Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Kahimunan tu Bayugan.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The final sentence of the lede states "Other peoples of non-native and/or mixed descent include those such as, Filipino Mestizos (especially those of historical Mestizo de Sangley (Chinese Mestizo) and Mestizo de Español (Spanish Mestizo) descent or the mix of all of which)..." (emphasis added). I will remove the extraneous comma, reconcile the improperly nested parentheses, and standardize the two Spanish phrases, but what is meant by "...or the mix of all of which)..."? Bricology (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to the Tornatrás, but this was an old term used during Spanish Colonial Times in the Philippines to refer to either a mix of Spanish and Chinese or the mix of the Spanish mestizo and Chinese mestizo, so having generally all of both ancestries from Spanish, Chinese, and native Filipino ancestry all together or just Spanish and Chinese. During Spanish Colonial Times, the Tornatras were usually the rarer kind, whereas Chinese mestizo was the more common more populous one but the Spanish mestizo held more social prestige and was respected and widely known more. In modern times due to generations of intermarriage, many Filipino mestizo descendants can already be described as such and also fit the bill like Tornatras, but the term is now obsolete and no longer used or widely known in public, instead the mainstream public in the Philippines usually just recognizes the term "mestizo" / "mestiso" (m) or "mestiza" / "mestisa" (f). Although in the Philippines today, the more common kind of Filipino mestizo descendant you can encounter are descendants of Chinese mestizos, but typically these sorts of people have families that don't reliably keep track of their ancestry or care about that sort of thing, so they will usually tell you that they are just "Filipino", of which is a nationality citizenship as per Philippine nationality law, so sometimes some like to falsely claim they might've had Spanish ancestry (a colonial residue behavior stemming from the Spanish colonial era cuz it was socially prestigious and beneficial to have Spanish ancestry back during that time) for various reasons like they had an ancestor who they heard or remembered to have known to speak Spanish, but Spanish was the formal prestige language taught to the few upper class and early middle class filipinos during Spanish colonial times or based alone on their Hispanic surname, of which many common Filipinos do not know was provided to most all families in the Philippines, regardless of ancestry, around the mid to late 1800s due to the Claveria Decree of 1849 using the Catálogo alfabético de apellidos.  --Mlgc1998 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing phrase in the lede 

message: The lead makes extensive use of the term "Nation," which has ideological connotations not often noticed by Filipinos (who, as Randy David notes, are accustomed to accept "nationalism" as a default reality). Is the emphasis necessary? For example, should we prefer the phrase "ethnolinguistic nation" instead of the more anthropologically neutral "ethnolinguistic group"?  I don't see a discussion of ethnic nationalism in the Philippines anywhere in the article which would serve as an explanation of the emphasis. - Batongmalake (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks a bit like an imitation of the US usage of 'nation' for Native American ethnic groups (even for those groups that never had a nation-like structure of political organization). In the Philippine context, it makes little sense. I support using neutral "ethnolinguistic groups" here as proposed by . –Austronesier (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and note it's in some headers as well. The term is not used in the title of any source on this page, which would be unlikely if it was the common term. CMD (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked again, it all goes back to this string of IP edits which is problematic in many other ways (all those caps!). I'll just go ahead and bring the page back to its original terminology and the usage in the sources. The WP:ONUS is then on whoever wants to have "nations" back. –Austronesier (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  –Austronesier (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "nations" be used, or some other term? 

message: I deleted the sentence that said "The first known were the people of the Tabon man remains." This has been disproven by an examination of the Tabon man remains. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabon man was not Negrito 

message: Hi all. It seems to me that this article currently creates a dichotomy of "Lowland vis a vis Indigenous," which is confusing to say the least.  I'm trying to figure out if there should be separate paragraphs for Lowland Christian peoples and Lowland Moro peoples.  But I can't figure out the boundaries between categories since they aren't actually mutually exclusive. And it just makes migrant peoples/ non-native peoples all so much harder to clearly define.  This is a structural problem, I think. Any suggestions how to fix it? - Batongmalake (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the lowland/indigenous/moro split before. I don't find it too confusing, can you expand? CMD (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  On my question? I don't think so; I think I just need guidance on how to perform the split, and what terms to use.  On the other hand, if you mean expand the article, well... I think I just need guidance on how to perform the split, and what terms to use. - Batongmalake (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On what exactly the point of confusion is. Is it whether Moros should be groups with "lowland" groups? If that is the question, I would say no. CMD (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh. It's "what we do with the any lowland/upland dichotomy within the Moro population?" And whether Moros who live in lowland locations should be part of the mainstream? I sorta always thought they were equally part of the mainstream as lowland Christians, but maybe that's just me?  It has always been a point of confusion on my part, but does "the mainstream of Filipino society" really just equate to Christianized lowlanders? This seemed disingenuous to me, and everytime someone has said that, I thought it was an exercise in hyperbole, wanting to inflate the influence of Christianized lowlanders. But nobody has ever actually shown me numbers, or even actual definitions of what delineates a group to as included in or excluded from that majority. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it's "Christian lowlander - Moro - NonMoroIndigenousPeoples - MigrantPeoples"?  Not "Lowlander-MoroUplandIPs-NonMoroUplandIPs-MigrantPeoples"? Sorry I feel ignorant now. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of the lead, there's probably not enough space to go into too much detail regarding divisions of divisions. My impression is that Moros are not considered traditionally within the "mainstream" so to speak. For example, this page mentions a few divisions in society, including a two-way split between indigenous and others, and a three-way split between Christians, Moros, and indigenous people. I don't think it's too much hyperbole, given the demographic difference and the dominance of the national capital if nothing else. CMD (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  Thank you. I've tried to use two of those classification systems in the first paragraph: the IP/Non-IP Dichotomy (in the first sentence), and then the Moro, Non-Moro IP, and Non-Moro non-IP categories expounded upon, each with their own sentence.  It's a bit confusing that the PIDS study, which cites PSA Census data, has numbers that don't seem to add up, no matter how I double check the addition. So I've decided not to add numbers whenever the article didn't state them in the main text. (15 Moro groups are listed in a table.) I think the PIDS source can be useful for standardizing the discussion of each group, now - with Migrant groups using a different set of sources, but roughly following the PIDS outline.- Batongmalake (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree, a wisely chosen and explicitly mentioned cut-off is a great idea; people always feel tempted to say "hey why is my folks not in here?" and add the item of their choice to the list. –Austronesier (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowland/Upland and Indigenous/...mainstream? 

message: Hi all, just letting you know that I'm going to delete this sentence because it's just a random list: Major lowland ethnolinguistic groups from north to south include, the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans (Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray, etc.), Zamboangueño, Moro, and many more. I have replaced it with a list of groups with populations greater than 1 Million, based on the PIDS source, which is as follows:The most populous of these groups, with populations exceeding a million individuals, include the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans (Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray. I notice a similar random list on the Immigrant Peoples paragraph. I suggest that list should be de-randomized too. - Batongmalake (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, a wisely chosen and explicitly mentioned cut-off is a great idea; people always feel tempted to say "hey why is my folks not in here?" and add the item of their choice to the list. –Austronesier (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rid of random ethnic group listings 

message: Hi. I've just made a number of structural changes in the article body, reflecting changes in the structure of the lead.  Specifically, I've given the Moro peoples a top level category, and then followed the Moro-NonMoroIP-Others ordering used by the PIDS source.  I think we have consensus on these changes, but I want to pause my editing here for a day or two so that others can comment on whether I've made any big boo-boos while doing the editing. - Batongmalake (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pausing after structural changes in the body on 5 November 2021 

message: Hi, may I suggest an outline for the lead, so we can all proceed with the hard work of fixing the body?
1. First paragraph
1.1 The Philippines is inhabited by more than 175 ethnolinguistic groups, [insert any universal commonalites here] ,which are broadly categorized into Group A, Group B, and Group C, and so on.
2. Group A. 
2.1. Group A first came to the Philippine archipelago (when)2. They are generally concentrated in (where)
2.2. They are characterized by (what) although there are (main exceptions)
2.3. According to the latest statistics (specify), X% of Filipinos count themselves as Group A.
3. Group B
Repeat
4. Group C.
Repeat.
Revisions welcome, but maybe let's build consensus here so we can stabilize the lead? Thanks - Batongmalake (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While it reflects the existing article body, Group->Group->Group is not a great way to structure the lead. I've just noticed that ru:Народы Филиппин is considered a featured quality article, and I much prefer its lead. The first paragraph provides a high-level overview of the number of groups, the fit within the overall population, and commonalities (eg. Austronesian languages). The second mentions historical migrations and the broad overarching groups we have touched upon above. The third paragraph covers varying socioeconomic capital and status as well as cultural conflicts. CMD (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Structurally, the ru.WP lede is good, but content-wise, we can follow it only with care (e.g. it has outdated concepts of "race", only makes marginal mention of people of (partial) European and Chinese descent who are called :wikt:пришлый (= 'alien, foreigner'), etc.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I withdraw from the particular task of ordering the lead paragraphs, then? I feel you guys know what you're doing better.  Meanwhile I shall go hunting for reliable sources for things that need citations, and maybe fiddle around with content organization within each paragraph. :D - Batongmalake (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, please don't! I just felt I could lean back and appreciate your good efforts :) –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify I'm certainly not saying we should rely on ru.wiki for content (or that it would meet en.wiki FA standards), I just took a look after seeing the star for a point of comparison. Re Batongmalake, I would certainly not ask you to withdraw! The lead needs work, I don't think there's much dispute on that. My comments are general thoughts, like Austronesier I appreciate someone looking into the topic and mean to encourage rather than discourage. CMD (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha. I had hoped to move on to other aspects of the article. But okay. Please watch my edits, though? There are a lot of sensitivities at play and I would like to be quickly corrected if I accidentally make any mistakes or misrepresentaitons, or shift the emphasis of the lead too far in any one direction. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think the lead looks good now, thanks for the work. --Glennznl (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Lead outline 

message: The more I look at it, the more I think the reason we're having trouble in this discussion is the lack of a collective article on the various Immigrant or Expatriate Populations in the Philippines.  There are articles for the individual groups, of course, but without the larger article, we have no collection of broad information on the patterns of Immigration of these peoples, and of their degrees of assimilation into Filipino society. What say you, fellow editors? A new side-project? (Sheesh, I'm really just here because I started working on Culture of the Philippines.) - Batongmalake (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure a new article could be justified, but if you don't want to get into that much commitment, I would suggest putting your envisioned information into this article (and split later if desired). CMD (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think using the redirect :Immigration to the Philippines to create a page similar to :es:Inmigración en Filipinas would work well. I think the table under "Recent modern immigrants and expatriates" should be transfered to this new page. --Glennznl (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, I just scraped together information from various articles and created :Immigration to the Philippines. --Glennznl (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Just on a quick note: (1) What is the preferred term in modern sources? (2-4) "mixed" is to vague (children e.g. of a Ilocano/Waray couple are "mixed" too) whereas "Mestizo" is an established term. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need an article on the various Immigrant Populations in the Philippines. 

message: Eithnic procedure 182.54.144.92 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology