Talk:Philippines/Archive 8

message: I have some wonders about how to spell the names of cities in the Philippines in their correct form. Let's take a city like Mandaluyong in Metro Manila as an example. As I understand it, the official way to write the name is City of Mandaluyong. However, it's found as Mandaluyong City here on wiki. Shouldn't it be either City of Mandaluyong or just Mandaluyong? The official names of cities in the Philippines have either City of... before the name, or City after the name (as for Quezon City). A thought I have is that cities with City of... shall only have their main name (which gives Mandaluyong) and cities with City after the name shall have the full official name written (for instance Quezon City). A speculation of mine, of course, but it makes some sense I think. Can someone bring some light over this? I am not interested in what "people on the street" call their city, just what the correct official forms are. --Pjred 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all correct, although wiki uses <cityname> City since it is the most common name. The legal name of majority of the cities is "City of <cityname>". --Howard the Duck 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct names of cities in the Philippines? 

message: I can't believe there is nothing about us being called the pearl of the orient. We even have/had these on our license plates, just because it isn't a 'fad' anymore to call us that doesn't mean we have given up that title.  The Philippines will always remain the true, the original, and the only Pearl of the Orient :) 124.104.33.140 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. Then maybe we should also blank the President of the U.S. title since alot of people do not recognise the Bush presidency to be a legitimate one, well i think his first term wasn't, via florida ballots. Coojah 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about being the "PEARL OF THE ORIENT"? 

message: I am half Filipino and my mom, although having some Chinese blood (she was the Filipino one) didn't speak Chinese at home this stereotype obviously doesn't include the entire Tsinoy/Tsinay population but then my mom is 1/4 Chinese--69.234.176.81 05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Min Han Chinese 

message: I encourage everybody to participate in this meeting. Please post your replies to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Manila 2 --Exec8 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's meet and talk about Wikipedia and the Philippines

message: Travel arrangements to the Philippines can easily be made via travel agencies and tour companies all over the world. The land structure makes travel by plane the easiest way to get to the Philippines. Manila, Cebu and Davao are some of the major cities that host International Airports. Most visitors land in Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), which has recently opened its 3rd terminal. The country has two flag carriers – Philippine Airlines and Cebu Pacific, although several other airline companies service the Philippines daily.
Travel options inside the Philippines include trains, ferries, buses, jeepneys, taxis, tricycles and pedicabs. The Philippine National Railways network is a line that runs from North to South of Luzon. Although much older than the LRT and MRT, it is still able to serve its purpose of conveying travelers across the island. The Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT) are a series of interconnected railways that could take you around Metro Manila.
With the large number of companies operating interisland ferries and provincial bus lines, you can get to virtually any spot in the country with ease. Recent innovations in travel spurred the RoRo method of traveling. The more adventurous can try this Roll-on, Roll-off way which takes much longer than a direct flight to your province of choice, but offers more exposure to the culture and the amazing scenery.
City travel is made manageable by local buses, numerous taxis and jeepneys. Jeepneys are remnants of the Jeep used by American troops during World War II. Filipinos have customized it for public transportation by lengthening the body and adding horizontal seat for as much as 20 people. Tricycles (motorbikes fitted with a side cab) and pedicabs (manual bikes also fitted with a cab) are also an interesting transport vehicle but are only recommended for very short distances.
Violetdolor 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need a few cites for this to go to the article page. And perhaps shorten this a little bit. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation Section on Philippines  

message: The name Phillip derives from the Latin Philipp, meaning "Phillip", and the Greek ines, meaning "islands".
:"Islands" in Greek is "Nesia": like "Indonesia" meaning: "islands of India (or the indies)". Or "Melanesia" meaning the "islands of the black (people)" - because the European explorers encountered negroid peoples there. "Ines" in Philippines (Spanish: "inas" in "Filipinas") is simply a suffix.
:I haven't seen the wiki article yet but actually, Phillip is Greek meaning Lover of horses, short for 'philo hippos'. Ussually the name comes from Phillipp II, father of Alexander. There are many Greek words in Latin. --Jondel 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name Phillip 

message: "Traditional Filipino martial arts, such as eskrima, had secretly been banned by the Spanish during the three-hundred year colonial period..."
How do you ban something in secret? Doesn't a ban on something like a martial art have to be pretty public? Otherwise couldn't have been enforced. Correct me if I'm wrong. - 205.193.82.252 21:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  secret ban? 

message: The economy section sounds too rosy, it's too good to be true. --Howard the Duck 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Dear Howard, thanks for your message. I understand that one of the objectives of Wikipedia is to give accurate and neutral explanations of the issues concerned. From an academic point of view I would say it is far from accurate or even neutral to summarise a three hundred-year period of history into simple "fights against revolts and foreign challenges". Except for Christian religion, there is no reference to the elements of civilization brought by Spanish rule, or to institutions like universities or schools (that still exist today) or the network of infrastructures (roads, ports and bridges), or even the concept of Philippine Nationality brought about by the unification of a group of previously independent islands and regions. Such unified concept of "Philippine" identity did not exist before the 17th century, and there is no mention of this.
You argue that the "institutions, infrastructures or elements of civilization" are in the "Culture" section, but I could not find them. The Culture section simply talks about "music, dance, food.." and other cultural elements, as well as Spanish surnames in the Philippines, and the influence of Spanish architecture on Philippine buildings. (In many cases it's not just "influence" as many of the buildings were actually built during the colonial period so they are actually "Spanish" not merely "Spanish-influenced"). But there is no reference either to the concepts of code of law, citizenship or education introduced during those 300 years, or even free public education established in the 19th century. Allow me to question both the accuracy and neutrality of a text that ignores such elements of not just western, but universal human civilization.
Many thanks, JCR
:We do not omit those, they're linked in many articles. This article is meant to be a summary. For example, in a summary of Star Wars Episode IV, omitted are events such as Darth Vader's meeting with Princess Leia at her prison. If we'd list those, we might as well list everything else, and that'll make the article very, very, long. --Howard the Duck 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Philippine identity, if you'd ask me, started to appear in the last years of the 19th century, not the 17th century. People still identify themselves as Bisayas or Ilocanos by that time; they only started identifying themselves as Filipinos by 1870s onwards. And universities and schools started appearing only in the 20th century; for example, 6 out of 8 members of the UAAP were established after 1899. --Howard the Duck 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 333 Years of History summarised as "fighting indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges"?

message: Dear Howard, I understand it is supposed to be a summary. Indeed, a historical summary is supposed to include the main events of a certain period, meaning the most prominent or decisive events. Why do the authors of this article conider "indigeneous revolts and external colonial challenges" the most important events? A historical account cannot take for granted the advances of civilization, educational institutions, infrastructures, or even the concept of nationality that were brought by colonial rule. All these issues are essential to the development of the Philippine nation and should be included in a historical summary.
In terms of schools and universities, the article cannot ignore that many existing educational insitutions were established in the colonial period. Yes, probably the majority of existing schools & universities today are post 1898, of course. But the academic heritage of the colonial period cannot be ignored. It was that colonial rule that introduced such academic institutions in the Philippines. A summary of a 300-year period deserves a mention of this, including that the oldest university in Asia was a Philippine university estabished during that time: the University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595. Or that such well-known universities as University of Santo Tomas or the Ateneo de Manila were also established during the colonial period (1611 and 1859 respectively).
Regarding identity, it is arguable excatly when the concept of Philippine identity appeared. Many would agree with you that indeed this appeared in the 19th century. But the summary should contain a mention of the basic fact that colonial rule brought the unification of a large geographic area, that later made possible the concept of "Philippine" nationality and indeed identity. In my opinion this cannot be ignored, even in a summary.
Regards, JCR
:Look, if you'll add those, you'd have to remove some of the text in the article. Tell me what should be removed in order for your additions to be added. --Howard the Duck 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A summary should include prominent events

message: Thanks Howard. I would rewrite the 4th paragraph to make it only slightly longer. The paragraph that starts with "Roman Catholic missionaries converted..." would be divided into 2 paragraphs, that would look like this:
"The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain (Mexico) from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Spain. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco traveled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various local indigenous revolts and various external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese, Dutch, and Portuguese. The Philippines was the centre of the Spanish East Indies which included Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.
Three centuries of Spanish rule brought trade, education, and the Christian religion to the Philippines. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Catholicism, which has remained the largest religion to this day. The construction of roads and ports made transportation easier between islands, increasing local and foreign trade. The establishment of numerous academic and medical institutions helped the Philippines become one of the most advanced countries in Asia by the 19th century. The University of San Carlos in Cebu, founded in 1595 by the Jesuits, is the oldest university in Asia. In the 19th century the Cadiz Constitution of 1812 granted all Filipinos Spanish citizenship regardless of ancestry or place of birth. The Philippines opened itself to world trade on September 6, 1834. In 1863 universal education was introduced, a measure that proved crucial in forming an educated class of Filipinos called the Ilustrados ("Enlightened" ones) which later participated in the Philippine Revolution".
Another suggestion is to simply divide the History section into 5 subcategories, for example: Pre-Colonial (beginning), Spanish Colony (3rd paragraph), Revolution (paragraph starting with "A propaganda movement..), American Rule (paragraph starting "The Spanish-American War..) and Independence.
Regards, JCR
:Before you do that, read WP:SIZE. The article is already long and it doesn't even have the other prerequisite country sections (see the "To do" box above). Also, snooping around from some great articles, India doesn't have to do schools or even universal eduction (did a quick read). And the USC and UST issue is not yet resolved, since USC became a university only in the 1940s.
:In addition, India#History only has 5 paragraphs]]. Ours has 9. And to think India's history is much, much longer than RP's.
:Finally, India is 51 KB long, the Philippines is 53 KB long. Actually, we shouldn't be talking about adding info, instead we should talk about condensing info, especially the very long Economy section. But since I'm no economist, I won't lift a finger on that section. --Howard the Duck 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (:See also: Talk:Philippines/Archive 5#History. --Howard the Duck 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for 4th paragraph

message: In order to end this already, I suggest the addition of the statement "On 1863 the colonial government introduced a system of free primary-school education in Spanish." No mention of schools (since Santo Tomas and San Carlos weren't founded as a consequence the decree) or anything else, this should be fine already. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: You keep dismissing the issues I am presenting with irony, calling them one "decisive" or "momentous" moment. First, I have never talked about the moment being decisive, but the actual events ignored in this paragraph which are relevant and important. (At any rate, these events did not happen in one moment but in a period of three centuries). Second, irony will not help in contending arguments, unless you have ample proof behind it. In the long discussion above I have explained that the colonial period saw the following prominent if not decisive events in the history of the Philippines, which are omitted from the article: 1) political unification and the creation of the concept of "Philippine" Nation, 2) introduction of western tools such as plow and wheel (which were fundamental for large-scale agriculture and the growth of cities) and western concepts such as: calendar, clock, printing, and the code of law, all unknown to the native population prior to that, 3) infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and ports, 4) New crops (corn, tobacco, camote, coffee, tea, cocoa, beans, onion, etc) and new livestock (horse, cow, sheep etc)  5) Growth of trade, specially international trade,  6) Education, not only public primary education (in 1863) but an important academic tradition with universities starting in 1595 (the first in Asia)  7) Other institutions such as hospitals, churches, factories etc. All of the above are basic in forming the Philippine nation we know today. According to Filipino writer Nick Joaquin these elements are:
:"...the greatest in our history because they have been affecting us since the 16th century and will continue to affect this nation as long as there are Filipinos." 
:(Nick Joaquin, in "Culture and History")
I hope these points are clear and we can now advance in finding a consensus for the mentioned paragraph. JCRB 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually willing to allow this to be added, just no mention of schools. Just keep it brief. The article is very long already. About two or three compound sentences. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Contents 

message: The 3rd paragraph currently reads:
:At the service of Spain, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his crew were the first Europeans to arrive in the archipelago in March 1521. Magellan was later killed in battle by indigenous warriors in Mactan Island on account of political conflicts with Lapu-Lapu. The beginnings of colonization started to take form when King Philip II of Spain (after whom the Philippines was named) ordered a successive expedition.  The conquistador, Miguel López de Legazpi arrived from Mexico in 1565 and formed the first Spanish settlements in Cebu. In 1571 he established Manila as the capital of the new Spanish colony.Kurlansky, Mark. 1999. The Basque History of the World. Walker & Company, New York. , p. 64 
I think that a couple of changes and additions would improve that. I suggest the following:
:At the service of Spain, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his crew were the first Europeans to arrive in the archipelago in March 1521. Magellan was later killed in battle by indigenous warriors in Mactan Island on account of political conflicts with Lapu-Lapu. The beginnings of colonization started to take form when Antonio de Mendoza, the first Viceroy of New Spain, commissioned the expedition of Ruy López de Villalobos to the Philippines in 1542-1543.  In 1565, the conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi arrived and formed the first Spanish settlements in Cebu. In 1571, Legazpi established Manila as the capital.Kurlansky, Mark. 1999. The Basque History of the World. Walker & Company, New York. , p. 64 
The info for that change comes from the New Spain article, and I am presuming its correctness. One significant point of this change would be to attribute the commissioning of the 1542-1543 expedition to the New Spain viceroy instead of to King Phillip.  The wikilinks to the pages for Mendoza and Villalobos are useful, as that voyage is discussed a bit on those pages. The elimination of the mention King Phillip in this paragraph would necessitate a change earlier on to explain the origin of the country's name. 
Also, I've removed the description of the Philippines in 1571 as "the new Spanish colony". because, as I understand it from discussions above regarding the 4th paragraph, Spain had considered the Philippines to have been a province of New Spain for some time by 1571. I haven't seen the book cited at that point, and so don't know whether or not any of this might conflict with what that book says. -- Boracay Bill 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd paragraph

message: Although Spanish may have once been spoken in the Philippines, I'm unsure how easy it is to find someone who speaks conversational Spanish, a non-official language, there.  This contrasts with:
-the Maghreb, where French is widely spoken (except in Libya, a former Italian colony)
-Israel, which has a sizeable Russian-speaking population, a consequence of immigration there from former Soviet republics 74.12.144.138 02:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Spanish or Hispanic people that continually add those here and insists that Spanish is still a language are the ones doing that. --Howard the Duck 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless, all of the edits adding Spanish to the language part in the infobox came from people with an agenda of making Spanish as a "national language," so I'm still correct. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is actually a pattern. Latin American anons will add "Spanish" the "official language" at the infobox, added "Republica de Filipinas" as a local name and several other Spanish/Latin American/Amerindian stuff which shouldn't be here. See also Talk:Spanish language. There's a pattern and the history log shows it. Ergo, it was OK and right for me to say those words. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, it's not Latin Americans but a Spanish IP it seems (This edit came from a Spanish IP. And they still have an agenda, I recently reverted Spanish language which added Philippines in the infobox there. --Howard the Duck 13:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Howard, Bakit ganon ka pare? Wala kanaman nang ebidencia? Mayabang ka pare!, Hindi yung ang solution. In my opinion you deserved to be harrased kasi parang sino ka mag kwintohan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.220.72 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Howard or should I say Jericho!, Walang agenda ang manga tao dito, E kao ang mai agenda sa kastila. You make every thing a big deal!, AHh totoo' yan diba? Olol ka Howard! Utak mo parang bata!, sentimentalista ka ba or bakla ka ba?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Howard or should I say Jericho, your a good editor, but geesh pare, your so sentimenalist when it comes to a disagreement. It's really gay how you easily get upset when someone doesn't agree with you. Have some sense of humour pare, Para kang serious type na tao. Your so weird Jericho!.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Howard or should i say Jericho the nurse, also known as the crawler! Filipinos are so sentimentalist, easily heart broken. Come to think of it; it's kind of funny. Have some pride! Stand up straight, don't be a dick or a show-off and be proud of who you are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.207.52 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: G'day mate! Makakatawa ka Howard!... Your one weird funny editor. By the way, this pointing fingers issue is so boring and full of crap. Move on and get over it. It's not a big deal...Cheers mate!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.130.111 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate, Howard hasn't replied to your last 5 replies. It is you who's not moving on, lol  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.91.27 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It won't be easy to dis/prove that these anon editors are among those who have an agenda in promoting Spanish as one of the official languages of the Philippines; remember that anon IP edits may come from shared IP addresses (for example, in an Internet cafe). However, for the record, the Philippine Constitution explicitly states that Filipino and English are considered the two official languages of the Philippines, and both the Spanish and Arabic languages were mentioned as the two auxilliary languages in the government's official communications. Two reasons for this: 1. Arabic is used by our Muslim brethren in the South, and 2. aside from the fact that there is, indeed, a minority of Spanish-speaking Filipinos, some legal documents (especially the pre-WW II ones) were written in Spanish. --- Tito Pao 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I propose that we create disambiguation pages for 'Philippine' and 'Philippines,' the links to which will go on the top of the page, just like the set-up in the Canada article. Thoughts? --- Dakilang Isagani 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Philippine' and 'Philippines'