Talk:Demographics of the Philippines/Archive 1

message: I reverted the changes which decreased the estimate of the native Malay population from 95% down to 80%, and the suggestion that 20% of Filipinos are mestizos. [The estimates stating 95% of the population being native Filipino are agreed upon the Filipino government, the latest Filipino census, and can be found quoted on the pages of Filipino embassy and consulate websites.]
Not only is 20% a gigantic overestimation of Filipino mestizos, but it is also historically impossible. There just weren’t enough Spaniards to have created such an immense proportion of past or present Filipinos to be mestizo.
Off all the Spanish colonies, the Philippines had the tiniest number of Spaniards, both in real numbers and as a percentage. And of these Spaniards, only a few fathered offspring in the Philippines, and of those that did father mestizos most were friars or priests.
Large-scale immigration of Spaniards, as happened in Latin America, never occurred in the Philippines. Historical evidence in Spain indicates that Spanish migrants to the Americas almost drained the entire population of Extremadura, as well as significant numbers from other regions. This never happened for the Philippines. The few that did go to the Philippines weren’t Spanish, they were mostly Mexicans, who themselves later returned to Mexico.
Added to this, native Filipinos didn’t die in the millions of introduced diseases. Native Americans had no immunities for Old World diseases, and in some areas 90% of the original populations died withing the first few years of conquest. Filipinos didn’t experience this holocaust because they are located in Asia, one of the three Old World continents, they had these diseases and the immunities to combat them.
The suggestion that the original small population of Filipino mestizos eventually mixed back into the native population, endowing every modern Filipino (or even 20% of Filipinos) with an extremely diluted amount of Spanish blood and ancesrty, is a fanaticized hypothesis.
Spanish mestizos in the Philippines were a very small and privileged minority, never surpassing more than 1% of the population at any given period. Because of the high status these half-breed-Spaniards held they were extremely endogamous, never again mixing back with natives. They thought of themselves as a separate class and ethnicity. The idea that they melded back into the native majority to make "mestizos" out of every living Filipino would suggest that they went against everything that they were taught. Mixing back with a native would "taint" the mestizo with more Malay blood than he “unfortunately” already had. Why - when the ideal for the mestizo was to have (and aspire for subsequent offspring and descendants to have) as little native ancestry as possible - would they then marry back into the native population? Answer; Filipino mestizos didn’t.
If anything, the argument could work for Latin America. Mestizos in Latin America were a growing majority, while unmixed Spaniards were a healthy large minority. So there was nothing special about the mestizos there, they had no special status, and the idealization of the Latin American wasn’t to be a mestizo - because most were this - it was to be a Spaniard. So it wasn't uncommon for Latin American mestizos to marry back into native communities; here it could be said that some Amerindians might have Spanish ancestry through an absorbed mestizo ancestor, but not in the case of the Philippines.
But anyway, the existance or not of Spanish genes among "pure Native Americans" isn't the topic.
To this day in the Philippines, because almost everyone is native (95%), the ideal is to be mestizo, and most Filipinos will falsely claim to be so, even citing the "mestiza great-great-grand-mother" or Spanish "great-great-grand-father", with no evidence other than a Spanish surname [and let's not even start with how Filipinos acquired Spanish surnames]. In Latin America, apart from the relatively large unmixed European population (aprox. 30%), the great majority are mixed-bloods (mestizos and mulattos combined, aprox. 50%) and becasue of this, the ideal is to be unmixed Spanish. So in Latin America's case, many of the mixed-bloods will falsley claim to be pure Spanish. This is called colonial mentality. 
I also re-inserted the vandalized deletion of the Chronological History of the Filipino people. This shouldn't be delete. We understand that these data are not current, nobody ever suggested that they were current. What they are is a part of the documented demographic history of the Filipino people, and as such, should be used to illustrate how today's current demographics came to fruition. Al-Andalus 02:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mestizos in the Philippines

message: Hi, please post an NPOV if needed. It will help to resolve this situation.--Jondel 09:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: :questions moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us:
* I would like to know the credibility of Al Andalus on his report regarding the Demographics of the Philippines. It appears he doesn't know the colonial history of the Philippines and his idea is based on the fiction books Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. I also want to know his current location, if he was born and raised in the Philippines and his educational attainment.
Thanks...***  
posted by User:151.198.174.99 on Jan 13; moved by Catherine\talk 20:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Al-Andalus has claimed in the past to be a 3rd generation Australian Jew.  Based on his edits, I leave it to you decide if that claim is credible. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I'm referring to edits on other articles, 2) I have assumed as much good faith as is warranted under the circumstances,  3) I have no idea what you mean, and 4) I'm neither ostracizing nor harrassing.  Your questions/accusations makes no sense. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because he is not Filipino doesn't mean he can not make edits of Filipino articles. (I'm pinoy btw , reporter ako sa Japan). If you distinguish/separate Basques, you might as well distinguish Andalusians, Galicians, Gallegans, Castillianos, Calunyans, Valencians, Spanish Jews, Conversos, Marranos.  But it is no big deal and nobody minds if it if you separate Basques. When I say ostracizing, I mean , it seems his edits are unwanted simply because he is not pinoy. Why?  I experience ostracizing here. Some Japanese co-workers don't like it when I speak Tagalog.--Jondel 01:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have neither said nor implied that he cannot make edits on "Filipino articles" simply because he is not Filipino.  As for the Basque people, their history, language, culture, etc. is quite distinct from the other groups you mention.  I encourage you to read the article on them. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't create this section, nor its title, nor post those questions for Al-Andalus.  As for the Basque, it's not a question of them "needing" anything.  They are the oldest people in Europe, they were there before the French and Spanish and Calatans arrived, they speak a language totally unrelated to Spanish or French or any other language on earth. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok,Ok. Let Basques be mentioned together with the Spaniards , who arrived in  the Philippines. BTW, Edgar Cayce, in one of his readings mentioned that they descended from the Antlanteans. I've met Basque descendents like Echevarrias. We have a game called Jai -Alai whcih came from them. To tell you the truth, I am fascinated by them as well. Very little of their words can be found in other languages.   Going back, Al-Andalus is a separate issue then.  There seems to be a lot of heat, though on Al-Andalus. I can't help notice it.  It is a bit unfair.--Jondel 02:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Just checking up on you Al-Andalus, and I have to say, if we're on the same page here, I have no idea what constructive purpose the preceding exchange could possibly have served...  The questions regarding your qualifications were never addressed, and in fact, the entire thread turned into a puddle of drool...  TomerTALK 05:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I wasn't expecting the cheering squad to show up. "Just checking up on" me? Tomer, I understand you perfectly, and I am fully aware that I've been tagged by our elders. Al-Andalus 07:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FLUSH...that's the sound of the last bit of seriousness with which I take anything said by anyone who babbles on about being persecuted by "the cabal".  If that's what you're saying, let me know so I can determine whether or not to jiggle the handle...  TomerTALK 03:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about Al-Andalus

message: *Allow, no big deal. Although they really should belong to the Spanish Group. My grandmother(abolita) spoke Valenciano but was forced to speak Castillian, the standard in the Philippines. --Jondel 00:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BASQUE AS A SEPARATE GROUP POLL

message: Where there Arabs really? Muslims maybe but not arabs.--Jondel 08:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabs?

message: The Chinese handle 75% of MacDonalds, call centers, bus transportation,sari-sari stores, groceries, auto-mechanic shops, utilites like phones and water (?) There are many aspects of buisness. I wouldn't be surprised if they owned 90 % of Divisioria. but how can the Chinese handle 75 % of the businesses of of the whole Philippines?  --Jondel 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think McDonalds, Jollibee chain of stores (i.e., including Chowking, Greenwich, etc.), Metrobank, Philippine Airlines, Chinabank, 
SM Dpeartment Stores, San Miguel Corporation, Robinson Dpeartment Sotres, Universal Robina Corp., Rustans Dept. Store, nearly all of the stores of Divisoria, shares of stock (often the majority) in Philippine National Bank, Landbank, BPI, Almost all auto-mechanic shops in Banawe street, Chinatown businesses, and other smaller enterprises are owned by the Chinese --User:Matthewprc 12:05, 02 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: W really need authoritive reliable sources for this info. In journalism, wrong info could hurt the wrong people.--Jondel 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 75% of the business?

message: *Austin Craig -- supported by the book The Philippines Through Foreign Eyes: 57% Tagala (i.e., Filipinos), 33% Mestizo (Filipino-SPanish), 3% CHinese, 1.3% South American, 0.0075% Spanish
*Otley Beyer -- based on his research, promoted by several Philippine history books written by the scholar Gregorio Zaide: 40% Malay, 30% Indonesian, 10% Chinese, 5% Indian, 3% EUropean and American, 2% Arab
*'So-called' Philippine Statistical Office reports : 95.5% Malay, 1.5% Chinese, 3% Others
*DK Financial Times World Desk Reference : Filipino 50%, INdonesian and Polynesian 30%, Chinese 10%, Indian 5%, Others 5%
*Stanford University genetic study (based on number of genes) : Chinese-52, Formosan Aborigine-Malayan (i.e., Austronesian)-47, European-1
The Wikipedian community must choose between these five, since the constant editing and re-editing has been very irksome and totally opinionated. Obviously, the 'so-called' Phils. Statistical Office reports hasn't been verified, as with Craig's, Beyer's, and the DK's. -- ??? 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which do you think is the real demographic status of the Philippines?

message: 12,000 wow. I never knew there would be that many. --Jondel 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That many? LOL. Amid a population of 90 million, 30,000 Europeans (Iberians included) is not many. Al-Andalus 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That statistic, which actually comes from [www.joshuaproject.com] is actually incomplete. There are lots of Europeans unaccounted for, which includes Belgians, Dutch, Italians, and many more others. --User:Matthewprc 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brits

message: How come there was much "depreciation" when comparing the 1818 census and the 1903 census? Could it be that the Americans overestimated the number of natives? Was the 1818 census done by the Spaniards or what? Or was it that the large number of mestizoa were concetrated in Luzon that's why when the Americans did their census, the proportion gradually dropped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.55.205 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depreciation 

message: The population is set at over 2 billion.  A bit high, I think.  Also, life expectancy seems to be wrong - average should be somewhere in the middle of men and women - when it is higher than it could be.  Can someone please change these?
Mjm1964 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Statistics section 

message: It seems that the CIA estimates are a bit off. 
Current population growth:
CIA figure: 1.957%
National Statistics Office estimates: 1.95% (2005-2010), 2.04% (2000-2007)
Censuses by the Philippine Government:
2000 census: 76,498,735
2007 census: 88,574,614
2009 estimate: 92,226,600
Based on current population growth estimates as both the CIA and the Philippine government, it doesn't seem plausible that the Philippines has about 98 million people. An increase of 10 million people in two years using population growth projections is not a all likely.  
Figures by CIA/US Department: Check under year
2000: 81,222,082
2007: 94,157,465
2009: 97,976,603
Estimates don't even match and it seems like weren't even fixed.
UN estimates: (Rounded off)
2000: 77,689,000
2009: 91,983,000   
Current estimates match more closely to the National statistics of the Philippines. Elockid (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines Population estimates. 

message: This article misused the Japanese reference "Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan (2006)" in giving the statistics regarding the religious affiliation of Filipinos. The section on "Religion" of the article about the Demographics of the Philippines states that the Christian (Protestants) in the Philippines are about 15%. However, the second table (fifth row) in the quoted Japanese reference (footnote 11) says that the Christian (Protestants) are only 1.8%; the Catholics are 71.5%, and those without religious beliefs are 10.9%. 
The reference itself is not reliable very reliable. 
Recommendation: 
1. Check the data that are presented in this article. 
2. Eliminate unreliable data. --94.83.253.145 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Reference 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=67xO2hUwzasC&pg=PR12#v=onepage&q&f=false
06:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Demographics 

message: http://opinion.inquirer.net/7691/indonesia-a-family-planning-model-for-the-philippines
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/absence-of-effective-birth-control-adversely-affects-philippine-poor/1108774
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5263&Itemid=196
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-03/an-philippines-contraception-debate/4292800
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/world/resisting-birth-control-the-philippines-grows-crowded.html
Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertility rate 

message: A discussion is taking place here which concerns some content of this article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion concerning content in this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Demographics of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115200709/http://www.census.gov.ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-reveals-philippine-population-9234-million to http://www.census.gov.ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-reveals-philippine-population-9234-million
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You should include the population ratio of men and women. Like if the population of the Phil is (approx) 105 Million people. what percentage of that are men and women.
:Good idea - even if population statistics are never that reliable and especially so in the Philippines. Do the number of exported seafarers (typically male) balance the numbers of exported maids (typically female)? Do women have higher death rates due to multiple pregnancies? etc, etc... BushelCandle (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Population ratio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Demographics of the 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701082957/http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html to http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704171010/http://www.nscb.gov.ph:80/secstat/d_popn.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popn.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506065230/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214223039/http://hpgl.stanford.edu:80/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Demographics of the 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114201926/https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/crd/article/SUMMARY%20OF%20PRINCIPAL%20VITAL%20STATISTICS.pdf to https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/crd/article/SUMMARY%20OF%20PRINCIPAL%20VITAL%20STATISTICS.pdf/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114201926/https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/crd/article/SUMMARY%20OF%20PRINCIPAL%20VITAL%20STATISTICS.pdf to https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/crd/article/SUMMARY%20OF%20PRINCIPAL%20VITAL%20STATISTICS.pdf/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413062503/http://tamilculturewaterloo.org/tamillanguage.htm to http://www.tamilculturewaterloo.org/tamillanguage.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popn.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified