Talk:Philippines/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Marcos

Lupang Hinirang means land of the appointed.

I find it hard to believe that an article about the Philippines barely mentioned Marcos. It's like an article about Zaire only talking about Mobutu in passing.--Sir Edgar 08:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

See bottom of Philippines#U.S. Intervention--Jondel 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "barely mentioned"!!! Marcos ruled for over 20 years. That's a large part of the post-WWII era. No wonder that section is empty. So nothing happened over the past 60 years in the Philippines?!?! That is ridiculous.

To the Anonymous User : How's it going dude? :)Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Marcos is rarely mentioned in Philippine history because he was not loved by majority of the people. The People "Hated" him and did not like him because he brought the Philippines "shame", "corruptions", "bad image" and betrayed his country and the People, for his try-hard dictatorship and martial law act in the 1970's and 1980's. Sorry to say, but he was damm cruel!!. I was a teenager back then when it happened. My whole family and I fled the Philippines and went back to Spain for many years during Marcos' term in office because it was dangerous in the Philippines at that time. It became dangerous during the Martial Law period especialy at night. The streets were empty by 7:00 p.m. or else something could happen such as being arrested or even shot by his corrupt drunken armies who also had the power to take part on political issues. Marcos Was bad!!- Gonzalo (UTC) 10:00 , 5 August 2005

That shouldn't stop us from putting Marcos in the article, though, Gonzalo. With Wikipedia, you're supposed to talk about the good "and" the bad. --Chris 05:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That's cool! That's fine by me. No worries.:) I've got nothing against it...:). I was just commenting about the negative issues of the good old days that's all :)cool!! hehehe! - Gonzalo 4:30 p.m., 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, a small section on Marcos was placed at the history section. --Jondel 02:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a passage about former Pres. Cory Aquino and the "snap elections". Previously, there was mention of a "post-Marcos era" but nothing was mentioned about how the Marcos era ended. This reference should be able to bridge that gap. This should also resolve how the Philippines suffered under a "bad" president and how he was defeated by some forces of "good" in the person of Ninoy Aquino and the aftermath of his assassination (which was EDSA). Besides, that's how most history books and other write-ups have treated any issuese with Marcos.

As this is a brief history, though, there should be a more thorough discussion on the Philippine History article. Hence, I tried to be as brief as possible. I will still have to read the Philippine History article, though, to make sure that any changes on this page will be consistent with the Philippine History article. --- Tito Pao 16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Independence

The date 1898 should'nt be mentioned in association with independence. 1898 was the year when the Treaty of Paris (1898) was held. Indepedence did not officially occur until 1935 with the Tydings-Mcdufie Law or Philippine Independence Act.

Some anonomous editor have added July 4 as the Independence day. How many times, do we have to tell the our anonomous editors that the Philippines do not celebrate independence day in July 4. We never have and we never will. Everybody knows that by now. We celebrate our Filipino independence from Spain on June 12, 1898. Gonzalo 8:30, 27 August 2004 (UTC)

Actually the Philippines did celebrate independence day on July 4 until 1962. And besides, nobody is saying we celebrate independence on July 4... it was just in the infobox because that's actually the day that the Philippines became independent. Even the United States article has separate dates for when their independence was declared and when it was recognized. Coffee 05:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The Philippines was bypassed and were not consulted when Spain handed over the Philippines. The Philippine certainly did not agree to being subjugated by the United States. Since America had a war with Spain, Filipino revolutionaries assumed them to be allies and in fact were so at the start. The first constitution at Malolos was used when the Philippines first declared independence. Many Filipino historians resent the term ' insurrection' that American historians use. An insurrection is used for citizens rebelling against their own government. Revolutionaries were simply continuing the fight for independence. The Filipinos could not accept the Americans as their own government.

From the Philippine-American War article: The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

--Jondel 05:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering, What happened to the Language information footnotes written in the bottom of the calling code, inside the Philippine information category box. It disapeared? can someone, please restore it back. cool,Thanks :)-- Gonzalo 8:30 p.m, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Article clean up

Just thought I'd explain some of my recent edits - I'm cleaning up the article to make it more in line with the specifications put forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and so it's up to par with the article on India. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The history section is way too long for a country article. It should be condensed to about half to two-thirds its current size. Let's try to emulate Featured Articles like Australia, Cambodia, India, People's Republic of China, Cambodia, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Coffee 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the reduction should also apply to the Culture, Demographics and languages sections as well. The politics section could be trimmed down a little. The landmarks section could be forked off into a related article or turned into a category. Approval from some other editors would be necessary to make such huge edits though. In addition, some of the info on this article isn't in the main articles that are being wikilinked. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the languages section is fine. It's short enough and plus there's a pointer to the main languages article. Agree with the others. Anyone up for it? :-) --Chris S. 19:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Languages subsection could even be expanded and break out into its own main section, talking about roles and issues between the languages. Same with the Religion subsection.. it could talk about how the Catholic Church plays a role in people's lives and in government, and how Islam affects things in Mindanao. And the landmarks sections is too subjective and arbitrary-- it should be converted to a tourism section or just removed entirely. Coffee 06:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh , how about converting the tourism section to historic sites , remove purely tourism and subjective sites. If articles are too long , people get tired, I think the 'See main article' should take care of comprehensive treatment of the subject. The Language section is fine but one or more sentences would'n hurt.I might add something about how Islam affects things in Mindanao but feel free to edit or add yourself. --Jondel 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best to trim down the history part now. I don't know if I can trim down the others. I'll see if I can reorganize the language and demographics section. Hopefully it will be well done so no disparate edits and themes are uploaded or needed.--Jondel 00:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to add more about the country's pre-colonial history, if it's known? For instance, as someone entirely unfamiliar with the country, I wasn't even sure if pre-Spanish Philippines was inhabited by tribes (such as on Papua New Guinea) or had large urban centres or even empires, as in other parts of South-East Asia. Tavtav 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine

Are you the proprietor of this site? Your quotes are noted.

No I am not. You can quote me if you want. I am not going to remove your 'salabat' edits. Knock yourself out . I'm outa here.--Jondel 10:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes... but you see, Wikipedia entries do not belong to a single author and therefore all written works aren't copyrighted nor can previous authors complain about their works getting modified. In short wikipedia is for everyone. In response to "Salabat" being removed isn't it true that salabat simply means ginger tea and may or may not be iced? I drank iced ginger tea at a 5-star resort awhile back and found it superb and decided to include it under cocktails. --anonymous user 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Please understand in exactly the same manner, I also have opensoursce rights to remove your entries.You are free to add, I am free to delete. I encourage you to work together. You can't force anything here!!--Jondel 10:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To the guy who keeps adding Philippine cuisine,
Please understand, that were trying to be cohesive and trim. Disparate entries like , 'Jose Rizal, he's very smart.' or ' You should visit Cebu.' will probably be deleted on sight. Your entries are welcome but we're trying to present a professional looking article here.--Jondel 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

hey whoever you are could you please stop removing the word "philippine archipelago" The philippines is in itself an archipelago!!!

But that gives a good description that the Philippines is an archipelago.--Jondel 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodness, the constant editings on this article just emphasizes why I don't bother with it anymore. You try to make it a more professional and informative article and your edits are just deleted. The point of an article introduction is to give a concise summary of the subject matter. I believe that the paragraphs I added serve to inform the reader what kind of a country the Philippines is: predominantly Catholic, colonized by Spain and the U.S., with unique economic features, and having typical developing country problems.

I don't think mentioning that it is a Southeast Asian country off the coast of mainland Asia, with 7,107 islands is enough. I also don't think that mentioning its various names over the centuries is more important than it is mostly Catholic, colonized by Spain and the U.S., etc. Why don't you delete that nomenclature paragraph as well? And why delete the fact that the country's capital is Manila apart from it being also mentioned in the infobox? The capital of a country is such a basic geographic information that trivia quizzes thrive on the "What is the capital of Country X?" type of questions. --seav 09:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm bringing the deleted info back to the article. I'm open to discussing what important basic facts about the Philippines that should be mentioned in the intro. What I'm not open to is outright deletion without an uncoward explanation. --seav 09:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contributing to this article. I do agree that the lead could use additions like those, but remember to try to keep things concise as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries has a good outline about what the ideal country article should contain. It was previously agreed upon that a similar, comprehensize format modeled on Featured articles India and People's Republic of China would be used for this article as well. See the above discussion about clean up for details. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with seav's edits. Though we want to keep things concise, the lead section needed expansion. The India and China articles also have 3-paragraph lead sections. Coffee 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture

Cleaned up list of notable personalities in "Culture". Specifically, I separated the list of sports personalities from the historical figures. Also, I made an important correction: Carlos P. Romulo did not became the Secretary-General of the United Nations: he became the first Asian president of the United Nations General Assembly on its Fourth Session. Here is a link to his biography on the UN Gen. Assembly website. --- Tito Pao 03:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did another significant edit on this section. First, while Lapu-lapu may have been the first native to resist any efforts of foreign conquest by being responsible for the death of Ferdinand Magellan (although it is doubtful that he personally killed him in battle), nothing much is known about Lapu-lapu, or about what he did for the Philippines. The others on the list of historical figures have done even more than Lapu-lapu, and on forethought some other person deserves a far better position. Notwithstanding the debates, I chose to put Andrés Bonifacio on the same paragraph as José Rizál; the Katipunan plays a prominent part of our post-Hispanic era, and when we say Katipunan we cannot forget Bonifacio. (Okay, on my next edit I might as well mention Emilio Aguinaldo on this paragraph, too, to stave off any violent reactions from both camps of the Aguinaldo-Bonifacio debates).

I am considering the list of prominent historical figures on this list. There was mention of Carlos Romulo but there is no Ninoy Aquino. There is Apolinario Mabini but no Manuel Quezon. Francisco Dagohoy is here (and students learn in school that his revolution was religion-inspired), but there is no Gregorio Aglipay or Felix Manalo. Also, why only athletes and not writers, musicians and painters (among others)? For example, Nicanor Abelardo (the so called "Father of the Kundiman") deserves mention, but his name is not here. And so are Nick Joaquin, Fernando Amorsolo, [[[Levi Celerio]], Amado V. Hernandez etc. I'm considering including them on my next edit, but I'll be doing my rewrite (of this entire section) offline first (to save online time and unnecessary re-edits).

Since the names on the list of historical personalities may have already appeared on the Philippine History page, I might as well just mention the names of these persons in passing and then provide a link to the Philippine History page by way of cross-reference. At the moment I cannot do that (yet) because I haven't read the Philippine History page in full. I will also need to double-check by reading the standard history textbooks (e.g. Teodoro Agoncillo, Renato Constantino).

Tito Pao 09:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel Romulo and Lapu-lapu are more historical and less cultural. I removed them but pls feel free to restore. I really don't think Aguinaldo needs to be mentioned.--Jondel 06:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what's on my mind :) What I really think is: Since Philippine History already has its own page, its better to leave Lapu-lapu and Romulo on that page instead of this one --- Tito Pao 18:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Eek. Somebody clean up the culture section. The part about the anime and the soap operas sounds so un-wikipedia-like.Chicbicyclist 11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The economy section is rather euphemistic and sounds like a propaganda brochure, a Wikipedia article should be objective. As far as I know the Philippines has never been regarded as a "new Asian tiger", but rather "never became one of the 'Asian tiger' economies". Economic performance in terms of "GDP per capita annual growth rate (%) 1990-2003" is rather poor compared to other Asian countries such as Vietnam or Thailand. --Rocator 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's bad. It's not nearly as overly optimistic as a "proganda brochure". The first sentence says that it's a developing country. Nowhere in that section is it even implied that the economy is a "new Asian Tiger". The section is in line with featured articles India and People's Republic of China by outlining pressing economic issues in the country and stating what the government is doing to address them. WikiProject Countries recommends the following for the economics section for country articles on Wikipedia:

Something brief about the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Link to "Economy of X"

The section seems to be in line with that recommendation for the most part. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

and the Philippines remains one of the poorest countries in the region. I'm removing this phrase. The country is not as poor as say, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, East Timor, and Vietnam(though Vietnam is catching up). Though the Philippines is not on par with Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei they deffinitely have more in common in macro-economic terms, especially with Thailand but deffinteily not comparable to the countries mentioned earlier.

Order of the Republics

According to the infobox the Second Republic came before the Third Republic and the text doesn't help. Sumahoy 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion

The article mentions:

About 94 % of all Filipinos are Christians. 83 % belong to the Roman Catholic Church.The other 9 % belonging to various Protestant denominations.

83+9=92... what's the other 2% if 9% are the various protestant denominations? -- Mang Kiko

Consider also Iglesia ni C(h)risto, Aglipayan, and conventional protestants :Baptists, Union Church, Methodists, etc. also unitarians:Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, etc.--Jondel 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't these groups all fits the description of "various Protestant denominations"? I don't know if you'd agree with my understanding that protestants are generally non-Catholics. --Mang Kiko 05:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two interpretations . Traditional Catholics consider non-Catholics as protestants. Historians consider Christian groups that historicaly protested or antagonized the Catholic Church as protestant, these are typically Lutherans and affiliates. Are the Greek ,Russian and Coptic Orthodox Churches protestant?They have only been geographically separated and developed that way . They maintain many sacraments seen in the Catholic Church. Also Christian coalitions have core requirements like acceptance of the Divinity of Jesus as the Son of God, Holy Trinity, Ressurection and Salvation through grace, personal relation to J.C. etc. Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, etc, don't accept all of these. Mormons have their own bible which they purport as the 'true word of God'. Even the Catholic Church accepts (I believe) certain groups as Christian even if they don't recognize the Pope as long as the fulfill these Christian requirements. Since this is an encyclopedia, we need to distinguish these forms. --Jondel 06:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can group non-Catholic Christian associated groups as Protestant depending on the legal or government interpretation or understanding.e.g. even if a person does not believe in God but enters 'Catholic', Protestant or whatever in applying for passports , marriage certificates, etc. whether the person believes or actually maintains the faith or not.--Jondel 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Many Anglicans/Episcopalians don't consider themselves as protestant. They tend to associate with Catholics, practise devotion to Mother Mary and other Catholic traditions.--Jondel 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Current leaders

Perhaps we can add on the main article who is the current president and vice president, and perhaps add their pictures, just like in the Australia article. Circa 1900 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

210.1.87.16

I reverted an edit by an anon, 210.1.87.16. I don't know if I over did it. Please check his version against my revert.

Mikereichold 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

69.29.88.79

You guys should add more pictures to see how beautiful the country is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.88.79 (talk • contribs)

Block anons permanently?

I am considering that this article be blocked permanently to anons considering multiple vandalisms and the article is fairly mature (?)..--Jondel 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Mang Kiko 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection might be necessary if the article is being constantly attacked by multiple new or anonymous users, but pages are rarely ever protected permanently. In fact, the only main namespace page that is permanently protected is the Main Page. Even George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are left susceptible to vandalism most of the time. --Tantalum T e lluride 05:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. When its 'vandalism season' , I'll block for about 2 days to a week as appropriate. I'l remove the anon block now.--Jondel 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was already unblocked by Woolkitty.--Jondel 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were an admin. Anyhow, I think you meant to say it was already unprotected by Woohookitty. :-) --Tantalum T e lluride 05:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes, unprotect. (Uh I think I'm the one under a mental block... :) )--Jondel 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

1898 Independence?

Independence did not occur until 1935 with the Philippine Independence Act. The treaty of Paris was held in 1898. The treaty provided that the Philippines be ceaded to the United States. As of 1898 the Philippines belonged to the U.S. I request that the article be unprotected on substantial grounds.

June 12, 1898 was the declaration of independence from Spain forming the First Philippine republic. It is immaterial that the United States and Spain did not recognize such an act of declaration, since it concerns only the unalienable Rights of the Filipino people to declare themselves free. The Filipinos, through the representation of its First Republic lobbied against the treaty, but the US Congress ratified the treaty believing that the Filipinos are incapable of self-rule and require American guidance. Independence from the United States did not happen until July 4, 1946. Philippine Independence Act (Tydings-McDuffie Act), approved in 1934, established the Philippine Commonwealth and promised independence within 10-years. -Mang Kiko 08:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The declaration of independence from Spain was done no less by the Filipino people-- which happened coincidentally in the aftermath of the Battle of Manila Bay (which the US had won). In addition, Spain's secession of Guam to Captain Henry Glass and his forces on the cruiser U.S.S. Charleston, and the retreat of Spanish Admiral Cámara y Libermoore's fleet to Spain helped conclude the Spanish-American War. The Philippines did not acquire its Independence since the United States had conquered the archipelago, shortly thereafter.

There is historical evidence that Spain put a lot of effort into not wanting to appear to loose to Filipino guerrillas. Thanks of course to the Americans, and many independence movements like that of Cuba, Spanish forces were very weak in the Philippines. Filipino revolutionists were not informed of the handover. Americans were allies at first .--Jondel 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

“The declaration of independence from Spain was done no less by the Filipino people” – which makes the declaration all the more valid because it was done by the Filipino people. As free people, they do not need the consent of the Americans or the Spaniards. Independence is not about winning, it is about recognizing that you no longer wish to be governed by someone else and that you will take responsibility for yourself no matter how short lived that independence may be. It is true that the declaration was never recognized by any national government, but that does not make it any less of a declaration. In reality, if you read the first few parts of the United States Declaration of Independence, it should have been very fundamental for the Americans to recognize such a declaration, but the American people opted to force its government onto another without the consent of the soon-to-be governed. Mang Kiko 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the British did not recognize the American declaration of independence and instead (mis)interpreted it as subversion. This is similar to situations of colonizers and the colonized nations initial independence movement everywhere. --Jondel 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if that were true, why is the philippines heavily reliant on the US if it were truly independent? Let us not forget that the Treaty of Paris 1898 has not died but is still in effect.

The United States themselves granted independence in 1946, thanks the lobbying of Quezon. Is this a request to unprotect the Philippines article?--Jondel 05:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of the word Phillipines/ Phillipino

Can somebody make an entry as to the etymology and root of this word? is from the Greek?

First it's Philippines and Filipino. The word "Philippines" came from King Philip II of Spain. 58.69.104.232 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Greek etymology of Phillip itself comes from 'Phili' and 'Hippo' which is love of horses. --Jondel 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How come it didn't become Felipe 2 or at least follow the Spanish spelling? Where did the pines in Philip-pines come from?--Jondel 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

a couple of points on the article that were mentioned previously

first of all, to one of the posters that suggested that Marcos was not well loved in the Philippines, you are wrong. He is/was well loved. He was demonized in the United States, but here in the Philippines, he was actually fairly well liked, though regarded perhaps as difficult towards the end of his rule. His wife is actually more or less blamed for the ills of "the Marcos era"......

Not true... Marcos exiled, imprisoned and, executed (ie. rubbed-out) lots of people (politicians, media moguls, journalists etc.) on mere suspicion of subversion which is unrealistic for a country which has a tradition of freedom of speech. How can a man of that stature be admired. It is true that he was a brilliant man and is popular in his hometown province but to say that he is, "well loved", needs to be clarified.

Also, I think "booming economy" is a bit of a stretch. There is a real problem here with the economy, and it has been like this for some time.

````Joaquin Kline

Some people love him, some people hate him. The economy is improving but there are still many problems.--Jondel 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can Anyone stop changing Hindu into Aglipay and Buddhist into protestant. Thank You! -Isao.

I agree that Marcos was a bad man. I don't like him at all. But, my point is that the hundreds of classmates and teachers and the occasional "guy in the FX" that I have heard remark in some way about Marcos has been positive in nature. I was very surprised about that myself. As I have stated, my observations are from first hand dealings with Filipinos on a daily basis. Having said that, my only concearn with the article was the passing reference to Marcos. His contribution, whether for the good or the bad, must be addressed thoroughly. BTW, I guess there will be a lot of traffic on this page with all of the recent problems, (old ladies crushed, mudslides, another coup detat attempt (so far).... interesting times here. But of course as the locals say, "Only in the Philippines"58.69.87.132 07:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Joaquin

I am copying a part of Russian History from Wikipedia to show that even as a horrible dictator such as Joseph Stalin, who may have been responsible for as many as 20,000,000 deaths, still retains an important position in the Historical aspects of the article. >>>>>>>> One of these was a Georgian named Joseph Stalin. A brief power struggle ensued after Lenin's death in 1924. Stalin gradually eroded the various checks and balances which had been designed into the Soviet political system and assumed dictatorial power by the end of the decade. Leon Trotsky and almost all other Old Bolsheviks from the time of the Revolution were killed or exiled. As the 1930s began, Stalin launched the Great Purges, a massive series of political repressions. Millions of people who Stalin and local authorities suspected of being a threat to their power were executed or exiled to Gulag labor camps in remote areas of Siberia.

Stalin forced rapid industrialization of the largely rural country and collectivization of its agriculture. Stalin also strengthened Russia's dominance within the Soviet Union as he buttressed his own hold on power. In 1928, Stalin introduced his "First Five-Year Plan" for modernizing the Soviet economy. Most economic output was immediately diverted to establishing heavy industry. Civilian industry was modernized and heavy weapon factories were established. The plan worked, in some sense, as the Soviet Union successfully transformed from an agrarian economy to a major industrial powerhouse in an unbelievably short span of time, but widespread misery and famine ensued for many millions of people as a result of the severe economic upheaval. >>>>>>>>>

just an idea of the tone that can be set within the article to give significance to a horrible, but influential figure. The similarities are pretty obvious. BTW, I use and enjoy the current article on the Philippines, just putting in my two centavos.124.106.130.118 09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Joaquin

Smallpox (and health)

Epidemics in the Philipines after American occupation seem to be one of the favoured stries for anti-vaccinationists to spread around. From other sources it looks as though there were frequent epidemics despite vacciantion efforts in the Spanish occupation/rule, then a period of confusion and failed supply when there was a war, then an improvmeent. 1) is there any great detail available to people who've made a study of the area and the times - say 1730 to 1977 but with core interest around 1880 to 1920? 2) does it seem to be a big deal - are the Americans blamed for introducing Ssmallpox or spreading it with vaccination? I notice there isn't a health article AFAICS, I wonder if it is a reasonable part of a country article? (I'm a doctor, so might be expected to think that)Midgley 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of Format (just like the show Change of Heart!)

I think the article should be edited and "reformatted" and I will be in charge. Sorry Jondel for that but when I looked at the WikiProject Countries section, it seems that the article doesn't follow the standard format the section gave. - Obin 3391 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic republic

at the table entry is wikilinked to unitary state. Don't know if this is correct or not. However, the article at democratic republic says d.r. is 'largely meaningless. --Jondel 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For political science buffs, it's unitary-presidential republic, as opposed from parliamentary and federal forms. Would I change it? Howard the Duck 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Frailocracy

I would like to see a definition of this term. It appears that this is not a common term; it is not in most dictionaries.

Maybe this should be Frairicracy or something like that.--Jondel 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Land Bridges?

During the Iron Age, Austronesian-speakers came from South China and Taiwan via land bridges and settled in the Philippines

I can hardly believe that one could walk from China or Taiwan to the Philippines during the iron age - the ice age was long over and sea levels were approximately where they are today. Icek 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

They had Jesus! LOL! Or was that Moses? __earth ^(Talk) 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Not on the Philippines per se but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth ^(Talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Navy of the Philippines section

This section is not appropriate for the main article and should be transferred to the subarticle Philippine Navy. Polaron | Talk 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

what is the history behind the spelling?

Philippines and Filipino...Ph vs. F - ippi vs. ipi

what is the history behind this different? why not The Filipines? Why not Philippino? Kingturtle 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of different languages. The name comes from King Phillip, which in Spanish is Felipe. It's like English philosophy and Spanish filosofía. --Chris S. 06:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See Philippines at List_of_country_name_etymologies#P--Jondel 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

that doesn't answer my question. why does English come away with the English spelling for the name of the country, but the spanish spelling for the name of the people? Kingturtle 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(For Philippines)I don't know if this will answer your question but if we assume that Latin was the authoritive language then, the name of the Philippines in latin was Philippinae. (genitive plural or nominative feminine , I'm not sure). I believe the English name was derived from the latin spelling.--Jondel 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Spanish spelling (Filipino), there are thousands of spanish words in all Filipino languages. Filipinos are more comfortable with the Spanish spelling. Philippinos??--Jondel 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hmmm. you don't seem to get the gist of my question. i know where the two different spellings come from. one is an English spelling and one is a Spanish spelling. my question is....how did it evolve in the English language that we have one term with English spelling origins and another spelling for Spanish spelling origins. Why don't we spell it Philippino? Kingturtle 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think only a linguist can authoritatively answer your question. There's probably no question about the term "Philippines" since the Philippine Islands did become one of the U.S.' colonies, and there's a wide perception at that time that English has supplanted French/Spanish as the global language. As for the term "Filipino," I guess, there's no good way to derive a noun from the term "Philippines" to refer to the citizens. The adjective "Philippine" sounds incomplete when used alone to refer to people. So the old Spanish term stuck. I don't think there's any precedent in the English language for the "Philippines" to "Philippino"/"Philipino" transformation. "Philippinian"/"Philippinese"/"Philippinish" are all more logical English transformations based on examples from other countries. But why use those when there's a perfectly usable term to import into English already? Personally, I really, really hate seeing the term "Philippino"/"Philipino". It looks so dumb and ignorant. --seav 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, someone is vandalising this article. I think he's turning the section for Islam in the Philippines into a 'security issue'- .--23prootie 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I only saw the diff and thought you had removed a section header. I now see that it shouldn't be there in the first place. Sorry about that. Polaron | Talk 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias (?)

I just noticed that the alleged rigging of elections and corruption in the current administration of Macapagal-Arroyo is conspicuously included in the last part of the article (History section), as if, this is more significant than EDSA 2, Estrada and Ramos.

Better delete that statement for it appears that the article is bias against Macapagal-Arroyo. Anyway, a more detailed article (History of the Philippines) tells everything that happened in the country. 'Politics' in Wiki should not be tolerated.203.76.243.171 08:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I modified it. Anybody else can make improvements.

Pictures (again)

Is it me or are the pictures are blatantly biased towards Metro Manila? --Howard t he Du c k 06:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

constitution history in infobox

I've converted the infobox parameters to use a new set of variable and deleted several entries concerning the historical constitutions. I left a link to Constitution_of_the_Philippines and the date of the current constitution. The point of the infobox variables is make the various rows of the infobox actual rows in the resultant HTML table so the infobox data can be understood by someone using a screen reader. The technique of making "virtual rows" spanning cells within a row makes the information extremely difficult to understand if you're not able to see the presentation. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Largest English Speaking Nation

This keeps being added so I'm adding this section, please feel free to discuss here. To be honest it should probably say, 3rd largest Nation whose citizens can but don't speak English. Come on. In the Philippines at home with friends or interacting in daily life, people speak Tagalog or Cebuano, Ilocano etc. English is spoken only in school, government, business, church or formal occasions, etc. English is also used in the media, entertainment, etc. The mainstream don't speak English at home or with friends. Wrong information will cause many problems. --Jondel 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted at Anglophones. Mainstream Filipinos can but won't use English with each other.--Jondel 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say the ther largest English-speaking country in the world in which English is the Second Language or in which English is not the mother tongue (or probably second after India). -- (peads 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)).

Agreed! --Jondel 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But not English-speaking ? There is a useful reference:Philippine English. English is for textbooks like calculus, and company and governement procedures, memos etc. But in informal occasions, English is avoided.--Jondel 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives