Wikipedia

Talk:Philippines/Archive 17

< Talk:Philippines
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Þjarkur in topic Khans
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


149.88.139.62 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

PLESE EDIT THE PRESIDENT, THE NEW PRESIDENT IS rodrigo duterte.

  Not done for now: I think the convention is to wait until an elected official actually takes office to change the infobox. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Cannolis (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit 'DANCE' under 'CULTURE' section - Spanish influence was NEVER minimal in the region of Zamboanga

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Who says that "Spanish influence was minimal in the region of Zamboanga.? Zamboanga is just as hispanic as any other Spanish-colonized areas in the country and it is reflected not only in their dances, but in their arts, language and culture as well. I mean, have you seen the Zamboanga Traditional dances? some of them are no different from the traditional mexican traditional dances. You can check one of those dances here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOOGoaQRak0

La Jota and Habanero are also some of the popular dances during the Spanish colonial period there.

Please correct the inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.48.151 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


In the "Contemporary History" section of the article it mentions Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. It says, "From January 15 to 19, 2015, January 15 to 19, 2015, Pope Francis stayed in the Philippines for a series of publicity tours and paid visits to the victims of Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)." As you can see, it repeats the phrase "January 15 to 19, 2015." Please remove one of these instances. Thanks!


Djthompson114 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Miss Universe 2016 will be held in Mall of Asia Arena, Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines as Miss Universe 2015 Pia Wurtzbach's request. With the host, still it's Steve Harvey who hosted Miss Universe 2015 and co-host Miss USA 2015 and Miss Universe 2nd runner up Olivia Jordan as she volunteered about willing to be Steve Harvey's co-host. Miss Universe 2016 Date 30 January 2017 Presenters Steve Harvey Co-Host Olivia Jordan Venue Mall of Asia Arena, Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines Broadcaster Fox 112.211.87.184 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Liberal democracies

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can the Philippines truly be considered a liberal democracy, especially when all the extrajudicial killings are taken into account? Josh (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposition of subsection on international land deals to the section on the economy

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, according to a study by University of Birmingham et al. that can be opened at [1], more than 2 million hectares in the Philippines have been subject to international land deals.

Hence I would like to add a subsection on international land deals to the section on the economy.

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Economy of the Philippines seems a better place for such a specific topic. CMD (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This area exceeds a fifteenth of the area of the Philippines. Hence it has major consequences and is important enough.Sarcelles (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a very general article, of which the Economy section itself is a small part. (Although I'm not arguing this article is in a great shape as it is.) At any rate, if it's important enough to be here, it should definitely be at Economy of the Philippines, given that's the main article. CMD (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the definition of the term international land deals is here. The linked document speaks of what it calls, "transnational land acquisitions or their emotive name ‘land grabs'" (I think there may be some misapprehension of the meaning of the term acquisitions there. Also, the heading of Table 15 in the linked document seems to oversimplify the meaning of the term International Land Deals.), and recommends guidelines providing, "safeguards [which] could include introducing ceilings on permissible land transactions and regulating how transfers exceeding a certain scale should be approved, such as by parliamentary approval.” The Philippines provides such safeguards by prohibiting land acquisitions by foreign entities (except by hereditary succession), and by limiting land acquisition by entities with partial foreign equity to entities with no more than 40% foreign equity (see item 18 in the annex at http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2015/05may/20150529-EO-0184-BSA.pdf). Land acquisitions by entities having partial foreign equity generally involve Philippine corporations with up to 40% foreign equity, and such corporations are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now read a bit of the source mentioned above, and I see that acquisitions there apparently includes (and may be used exclusively to mean) lease -- mainly land leases for agricultural production. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

huang vs. wang

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This edit and the edit previous to it caught my eye. These are the latest two as I write this of a series of edits which boil down to this, and which include one reversion of an edit by another editor. I'm no expert but, FWICS via a bit of googling, this looks to my inexpeert eye as if it might be correct (see e.g., [2], [3], [4]). It seems to me, though, that a point like this juang vs. wang business might benefit from a clarifying footnote with supporting cites. I have not added such a footnote because I don't have enough topical expertise to feel comfortable doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Please see Talk:Ma-i#huang vs. wang. I think this discussion ought to proceed there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This sentence is misplaced!!!

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"During this period, the economy was known as the "Tiger Economy in Asia", with an average of 6% GDP growth rate.[170]" this is misplaced this happened on president Benigno Aquinos term not on her mother's or Pres. Fidel Ramos — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDorkLord (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this assertion, please? BushelCandle (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of bulol

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
The image in question.

This one guy keeps repeatedly removing an image of bulol and will not discuss his reasons. I think it's a nice and illustrative image, what are your thoughts? Palosirkka (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the image is interesting and in focus. It was also (before Nonoyborbun successively deleted it without any explanation whatsoever on 6 December 2015, 8 December 2015 and 16 December 2015) placed in an apposite position above text that read "Early Philippine sculpture is characterized by frontal nudity. One of the earliest forms are the bulols by the Ifugaos which serve as an assurance for bountiful harvests. Original function of these sculptures are related to the ceremonies and beliefs..." and with the default image syntax of a thumbnail floated right. However, it might have been thought by the repetitive deletionist Nonoyborbun to be inadequately lit or concentrating too much on the scenic view over the bulol's right shoulder.
And therein lies the whole problem, Palosirkka. I'm not telepathic and I presume none of my fellow editors here are either. Although to date Nonoyborbun has made more than 300 edits since 11 April 2011, s/he has not once ever left an WP:edit summary explaining this wholesale deletion of images.
WP:FIES states unequivocally: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting...
Neither has s/he ever, until today, ever used a talk page to explain these (otherwise) inexplicable deletions.
But please don't think you are being singled out for a special cold shoulder from Nonoyborbun, Palosirkka. When I wrote above that s/he has never ever used a talk page, that encompasses not only article discussion pages like this one, but also User talk:Nonoyborbun. S/he did not reply there to my message left there 2 days ago with a section title of Flouting advice about images either.
At the end of the day, we're all volunteers here and don't have endless time to try and educate our compadres about collegiate behaviour when they ignore all advice. If they remain really obdurate (over a period of many months in this particular case), editors who are tired of this behaviour may ask for a topic ban on articles relating to the Philippines.
Here are some examples of other unexplained deletions:
1) 26 May 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an example of a pre-Hispanic fortress found in the Philippines File:Idjang 2.jpg without any explanation
2) 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of "the only well known female composer during the 19th century" in the Philippines: File:Dolores Paterno y Ignacio.jpg without any explanation
3) 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of the Tabon Caves at Lipuun Point, Quezon, Palawan:   without any explanation
4) 13 June 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article a different image of the Tabon Caves and (mendaciously) "its carvings": File:Tabon Cave in Palawan.jpg without any explanation (although, being fair we might guess that s/he may have thought that having two images of these world significant caves is excessive - but why none at all?)
5) Deletion of 17:04, 15 August 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of the world famous Banaue Rice Terraces. S/he may have thought that it was inferior to another image s/he uploaded - but don't we deserve some explanation? This image is a panoramic view so I am going to break with my usual practice in expositions like this of using tiny thumbnails and allow you to judge its merits adequately:
 
The Banaue Rice Terraces where Ifugao/Igorot utilized terrace farming in the steep mountainous regions of the northern Philippines over 2000 years ago.
(Incidentally, Nonoyborbun has also deleted other material relating to the rice terraces in other articles eg: 22 May 2011 and 19 July 2011. Again, in an effort to be fair, this material, although undoubtedly truthful and accurate, was inadequately sourced - but why not give editors a clue as to why it was deleted and/or an opportunity to source it? an adequate source?
6) Deletion of 17:08, 15 August 2015 Nonoyborbun deletes from this article an image of the Manila Golden Mosque: File:Manila Golden Mosque.JPG without any explanation. [5] Jrtacbobo.123456 restores the mosque image (and also deletes "3-") with an edit summary of The NCMF did not said that Muslims are only 3% of the country's population.........source: http://www.ncmf.gov.ph/ PLEASE DON'T MAKE SOME BIASES FOR RELIGIOUS STATISTICS...BE HONEST AND BE EQUAL!!! but then
7) that very same day Nonoyborbun deletes from this article again this same image of the Manila Golden Mosque: File:Manila Golden Mosque.JPG without any explanation
8) this image deletion of 24 August 2015 clearly indicates that Nonoyborbun doesn't just dislike images of Islamic architecture. Here he deletes from this article an image of the Seng Guan Buddhist temple in Tondo:   without any explanation
9) 5 September 2015 and Nonoyborbun deletes from this article again that same panoramic image of Banaue Rice Terraces   without any explanation again and replaces it with an oddly sized and strangely captioned thumbnail of the Chocolate Hills of Bohol
10) 13 October 2015 and it becomes obvious that Nonoyborbun doesn't just dislike images of pre-Hispanic engineering or Islamic or Budhist architecture. S/he deletes from this article an interesting map showing that "Before the Western contact, the Philippine archipelago had its own rulers and kingdoms, which were Malayan, Sinified, Indianized or Islamic": File:Philippines (pre 1521).jpg without any explanation. However, User:Materialscientist (a ubiquitous admin) is on the job and reverts the unexplained map deletion within 3 minutes
BushelCandle (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The repetitive deletionist Nonoyborbun has now made more than two hundred more repetitive edits to this article since 22 March 2016; none of them have an edit summary and all of them have undone the work of other editors (sometimes more than thrice in a 24 hour period.) BushelCandle (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice about images

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I have tried to reduce extreme WP:SANDWICHING by diminishing left-right staggering and moving images to more closely align with apposite paragraphs but some seem intent on repetitively negating my work.

Here are some selected highlights from the advice at MOS:IMG:

Extended content
Horizontal placement
  • In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.
  • Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar.
  • In a few web browsers, bulleted lists overlap with left-aligned images. It may be preferable to avoid placing a left-aligned image near lists.
  • It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. (Do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation e.g. by reversing the location of scars or other features.)
Vertical placement

An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader. Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images.

It is not possible to place a thumb image within a paragraph, as the occurrence of such an image causes a paragraph break; i.e. the current paragraph ends and and a new one is begun. BushelCandle (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)}

Nonoyborbun seems to think he can ignore this advice and serially revert other editors regardess - all the while refusing to engage in dialogue. How should this be resolved? By simply invoking WP:3RR and getting him blocked? Or is there a better way? BushelCandle (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the image placement is a problem and should be addressed. I think it's best to reduce the images over making galleries. The only real question here is what images to keep.--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've been engaging in an edit war with this Nonoyborbun guy, should I continue on? He seems like a bot. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you should not. I've left messages on your respective talk pages. Both of you are heading for a block if you don't stop immediately. Read WP:BRD for the best way to proceed (hint: it involves civil discussion here on the talk page). RivertorchFIREWATER 15:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, alright then, but what about Nonoyborbun? Is he also legal for getting blocked? - Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Anyone who engages in edit warring is subject to being blocked. RivertorchFIREWATER 01:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Because he's been known to delete images without any explanation whatsoever. He seemed a silent editor. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonoyborbun is not a bot. My judgement is that s/he can write and understand English. However and unfortunately for the more collegiate editors here, s/he seems completely unwilling to discuss matters or give a hint of why s/he engages in such wasteful and infuriating edit warring. I have examined all the edits s/he has made and not once has there been a helpful or enlightening edit summary! BushelCandle (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bring this up at wp:ani already. - Alternativity (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you mean that you have already raised this aggravating behaviour by Nonoyborbun at another page? If so, can you provide a diff? (Link to the discussion). BushelCandle (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we place this article under review for "Featured Article" status?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I think the editors of the Philippines article has done a good job in constructing and editing the article to be of such good quality that it needs to be reviewed to become a featured article. Remember, this article was once a featured article before incessant and chaotic edits made it fall from grace. So anyway, it's about time it regained its featured article status. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, only one way to find out. Have it at least peer reviewed and copyedited beforehand. As for the article, I can say I found it very humbling and rewarding to populate as a Featured Article. Regards. SLIGHTLYmad 11:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion SLIGHTLYmad, I think it would be a good idea to have the article peer-reviewed first. Why don't we ask other users what they think? Darwgon0801, Parashurama007, Alternativity and Juliaantengco! What do you think of this?
I don't personally think this article is ready for that yet. (I didn't want to say so, so I was being quiet.) Hm. For an article of this scale, I would certainly also want the opinions of older, more experienced Wikiproject Philippines members such as Seav,Lenticel,RioHondo,Jojit_fb,P199,Blakegripling_ph,Bluemask,,TagaSanPedroAko and so on. - Alternativity (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Support going for an FA review. Even if it fails, at least we've learned how to improve it further --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - And while we're at it, should we put the article under a probation of sorts? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Since the the Philippines article is currently assessed as good article, I suggest that the article should be reviewed for A-Class, which is one step closer to being a featured article (FA). Reviewing it as A-Class is less stringent than reviewing it as FA. Most likely after an A-Class review, we will have clues on how to improve it and make it an FA. It's much like a "one-step-at-a-time" approach. I also agree to have it peer reviewed before promoting the article. By the way, the Philippines article has never been a featured article before. --Jojit (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Horses, and a screwed-up-cite

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Here, I've named a ref name=screwed-up-cite. Problems extend beyond the screwed up cite itself, but the cite itself is confused about the source it is citing.

The link in the cite is a dead link, but the cite mentions Project Guttenburg and a book titled A History of the Philippines. There is such a book ([6]), but its author is David P. Barrows, not William Henry Scott, and that book does not contain the text quoted in the cite. The quote appears to be the garbled version of a note which appears in Scott, William Henry (1984). Prehispanic source materials for the study of Philippine history. New Day Publishers. p. 148 (Note 19). ISBN 978-971-10-0226-8. That note is very similar to note 23 which appears on page 8 of the other source cited just previous ([7]). That note reads

The fact that Chief Kamayin's name is transliterated by the Chinese characters for "excellent," "horse," and' "silver" led Berthold Laufer in his 1907 "The relations of the Chinese to the Philippines" to list horses and silver among the Pangasinan gifts (Historical Bulletin 1967 reprint, Vol. 11, p. 10); this error was carelessly copied by Wu Ching-hong in his 1962 "The rise and decline of Chuanchou's international trade" (Proceedings of the Second Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia, p. 477), whence it passed into more than one Philippine text, but was not repeated by Wu himself in his later works.

Laufer also refers to a Philippine embassy led by a "high official called Ko-ch'a-lao" whom no other scholar has been able to locate and whom Beyer identifies as a "Chinese governor appointed for the island of Luzon" (op. cit.,

loc. cit.).

As I read this, Scott is saying here that the transliteration of Kamayin's name led to a misunderstanding of Philippine history to the effect that that horses and silver had been exported to China.

These two quotes appear to refute rather than support the article assertion saying

In northern Luzon, the Wangdom of Pangasinan under Wang Taymey, exported horses and silver to China, the Kingdom of Ryukyu and Japan.

I'm not a historian, but I think I've got this right. If I do have this right, it needs to be corrected.

Some other WP articles about the Philippines may have similar problems. See search results from https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=638&q=%22The+fact+that+Chief+Kamayin%27s+name+is+transliterated%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw:, please see above and this diff. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this wayward citation. I think your opinion about this is correct and thus, the citation and sentence it's affixed to need to be corrected or deleted.-Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I'll remove the bit about horses and silver and replace it with an assertion that the Wangdom of Pangasinan sent emissaries to China in 1406-1411, supported by [8]. I'll remove the problematic cite and the quote. I'll also take a look at the other articles I mentioned above and will do whatever seems appropriate there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've edited those other articles. See [9], [10], [11], [12]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a related issue at Warfare in pre-colonial Philippines, which says "About 5 to 10 percent of the forces typically used in battle were cavalry." The section cites a paper by Scott, but the Scott paper cited does not seem to mention either horses or cavalry used by forces of indigenous polities from the Philippine archipelago. I was going to do more reading to validate my suspicion that the section is a hoax, but if someone else wants to take action , having already done reading in relation to this page (Philippines), that'd certainly be welcome. - Alternativity (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Here, I've tried to address some problems reported by checklinks. I have not reviewed or tried to address all the problems reported there. Other editors might want to pitch in. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I was giving some thought to why the phrasing of the prehistory section seems to come in from out of the blue. And then I realized, the reason the shift into that section is so abrupt is that the article is discussing history without the benefit of geological or geographical contextualization. Perhaps we should move up the section on geography? There are a bunch of tweaks that I feel would significantly improve the prehistory and early history sections; I hope it's okay to start by tagging concerns, and then correcting them as soon as I can refer to more definitive texts? - Alternativity (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We better fix the issues in the Precolonial history section of the article quickly. All those issues that were tagged will drag down our review process. -Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to fix the things I know for sure, mostly concerning Ma-i, Tondo, Maynila, and Lusung. The text for those sections as they are right now isn't the best-written I've seen, but I think it's fringe-theory free. (BTW, I think it's more important to link to Lakan than it is to link to Lakandula, but maybe that's just me.) Plans: I'll probably add a paragraph or two containing details regarding the evolution and limitations of Muslim, Indian Ocean, and Chinese trade because that's essential to a discussion of cultural development for that period. If we want this section to be shorter, I feel we could do that best by shortening the text on individual polities, but I don't know what to cull from the paragraphs. Most important thing to flag right now: I don't currently have the capacity to thoroughly review the sources (cited or otherwise) for Madja-as. - Alternativity (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
May I also ask for the community's opinion on the reliability of this reference as a source? I find the lack of information on the website's about us page disturbing. - Alternativity (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me commend you on your changes to the Precolonial history section. It has greatly improved the quality of the article. About your expansion discussing Chinese, Indian Ocean and Islamic trade, I think there would be no harm in discussing it in this article. As for the sources for Madja-as, the problem with them is that they cite a legendary account "The Maragtas", hence their historicity is in question, however in other cases such as that of Selurong in Maynila and other cases, legendary history was considered acceptable so I don't really know how to treat the Madja-as sources but I lean to it being accepted since in other cases, legendary accounts were accepted as history. Also, I don't think the later source you cited is valid since it's just basically a mirror-site and an archive of outdated Wikipedia articles. I don't think it qualifies as an adequate source. Cheers! -Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you change the population census for the philippines which of October 16th is currently 105,381,863 G-Unit92 (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to images

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I take issue with this edit by Keroscene777, which replaced several images, added others, and instituted a gallery format at the bottom of two sections. The stated rationale for the changes is problematic. While I am sympathetic to the plight of people who rely on income derived from tourism, it is the purpose of Wikipedia to cover topics in a neutral, encyclopedic manner—nothing more, nothing less. That said, I think that some of the changes improve the article, so I hesitate to revert. Per WP:GALLERY, if the galleries are to remain, the images need to be individually captioned. But I don't think is necessarily desirable to keep them, especially the architecture one, since we have a separate article about the topic. I'd be curious to know what other Wikipedians think. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"encyclopedic manner"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please define "encyclopedic manner"? All I added was a more cultural photos. I don't see any "Un-encyclopedic manner" about that. Does "encyclopedic manner" mean putting un-photogenic photos? I know I over added photos, and I apologized about that. But will you please reconsider my edits? I saw some Wikipedia articles for other countries. And it very well gives justice to their cultures, art and history; Paintings that portray Japanese culture for example. In the same manner, I added the Tampuhan (painting) of Juan Luna in visual art section of the article for example. Because it very well portray the cultural and historical side of the Philippines; the woman wearing a Maria Clara gown of the Filipina women, With the background of the historical Bahay na Bato architecture(Interior) with all it's Ventanilla and Capiz windows. It depicts very well the Philippine culture during the 1800's; The Climax era of the Philippine history where most of the Philippine hero lived and it is where the Philippine republic was born. I'm very sorry for any inconvenience, but please reconsider using my edits. thank you.User:Keroscene777 (talk) 3:34 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for apologies. You edited, I objected, someone else reverted, and now we're discussing. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Please note that it's not necessary to start a new section when replying; better to just indent your reply. (See Help:Talk for details.)
To me, and I think to most Wikipedians, "encyclopedic" means pretty much what I said above: covering topics in a neutral manner. That means not favoring the photogenic or the pretty but instead choosing images that best enhance our readers' understanding of the accompanying text. In other words, we want to depict the Philippines not in a good light but in an accurate light. For the record, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV.
As I said before, I think some of the changes you made are improvements. My suggestion is that you re-add them individually instead of all in one edit, and try to place them more or less adjacent to relevant text, not in galleries. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

largest wooden ships ever built

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

" The Manila galleons, the largest wooden ships ever built, " The galleons are not even on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships Maybe this needs further elaboration or should be cut? -David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.64.74 (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please change ((Unitarian)) to ((Unitarianism|Unitarian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2017

  Done Thank you  — Ammarpad (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please correct the WRONG land area of 300,000 sq. km. The correct land area is 343,448 sq. km. as stated on the National Government Portal of the Republic of the Philippines (https://www.gov.ph/about-the-philippines)

This exact figure of 300,000 sq. km. was probably taken from the CIA "Factbook" which is outdated. 240B:252:820:5500:20CF:F4A0:95CD:E21B (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done changed the appropriate wikidata here. Might take a while for the changes to reflect on the article itself though.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Adam Hegazy33725 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The http://phnews.wikia.com is more on Philippine News and any volunteers willing to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.123.151 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Update on Philippine Population

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Estimated Philippine Population for 2018 is at 107 million from 100.9 million in 2015. I think we should change it now. Reference is below: http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/03/18/ph-population-to-reach-107-million-by-end-of-2018 --Joshua121595 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've moved this new section to the bottom, where it belongs.
I see that {{infobox country}}, used by this article, currently lacks documentation. Even so, I would say that the 2015 census currently used is appropriate for the {{{population_census}}} parameters in the infobox. The article infobox currently has empty {{{population_census}}} parameters which are not supported by the infobox template as currently implemented. The infobox template currently has {{{FR_total_population_estimate}}} parameters which are neither documented there nor used by the article. I'm not what the FR_ stands for or sure how those parameters are intended to be used.
I see that the suggested new population figure is an estimate by the the Philippine government's Commission on Population (POPCOM) for the end of the year 2018. I suggest that it might be appropriate to add mention of this at the end of the article's introduction to the Demographics section.
A review of what the article currently has to say about population might also be appropriate; for example, the article currently says, "The Philippines has an area of 343,448 square kilometres[5], and a population of approximately 103 million.[20]", which seems out of sync with the 2015 census figure of 100,981,437 in the infobox. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dilsetum0 (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  Not done:No identifiable request.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

thumb cxxxx ssadasdasdasadaasd hjj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.226.6.154 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

make the first mention of The Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society link to the corresponding Wikipedia page Nootherhell (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2405:204:E404:7D45:E988:B906:72AC:DCB2 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Not done No identifiable request. Iffy★Chat -- 09:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the first paragraph, could you add the additional information that it will be part of the pacific island countries as well as south east Asia, in 2020 due to the census change. 82.8.75.148 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

of Filipino descent (change to of Philippine descent)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this would make more sense as there are woman who are considered Filipina and men considered Filipino. Is there a way to start a category and have them all moved under lets say for eg. Category:Australian people of Philippine descent. Is this the right section for this debate? C0c0nutzg (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

POV characterization of the Philippine-American War

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Here, I have removed " of conquest by US military force" as a characterization of the Philippine-American War. The supporting source cited immediately following this deletion is Constantino, R (1975). The Philippines: a Past Revisited. Quezon City: Tala Pub. Services. I happen to have that book, and I do not find support for that assertion therein. It might be a matter of interpretation, but the support, if present, ought to be somewhere in the page range of 293-300, and I just don't see it.

I suspect, though, that this assertion was put into the article as original research, without reference to or support of outside sources.

Checking back, I see that it apparently came in in this edit by @BushelCandle: , under implied support (actually, rather, explicitly claimed support by placement) of that aforementioned pre-existing cite which does not support it. The edit summary of that edit says, "copyedited opening section and also emphasised that the Philippine-American war was a war of reconquest and bloody". This is WP:original research, which is disallowed by policy. Also, the term "reconquest" ("re-conquest" in the edit) is an oversimplication ("re" of what conquest by whom??) open to WP:POV interpretation. Also, and I think this is an important point, a general article titled "Philippines" is not the place to get into this level of contentious detail; read WP:Summary style.

"re-conquest" became "conquest" in this edit by @Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw: (edit summary: "Fixed typo") and , as I said above,I have removed this characterization. Please, please keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in mind while editing.

Perhaps it is useful to explore differences in viewpoints about characterization of the Philippine-American War, but this is not the place to do that. Also, the viewpoint differences explored ought not to be viewpoint differences between WP editors but, rather, viewpoint differences expressed by reliable sources, as required by WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, are you seriously suggesting that the overwhelming consensus amongst published authors is that the Philippine–American War was neither bloody nor a "continuation of the Filipino struggle for independence that began in 1896 with the Philippine Revolution" (ie a re-conquest of territories previously conquered by Spain)? BushelCandle (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I don't think that this amount of detail belongs in this article; see WP:SS. That said, I'm sure that there is a strong consensus from the Filipino viewpoint at the time that the Philippine-American war was a "continuation of the Filipino struggle for independence that began in 1896 with the Philippine Revolution". I don't think that this necessarily implies that, from the American viewpoint at the time, that the Philippine-American War was pursued as either a "conquest" or a "re-conquest" of the Philippines (and, as I said above, I'm not sure precisely what meaning to give to "re-conquest" here). Please keep WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV) in mind and remember that when it speaks of viewpoints there it says "all significant viewpoints". As I said above, perhaps it is useful to explore differences in viewpoints about characterization but this is not the place to do that and viewpoint differences explored should be viewpoint differences expressed by WP:RSs, not viewpoint differences between WP editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Following on the above, I've made this edit to the lead paragraph of the Philippine–American War article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

THIS WAS PROBABLY THE TIME WHEN FILIPINOS LEARNED TO PLAY BASKETBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.158.226.122 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
108.173.49.124 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2001:56A:72AE:5100:7C78:1191:F9D0:EB4D (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

this is code changes Mahima v 123 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

--- What followed here was an extensiv copy&poaste from some coffee article ------ --- not related to the article, considered trolling, and deleted --- 2019-01-26 (please can someone do this the official way ?)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Philippines is composed of 7107 islands which is separated into three main islands called as Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Bugang14 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Chapter Religion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence: "An unknown percentage of irreligion in the Philippines because there is no official statistic of it but it may be form as high as 20% of the population." seems to be screwed. I think what it wanted to say may be "There is an unknown percentage of atheists or people who do not confess to any specific religion, estimated to be up to 20%, whose status can not be clarified since no statistics exist." I also think the word 'irreligion' sounds discriminatory, and should not be used. Consider correcting the article.

Replaced with "non-religious people". Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Chronology: Republic of Negros vs,First Philippine Republic

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This unsupported edit (one of a series) caught my eye. It said "soothed over a conflicting statement" in the ES, and revised this earlier change by me. I have again revised this portion of the article with this edit, this time using content from the Campaigns of the Philippine–American War article, slightly reworded, and this time citing the source cited there. There appears to be a disagreement between myself and @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: regarding the chronology here. My understanding, based on the online and paper sources I have seen (some of which are not cited but are mentioned in the edit summary of my most recent edit of this article), is that U.S. forces supplanted the short-lived Republic of Negros long before (not subsequent to) the defeat of the First Philippine Republic. Unfortunately, most of my paper sources on Philippine history are not presently available to me. Please discuss here if discussion is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary Style

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article badly needs a review with the editing guideline Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS) in mind. This is exampled bye the info in the American Rule section concerning chronology and the Republic of Negros which has been subject to recent edits and comment above on this talk page. WP:SS would have increasing detail about this as one goes from article to article in Philippines > History of the Philippines > History of the Philippines (1898–1946) > Republic of Negros, and that is not the case. This problem is also exampled by the talk page section above this one. That problem that ought to be corrected. Correcting that is a big job; it is a bigger than I want to undertake (and I'll acknowledge that I have surely been a sometimes contributor to this slow-growing problem), but I thought that problem deserved at least a mention here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Interpretation of info from Applied Biosystems

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here, I placed a {{fv}} in the article, saying: "The bulk of of this assertion is not supported by the source cited." That apparently resulted in edits here and here. This is unsupported original research -- it may be supportable, but it is unsupported here. It ought to be supported or removed.See also the talk page section immediately below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

GDP (nominal) 2018 estimate

• Per capita $3,100 : IMF https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/PHL Tomvstom (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is actually 3,430. Ruslik_Zero 11:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The report on April, 2017 was forecasted GDP per capita is 3,430, but real result same as above report

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change GDP (nominal) per capita to 3,100 USD because current data is old report was forecasted by IMF since April 2017. Please refer here https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/PHL or Report for Selected Countries and SubjectsTomvstom (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Please check your sources again. They're consistent with what's in the article. Infact Report for Selected Countries and Subjects is the current ref that's used in the article and the other ref's figue is similar though rounded different way. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Main Article : Religion of the Philippines

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first sentence below for the Main article about religion is incorrect.

"Main article: Religion in the Philippines" "The Philippines is an officially secular state, although Christianity is the dominant faith."

Please put back the original sentence in this article. Philippines is a Christian nation in Southeast Asia, with Christianity as the dominant faith. 80% of Filipinos professed Catholicism, 10% Protestants, 5% other religions and remaining 5% Islam. Therefore, in the second paragraph, first sentence, "Islam is the second largest religion" is not true based on the real statistics of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cue bee2000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a cite, etc.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here, I've removed a cite titled "WVS Database". By its location, this was cited in support of an assertion saying: "Census data from 2010 found that [...] Protestants were 10.8%." The cite title was added (by me) in this August 7, 2016 edit, where the cite of this source appeared in support of an assertion saying: "Protestants are 1.8% of the total population.". I did not reverify that assertion at that time. even though (I see now) it then was tagged {{fv}}. The {{fv}} tag was added in this August 4, 2014 edit. The cite appears to have been originally added in this June 29, 2016 edit in support of the 1.8% figure, which that edit introduced to replace a previous estimate of 5% which had been supported by a cite of http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/208472.pdf. (I don't see support for the 5% figure in there). Re the cite I've removed, I've looked at the web page linked there and I don't find anything directly useful in support of an assertion about the percentage of Protestants in the Philippines.

Is it any wonder that people joke about the unreliability of information found in Wikipedia? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add on the background section of the Philippines: Culturally, the Philippines is the most westernized nation in Asia, (Latin in temperament/attitude, Asian in family structure and an American sense of mindset/consumerist behavior). Che0709s (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

On my edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, as you can see I am a new user, although I want to contribute accurate information and ensure the credibility of those already posted on the Philippines page.

My apologies for not seeking consensus at first since I am still new to Wikipedia. I don't have prior knowledge of the requirement to seek consensus.

I would like to post here regarding the edits I had recently made on this page.

Regarding the Filipino Sign Language: I have already talked on the talk page of the two users/editors who have responded on my removal of the FSL from the national and official languages of the Philippines. I stand by the first reason I gave which is about the law (Republic Act no. 11106) that specifically made the FSL the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf (from Section 3). If we analyze it word per word, it does not explicitly declare it as the national and official language. It was declared as the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf (it does not say official means of communication in "all" transactions). While I do understand and agree that the FSL is a language (as all sign languages are), the law has only recognized it as the national sign language and official means of communication in transactions involving the deaf. It has not declared it as a national and official language. That is where the difference lies. My proposal is to create a new subtitle/heading in the info box to show the FSL as the national sign language so as to avoid confusion on the difference between the national language and national sign language.

Moreover, I apologize for assuming the KWF only handles the Filipino language. I have now read about its mandate. I was misled by the name of the commission which is the Commission on the "Filipino Language".

Regarding the American Rule: I will come back to this when I get the spare time to do so. There are conflicting accounts since some Filipinos at that time were stating that the American colonial administration is suppressing the Filipino culture. Perhaps a cultural renaissance happened because Filipino artists fought the suppression and the result was a renaissance instead of a suppression. However, I will still read more books about it and share it with this talk page when I have the time to do so.

Moreover, I think the focus of the American period needs to talk more about what happened during the period instead of talking about what happened before that period (the fall of the First Philippine Republic and other revolutionary movements which led to the American period). I would also suggest to put a period between the Spanish rule and American rule. It can be named as the Philippine Revolutionary period (as our contemporary historians call it) or First Philippine Republic since the events during this period happened in the transition between the Spanish rule and the American rule. The foundations of the modern Philippine nation or the concept of the Philippines as a whole was made or strengthened during this time (e.g. the declaration of independence we celebrate today as June 12 was made from this time). It will be good to talk about this since after all, this is the "Philippines" page. The fall of the First Philippine Republic and the other revolutionary or independence movements can be discussed here. This will also serve as the smooth transition between the Spanish rule and American rule for a better chronological understanding of events and also for the American rule to contain information on the American period itself, not the period (Philippine Revolution particularly the second phase and the Philippine-American War) which led to it.

Thanks. Jhlletras (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that, but I think this article is too long as it stands. Some of its content would be better if just mentioned here, with more detail mentioned in the History of the Philippines article and/or one of the date-range titled Philippine History articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Precolonial Philippines States.png does not follow MOS

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Linked image breaks several points in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, namely it's excessively decorative, cluttered, contains text that could be entered in description, etc. The information is great, but image itself needs to be simplified. --Truflip99 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the image overlay adds distraction. I commented out the image code of the template. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Massive history section and other edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., your explanation for the reinsertion of all the material missed most of what I said in my edit summary. Putting aside for the moment the question of sourcing, your edits restored a lot of extra text that was not added with citations, along with a few very strange recently introduced typos. On sources, being the second-most sourced country article is not a good thing. It heavily implies that this article fails to meet WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and indeed, that is the case. The huge bloat this article has undergone since it was assessed as a Good Article has been to its great detriment. CMD (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC) 

Ok I will work in even trimming it down even further then. And why are you so concerned about the Philippines losing its good article status for reference bloat when the USA article is even much more worse and it still retains Good Article Status? I do agree with you that this article is just too wordy and that two wrongs don't make a right but I just want to point out the double standards. Oh no Philippines article has 640 references! Bad! GA status endangered! The USA article has 720 references. It's totally ok!!!! 😂 Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
When did I say the United States article was okay? CMD (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh ok then. Have it your way, I hope we can come on a compromise, God Bless. :D Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Khans

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

change ((khans)) to ((Khan (title)|khans))

  Done – Þjarkur (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines/Archive_17&oldid=1227715370"