Talk:Philippines/archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


Contents

Please restore lost cite

I see that this page is not protected. Would a dumbass please restore the <ref name="religion"> declaration which was lost in this edit and which has been missing since 23:51, January 1, 2007. -- Boracay Bill 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been protected, and I made this edit. -- Boracay Bill 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Erap's verdict - plunder or blunder?

Deleted material relevant to improving the article.

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- Boracay Bill 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious totals

It says 94% Christian, 5% Muslim, and 5% non-Christian non-Muslim. Something does add up. dtfinch 20:30, 14 September 1234 (UTC)

It does since you're always going to have some people who follow more than one religion (declaring one and following another later on in life) as well as statistical discrepancies. Taospark 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the 94% total is consistent with the Religion in the Philippines article, where Christianity is listed as 90.3% of the population. The source cited in this article support the 94% number, while the numbers in the Religion in the Philippines article are supported in the CIA World Factbook reference. Thus, I'd suggest that the percentage of Christians in this article be changed to 90%, adding a reference to the CIA World Factbook. Jarbru (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... The CIA Factbook says: "Religions: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1% (2000 census)". 80.9 + 2.3 + 2 + 4.5 is 89.7%. Presuming that "Evangelical" is meant to be taken as "Evangelical Christian" brings that up to 92.9%. A more recent take on this can be seen in the International Religious Freedom Report 2007, which says (paraphrasing) 80-85% Catholic, 6.8% El Shaddai (6M/89M), Islam 5-9%, Other Christian <5%. nationmaster.com says on this page : 82.27% Catholic, 5% Islam (146,613/89.5M); and says elsewhere: 82.27% Catholic, 10% Protestant, 5% Islam. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
El Shaddai is Catholic, if I may add... --Howard the Duck 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing section

Were is the section on the Armed Forces of the Philippines? Most nation's articles have a section that talks about their military, if only briefly. Contralya 04:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-spanish culture

So how come theres no section in the history about language, writing system, social classes and culture before the spanish came. 192.168.1.1 07:09, 6 October 3007 (UTC) Well theres a lot of that now, but i think that the influence of the indic civilizations is overemphasized in relation to the Spanish. Buddhism never established itself in Philippines and the idea that the cultural tendencies of India affect the average Filipino today are shaky at best. Compared to the overwhelming influence of Spain and Catholicism north of Mindanao, Indian influence is virtually nil. A better way to organize this would be to include a larger selection of the Austronesian tribes and their legends, values, etc. etc. that affect Filipinos today.

I had to trim down those Indian statements. It would make it appear that the Indian influences of the Philippines is widespread but if you think about it, the fact that it came via indirect sources, and arrived a long time ago mainly eroded those influences and are mainly nonexistent. --Howard the Duck 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Source citations

The 11th citation seems to be an editoral, and not an actual paper upon the P-A war. It would be far better to cite this section with a more scholarly work, as the editorial itself is fairly politically biased to an extreme. In addition, the 12 cite references "San Juan", to an unknown article by the same editorial writer. I am not disputing the fact, but the source damages the credibility of the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Glendower (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Filipinas o Pilipinas?? Alin?

Since the letter f has been included in our alphabet, is it more appropriate to spell Pilipinas as Filipinas, besides the national language authority has been encouraging (as I have heard) the use of Filipinas instead of Pilipinas. J.J. Nario ilyk2learn 11:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino used Filipinas when the 2001-2006 orthography was in effect, and reverted to Pilipinas soon after (using the 1987 rules). The KWF's use of Filipinas in itself is very inconsistent and Pilipinas is still more common among government agencies. Moreover, the only dictionary that includes Filipinas over Pilipinas is the UP Diksyonaryong Filipino (only to be consistent with Filipino) and Filipinos the world over use Pilipinas over Filipinas. Given such, and since linguistic prescription is not always correct, I think it would be inappropriate. --Sky Harbor 15:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Filipinas is Spanish while Pilipinas is Tagalized etc. --Filipinayzd 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit re PSE index

For some reason, this edit toggled me into nitpick mode regarding a paragraph which currently reads (cites elided):

“ The primary local stock market index, operated by the Philippine Stock Exchange, also hit a record high in June 1, 2007 while the Philippine peso is trading at around the PHP42 level to a US dollar, and is currently PHP42.79 as of November 09, 2007 making it Asia's best performing currency so far by appreciating by 14%, edging out the Indian Rupee. However, the strong peso does have disadvantages like "hurting OFW families, small businesses and new jobs". ”
  • The Philippine Stock Exchange does not operate the primary local stock market index. According the PSE website, the PSE is "... a private organization that provides and ensures a fair, efficient, transparent and orderly market for the buying and selling of securities." It would probably be better to say that the PSE operates the primary local stock market and publishes stock market indices.
  • The PSE Wikipedia article asserts that the PSE is is one of the two stock exchanges in the Philippines, and "... is split into eight indices based on a company's main source of revenue" (it would probably be better to say that the PSE publishes these eight indices).
  • It is not clear to me which (if any) of the eight PSI indices listed in the Wikipedia PSE article is being referred to by the assertion in this paragraph that "The primary local stock market index, operated by the Philippine Stock Exchange, also hit a record high in June 1, 2007 ...", but I see here that the PSE publishes an index (apparently overlooked in the Wikipedia PSE article) which it calls the PSEi, and the PSE monthly report for June 2007 here said, "The PSEi climbed to a new all-time record high of 3,718.88 points on June 20." (vs. the June 1 date given in this paragraph), and this appears to show that the PSEi declined from this level to a low of around 2,900 in August and is currently back up to above 3,700.
  • The assertion that "... the Philippine peso is trading at around the PHP42 level to a US dollar" needs dating in order to put it into context (and "currently" is unhelpful and meaningless for this, as "currently" in a Wikipedia article would refer to whatever unspecified date the assertion appeared rather than to the date on which someone might be reading the assertion. Ditto for "so far", which is used in this paragraph to date some currency conversion rate info which it contains).
  • On a general note, I think this level of detail in this section is not useful, even if the detail provided is correct and is put into understandable context time-wise.

I'm just commenting and nitpicking here. I'll leave it to others more able than I to supply whatever fixups might be needed. -- Boracay Bill 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll be better if you remove that - as a matter of fact, the entire economy section should be cleaned up. It could do some spring cleaning. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for basic traits & beliefs to be added to culture pls

We filipinos value friendship a lot & trust a lot. We are usually very hurt when betrayed. We also in general have a soft spot for the underdog. Usually when someone loses a game, a fight or almost anything relating to losing, we console the loser. Because of our common belief that "Nobody is perfect". We also have learn to always to laugh at our mistakes, not to take it seriously, This I like to share with all of you " When you make a mistake, always remember that it cant be that bad., there is always tommorow, learn from it, & laugh at it!!!!" We also have also bad traits like procrastination, like always putting things off for tommorow but not so much now, We have very close family ties & we respect our elders very much. We also have flaws like being too critical of a product & we are always late in parties, even sometimes in other affairs, but we are realizing our mistake now & laughing at it. We also always get in a fight very much in a argument because usually no one will concede who is wrong & the other is proving that he is right. We also usually forgive someone if he or she says sorry for his mistakes & becomes friends again. I like to add some more but I cant think of anything else to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultima weapon (FF) (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia convention and policy, any of the above that is added to the main body of the article must be backed up with in-line footnoted citations and published resources. At the moment, because these traits you're offering are generally considered ethnic stereotyping and based on opinion rather than scientifically backed fact, there are going to be various readers and editors who will end up removing your claims from the article as being prejudicial (even if many might agree with your summation). Also, I find it difficult for anyone to find reputable published sources to back each of these claims. --Gerald Farinas (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

administrative divisions as of September 2007

Hello to all! Would like to suggest some updates to the section on administrative divisions. The latest data: 17 regions, 81 provinces, 136 cities, 1494 municipalities, 14995 barangays. The source is the National Statistical Coordination Board http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2007/13Nov_PR-200711-PP2-01PSGC.asp 125.5.36.66 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)dnong 2007-11-27

Y Done --Howard the Duck 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Economy

For additional sub-section, I think this could help, Militant Labor in the Philippines. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This could help also as ref to culture and customs sections, Culture and Customs of the Philippines. Sorry pero hindi muna ako aapak sa article na to for sourcing, busy pa sa EDSA I. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is terribly looooooong already. If you can incorporate this to economy and politics section while removing some unneeded paragraphs it'll be OK I guess. --Howard the Duck 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry HtD but I can't help for now. You know the collaboration drive right? I'm busy finding sources on EDSA I so I cant help. Maybe next time. By the way, the article isn't that too long. There are articles bout a city even longer than that of the Philippines. The second source might be useful on the Culture section. It lacks sources. Thank you. =) --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow... I didn't know Google can let you read books... >:) --Howard the Duck 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Google let me read their books.Hehe.=) --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stats in infobox and lead section

One sentence in the lead section says, "The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country,[3] with a population of 88 million.[4]" Ref 3 is for 2006 figures from the World Bank, Ref 4 is for Census 2000 figures from the RP government, with projections for years beyond 2000. The World Bank source cited as Ref 3 gives a population figure of 84.59 million. It seems to me that Ref 3 figures should be used for both ranking and population, especially since the two figures appear within the same sentence.

Some of the infobox figures differ from the figures in the lead paragraph -- GDP and population are the ones which I have noticed, but I have not checked closely. The infobox gives supporting sources for some of its figures, and presents many figures without giving supporting sources. Where supporting sources are given, this is often done just in invisible comments. The sources cited in the infobox include RP NSO census figures, NSO projections, figures from http://www.mrdowling.com (???), and figures from other wikipedia articles (a deprecated practice). The lead section uses NSO figures/projections and World Bank figures.

This all seems pretty chaotic to me, but I'm reluctant to mess with it. Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've grown tired of anons changing the figures without adding new updated refs. I guess you can "mess around" with it, remove the oldest references and use the newest ones. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've redone the infobox and made some changes in the lead section, trying to regularize supporting sources and to cite the sources used. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

philippine annulment

Hello, I hope this works. I am in the midst of getting an annulmeent for a Philippine woman and it has been 8 months and I assume everything is going well, I have no reson to believe that anything is not going along. The woman is as honest as can be, I have been with her for 1 1/2 years and been there three times. No particular questions, just seeing if any one has comments and also checking into this Wikipedia thing? Kurt, Also, feel free to contact me back and tell me how this wikipedia works? This seems cool.71.67.191.27 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 12-25-07


Hi!, this isn't the exact place to ask questions not related to articles or make personal messages( whos Kurt?). I (or anyone else who wants to)will be erasing this section soon. Please read this Wikipedia:Introduction. --Jondel (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he just wanted to express. hehe. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he knows a Wikipedian. --Sky Harbor 04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It does look like he knows a Wikipedian. Could it be that he's referring to Kurt Guirnela? --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish

Is there a source for Spanish being an official language? Josh (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

no and the reference used doesn't mention spanish... anyone know why we are keeping it in the article? harlock_jds (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
i looked over the archives and saw that spansih had been removed many times in the history of the article (as it not an offical language anymore). I'm taking it out. harlock_jds (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the situation goes like this: in the Philippine Constitution, Filipino and English are considered the "official languages" as far as official government communications are concerned ("Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.").[1] However, there is also a provision for including Spanish and Arabic as somewhat supplementary languages for official communications. There are reasons for this: first, before the two World Wars, many legal documents were still written in Spanish. Second, Arabic is used by Filipino adherents of Islam, who come from diverse ethnic groups with their own languages and dialects (AFAIK, Arabic is one of the subjects being taught in the Mindanao madrasahs). Third, there is indeed a Spanish-speaking minority (albeit a very small minority). Fourth, Spanish used to be a required subject in Philippine colelges and university (and there are proposals to revive Spanish as a required subject). At any rate, I do not object to the removal of Spanish as one of the "official" languages, although there must be a way to accommodate the said provision in the Constitution in the article. Let me check on that.... ---Tito Pao (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind that, it is mentioned that Spanish and Arabic are officially considered the auxilliary languages of the Philippines. There's also a link to the main Philippine Constitution article, so I don't have to re-edit that part. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This "Spanish is an official language" always gets added on the article, I'm not surprised that it happened again. Maybe this are the same guys pushing for their Hispanic POV. Maybe they think Filipinos still speak had spoken Spanish. --Howard the Duck 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In August President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced that Spanish would be reinstated as an official language of the Philippines by January 2008, and has asked help from the Spanish government to implement this plan. This will mean the reintroduction of Spanish as a required subject in the Philippine school system. During PGMA's visit to Spain last Decemeber, she confirmed this decision in front of Spanish and Filipino politicians, scholars and businessmen [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.45.225.50 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Both references say that "the Spanish language will once more be obligatory in the school curriculum in her country" but not that spanish is being reinstated as an offical language. harlock_jds (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Classes began today and no Spanish classes were reported, nor was this reported to the local media (note that the 2 refs aren't from the Philippines.) --Howard the Duck 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That's because it's the middle of the second semester (which usually begins in October-November and ends in March-April), and come to think of it, you can't just create new classes just when colleges are almost in mid-semester and when there's no way they have to restart a new enrolment process just for this class. I need to double-check on this, but I think that what was originally meant was that PGMA was asking the Spanish government for assistance in January (probably draft some plans, study proposals, etc.). As for new Spanish classes, I think we'll need to wait for the start of the new school year---in June 2008---to verify if, in fact, colleges and universities will offer Spanish as part of the core subjects. But, yes, I do agree that a constitutional amendment is necessary, as Spanish was clearly designated as an "auxiliary" language. In case it does appear that PGMA considers Spanish as an official language, I can't wait to hear of someone (probably Oliver Lozano? :P ) file a case in the Supreme Court for gross violation of the Constitution. Personally, I don't think it was a good idea including such information as official languages and flag specification in the Constitution itself, for reasons that deserve its own topic or post =P --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Now the problem is although I've encountered this story before, I've never encountered it on the local press, TV, radio, anything, especially since it'll concern the language of instruction in schools all over the country (it is big news if you think about it). --Howard the Duck 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I think that you also have to consider that most news reports focus on certain aspects of PGMA's visit and glosses over (if at all) just the gist of what they (or their editors) consider as insignificant, including (I think) the issue about the Spanish language. If I'm not mistaken, most news accounts paid attention to the huge junket that flew with PGMA, and the statement of King Carlos that PGMA's government is committed to human rights in spite of the recent reports about the Army's involvement in the killings of journalists. (Or maybe that's because I'm reading too much of the PDI :P ) That's the same with TV reports, they also tend to focus on these issues and report less on, say, any new trade deals between the Philippine and Spanish governments and, in this case, the issue about the said reintroduction of Spanish in the education curriculum. (This kind of bias is why, among other things, I don't watch TV news from GMA and ABS-CBN, I tend to rely on print newspapers and other sources, wag lang ang Kapuso at Kapamilya :P )--- Tito Pao (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way for Spanish to be official...

...is only through amending the constitution. Now given the constitution is unamended in its 21 years of existence will show you how unlikely Spanish will be the official language, especially that it's spoken by less than 10,000 of the population, excluding Chavacano/Chabacano, which isn't really Spanish.

If the day comes the constitution is other amended or revised, and one of the amendments/revisions is the addition of Spanish as an official language, then that's the time Spanish can be added in the infobox. --Howard the Duck 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The government would also have to promote and 'advertise it.
   -good for business, call-centers, etc
   -promote international interaction and understanding, specialy with Spanish America and Spain.
   -enable reading Noli, Malolos Constitution and other historical documents in the original.
  • Allow some media in Spanish, e.g. Marimar,telenovelas,cartoons in Spanish.
(inter-paragraph comment) As I understand it, the government is inhibited by the Freedom of Speech protections of constitution from allowing media in Spanish (or whatever other language). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But there are lots of programs in Chinese both from overseas and for and by Filipino Chinese about Filipino affairs. --Jondel (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Encourage it in areas with the creole, like Zamboanga and Cavite. Ò_Ó

--Jondel (talk) 09:13, 94 January 9008 (UTC)

~~Philippnes~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.170.212 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversions and taggings

I've reverted the population figure from 82,498,735 (said to be 2007) to 76,498,735 (previously said to be 2006, but I've changed that to 2000) per the cited supporting source.

The recent change of some refs from <Ref name=IMF2006 /> to <Ref name=IMF2007 /> broke the associated reference in the References section since no Ref named IMF2007 was defined. The Ref named IMF2006 actually contains figures for years from 2005 through 2008, but the figures for 2007 and 2008 are estimates by the IMF staff. I've reverted back to the 2006 figures from the source named IMF2006. I have no idea where the figures which I've reverted from came from -- the didn't match the IMF 2007 estimate figures.

In the article text, I've changed the mention of a 145.64B(said to be 2007) GDP to the IMF-2006 supported figure of 117.562B(2006)

I haven't changed the rankings figures since a footnote in the infobox disclaims "Rankings above were taken from associated Wikipedia pages as of December, 2007, and may be based on data or data sources other than those appearing here.", and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources of verifiable information.

I've added a {{cn}} tag after the recently-inserted unsupported assertion which reads "the population living in poverty fell down to 23.7 million in 2007."

I've added a {{failed verification}} tag after the recently-added assertion which reads "It also grew the second fastest in the Southeast Asian region for that year and the fifth in Asia. It is also predicted tha t by 2020, the Philippines will be put in the line of wealthy countries and proclaimed as one of the developed nations.", since I was unable to verify that assertion in the cited supporting source.

I've added a {{cn}} tag after the recently-added unsupported assertion which reads "Population growth rate in 1995-2000 is 3.21% but then dramatically fell to 1.59% for 2005-2010. There is also a government project will be underead namely "2 child policy" derived from the Chinese population control." (there's a typo in there which i have left uncorrected since I'm not sure what was intended). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)