represent a population of 98 Million doesn't even pass the margin of error requirement.

2) The study was not meant to describe the whole genome of a population only the Y chromosomes of a select number of individuals [By which an average of 3.6% European admixture was culled from all the people they sampled ] Even if it were true for those involved in the study it isn't completely true because the mitochondrial and X chromosome genetic materials were summarily ignored.

3) The haphazardly done and minuscule-sampled study conflicts with historical scholarship.

Books written in the Spanish era by Frenchmen and by Spanish census takers themselves record that at least 1/3 of the population of the island of Luzon (The most populous island) had varying degrees of Spanish ancestry [From Tornatras to full Peninsulares] their descendants would thus number among the millions today, a conservative 10-12 million. Yet the 3.6% assumption conflicts with that (Considering that most of the samples were taken in the south not in Luzon)

4) Other genetic findings conflict this. Genetic studies done by members of "23forme" Genome study group yield that 75% of Filipinos possess European genetic markers and the average amount of European genes among the 75% is 4.8% of their total genome (The dilution of European genes among those who possessed it is understandable considering it was Latinos [Who were already mixed with Amerindians] who emigrated en masse to the Philippines not the Spaniards [Research Viceroyalty of New Spain])

Thus, considering this, I would like to request that we either remove the mythological "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood" in wikipedia or we update the information according to modern research.

Thank You Very Much.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been saying the same thing for a while now. 3.6% is a completely ridiculous conclusion. A sample size of 28 people from a country with more or less a hundred million people is like stopping a random bus in the US and then using the ethnicities of its passengers to determine the general ethnic percentages of the entire United States.
More importantly, this particular study was NOT about Filipinos or the Philippines in general. Neither did the study itself conclude that the 3.6% applied to the entire country, it specifically only applied that conclusion to the actual sample, i.e. only to the 28 people. The study makes no claims on the rest of the population. Extending the 3.6% to the entire population is conjecture.
I would support removing it completely until a better study can be found. I would recommend you bring this up in WP:Tambayan Philippines, as this particular tidbit has been replicated in virtually every article which talks about ethnicities in the Philippines.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 16:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually , I have tried removing and explaining that that 3.6% is a mythh across Wikipedia's articles but people still keep reverting, returning and citing it back like an annoying ex-girlfriend who want to cling to you. Hopefully by putting this in the Tambayan forum we can resolve this once and for all. You are welcomed to comment on it here.

Thank for your support and suggestion Obsidian Soul. I might continue to need it since there might be still 3.6% adherents even in Tambayan Philippines. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Asking to change the description to make Filipino people as a national and cultural identity.

Filipino is anyone that is born in the Philippines, anyone born outside of the Philippines that has acquired Philippine citizenship, or identifies oneself with Filipino culture. Filipino is a cultural and national identity.

The Philippines contains many different ethnic groups. A Filipino is not necessarily of pure Austronesian descent. There is a significant and increasing amount of Filipinos that have non-Philippine ethnic ancestry, such as Chinese, Spanish and varieties of Americans of African or European descent.

Lazyazian (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "Filipino" is still primarily of ethnic identity similar to say Irish people or Japanese people, rather than a national one as in primarily immigrant countries like American people or Australian people. Non-Austronesian Filipinos are still minorities. Thus changing this article to a national identity as is done for Americans would give it improper weight.
It would be better to discuss non-Austronesian Filipinos in separate articles or as a subsection to articles which are more clearly about national identity, like the articles on the Philippines or Demographics of the Philippines. This is the same thing done for American minorities (e.g. Filipino American).
We already have one such article even for one of the largest non-Austronesian Filipino minorities - the Chinese Filipinos. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 10:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Arabic" in the languages section?

Are there any Arabic-speaking Filipinos? Though it is an optional official language in the Philippines, I can't exactly find any presence of the langauge in the Philippines other than its liturgical uses among the Muslims of the southern Philippines. Do the overseas Filipinos in Saudi Arabia even speak Arabic? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I can't understand why users here insist to include Arabic language!! it's not an official for them nor do speak Arabic!!!!!!!!!!!! could we open an open discussion here please?--George the writer (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Both of you seem to be making the mistake that all Filipinos are Christian Filipinos. But there's a sizeable Muslim minority in Mindanao (Tausug, Maranao, Badjao, Sama, Maguindanao, etc.) who do speak, read, and write at least limited Arabic. Though it is admittedly strictly a second/liturgical language used almost exclusively in madaris and Quranic readings, and native languages are used in everday speech.
Granted we do not have numbers as to how many. But the Philippine Department of Education in the past 2 decades have made it a part of Islamic public schools (rather than just religious schools). Arabic was also traditionally taught in non-DoE accredited Philippine madaris long before official government recognition. Please see this site. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's part of islamic studies and for them able to read Quran but look for pakistan and india they do the same thing they have some schools included an arabic language just to make it easier for them to understand the Quran and when they go to Saudi Arabia to visit Masjid al-Haram.
you will not find Muslim Filipino people speak with each other in Arabic, they will talk in their own local language. Arabic language in some schools in Philippines as you said, is for Quranic studies only, So Arabic should not be included in the article.--George the writer (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I don't really feel that strongly about it. IIRC Arabic and Spanish were both added simply because both of them were specifically mentioned by Philippine law as languages that are to be promoted among the populace (in addition to the official ones - Filipino and English). If you wish to remove it, I will not reinstate it again. Though other editors may oppose its removal. Don't remove Spanish though. In contrast to Arabic, some Filipinos do speak a pidgin version of it (Chavacano etc., which is paradoxically spoken mostly in majority Muslim areas in Mindanao)-- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


There's something strange with how this article works... if I take the population number given here, there is no room for there to be Tagalog people, Moro people, Visayan people, etc. in the Philippines!

I think what's probably going on here is that the article's stats comes from the NSO Philippine census does not actually classify for ethnicity? In any case, it seems to me the Filipinos are not not nearly as unified a group as the article would lead one to believe, since AFAICT that encompass all Austronesian ethnolinguistic groups native to the Philippines, several of which are considered distinct from each others elsewhere in the encyclopedia. I think it is especially telling in that regard that Austronesian peoples separate the people of the Philippines in several groups.

Clearly the definition is not useless: it separate a set of peoples united by common traits that consider themselves related—by opposition to the Melanesian groups (e.g. the Aeta people) and various people of more recent descent. It doesn't help, of course, that "Filipino" is also in practice the general term for the citizenship in addition to ethnic group, as demonstrated by Chinese Filipino. I guess what I'm aiming for is that the idea of the "Filipino as an ethnic group" seems to be a relatively recent construct (in a country that is otherwise clearly not a nation state).

Maybe the article could be renamed to Filipino peoples and the introduction reworked to reflect the situation more closely? Circéus (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Not a nation state"? How so? An ethnic group is not restricted to the smallest linguistic grouping or by genetic ancestry. Though Filipinos are indeed composed of several smaller ethnolinguistic groups, most are part of the Philippine branch of the Austronesian language family indigenous to the islands. This includes the Negrito groups in the Philippines, whose languages and culture are still Austronesian despite differences in genetic ancestry, and the Moros of southwestern Mindanao who though Muslim, are still closely related culturally and linguistically to the Visayans and the Lumad ethnic groups.
The Philippines is multiethnic, yes, but it is also strongly homogenous in terms of culture. Virtually all traces of the previous cultural distinctions from smaller chiefdoms, etc. were erased during the Spanish colonial rule. It was further diluted by large scale inter-island migrations in the 20th century, leading to the cultural assimilation of most of the remaining non-Hispanized Indigenous peoples of the Philippines. A Visayan and a Tagalog might speak different languages, but everything else is virtually the same. Which is why Filipinos used to think the different languages were merely "dialects". Don't base apparent cultural unity by linguistic classification.
I strongly oppose moving this to "Filipino peoples", for that reason. The distinctions are simply not strong enough to merit that. In contrast to, say, Malaysians, who strongly distinguish between Ethnic Malays and their smaller ethnic groupings. "Filipino" is basically a cultural identity, rather than simply citizenship or an ancestral grouping. It is recent, yes, as the term "Filipino" itelf was used exclusively for full-blooded Spaniards born in the islands prior to Philippine independence from Spain. But that doesn't preclude ethnogenesis. What matters is its current usage, and it is indeed used in the sense of an ethnic group.
Most importantly, just because X people is made up of Y people and Z people, doesn't automatically mean that you have to call it X peoples, cf. American people.
As for population numbers, that's either numbers from different censuses taken at different times, or people with ancestry from multiple groups identifying for several (e.g. a half-Tagalog, half-Ilocano who identifies as both). The Philippine census does not classify for ancestry in the sense that it does not ask you if you have Chinese or Spanish ancestors. But it does ask for your native language which can be used to quantify the approximate number of people belonging to the largest ethnic groups.
That said, I have removed the "Austronesian" part of the original heading, as you do have a point regarding Filipinos who are not of Austronesian ancestry. I have also removed the paragraphs on etymology and orthography to its own section. As well as removed the infamous 3.6% study as it is WP:UNDUE there and per the previous discussion above. The lead still requires a lot of work for it to be a summary of the contents. Its application to citizenship and nationality needs to be discussed in the lead section as well, but it should not be restricted to them per usage.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 12:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Arabic language

I can't understand why users here insist to include Arabic language!! it's not an official for them nor do speak Arabic!. Indeed some of them trying to learn for quranic and islamic studies but that does not mean Filipino people speak it. many countries like Pakistan and India learn Arabic for the studies, is it included an official for them? could we open an open discussion here please? --George the writer (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious and very clear that Filipino do not speak eachother in arabic. I have discussed user Obsidian Soul about it at the top of the page.--George the writer (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently Filipinos in Saudi Arabia do speak Arabic, my cousin's uncle speaks it since he works there as an OFW. But I believe that's confined to the OFW page. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Yes! they do speak. But each other they don't. They speak few Arabic with Saudi, you will see Filipino in Saudi speak in their own language not arabic. Arabic is not an official language in Philippines.--George the writer (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Arabic is mentioned exactly once in the article: "The constitution also provides that Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.", citing the current Philippine constitution as a supporting source. In Article XIV, Sections 7 and 8, the constitution says, "Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis." and "This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish." I don't see reason why that information ought to be suppressed in this article.
On the other hand, this article is on the topic of Filipino peoople, and legalities growing out of the country's constitution don't necessarily bear strongly on that topic. if it is true that Arabic and/or Spanish are only spoken by small, culturally isolated parts of the Filipino populace, perhaps that ought to be mentioned. In order to be mentioned, however, that would need to be supportable by verifiable reliable sources. Original research such as the discussion above is not in itself sufficient to support article content.
Some content of other articles (e.g., Arab settlement in the Philippines and Languages of the Philippines) may contain information relevant to this discussion. In any case, care should be taken in editing this article not to introduce contradictions with other articles.
Also, McKenna, Thomas M.; Abdula, Esmael A. (2009), "6. Islamic Education in the Philippines", in Robert W. Hefner, Making Modern Muslims: The Politics of Islamic Education in Southeast Asia, University of Hawaii Press, pp. 205–235, ISBN 978-0-8248-3280-3 might be of interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ Dr. Martin Richards. "Climate Change and Postglacial Human Dispersals in Southeast Asia". Oxford Journals. Retrieved 2010. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)