Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Archive 2

message: The Zamboangueño Chavacanos - smaller? ethnic? --Weekeejames 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ibanags should be added too, there is already a page made about them Jcdizon (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smaller Ethnic Groups

message: The following would compose the collage:
# An aeta girl
# Nur Misuari for Moros
# Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for Capampangans
# Raul Roco for Bicolanos
# Lucio Tan for Chinese-Filipinos
# Jose Rizal for Tagalogs
# A tribal woman
# Either Isabel Presyler or Pilita Corrales. Make up your minds now. If either of the following gets nominated, we should have a public domain picture. Just reviewed votes and there were opposition and neutral votes.
* Another straw poll is found below to decide on who will represent the Ilonggos and the Warays.
: how about the ilokanos and the pangasinenses? --Saluyot 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: include them in the poll below. --Howard the Duck 03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of straw poll

message: Add them here. --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other additions

message: Who should represent the following:
* Warays
** Imelda Marcos --Howard the Duck 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I can't imagine that using a copyrighted image in a novel work of art (the collage) would qualify as fair use. I think any collage uploaded to Wikipedia would have to consist of images either in the public domain or released under a free license permitting modification. User:Angr 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can see some personalities in Philippine government websites then they might be PD. Both collages contain copyrighted material and they are not fairly used. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag to use in collages

message: OK, somebody deleted the two collages in question (it wasn't me who initiated it). Now on the 12th we would have finished the poll and we could construct a new collage. --Howard the Duck 08:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating a new collage

message: Dude, what's the criteria for selection? Only the pics with all support? (It seems this is your criterial for the selection above) How about the pics without opposition but with neutral comments?--Nino Gonzales 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those with unanimous support were included. Unless the neutral and oppose votes were acted upon, they can't be included. Another problem was that there were very few votes, if there are oppose votes, it will be hard to ignore, but when there are, for example, 10 votes and only 1 opposed, then we can include it. --Howard the Duck 02:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't neutral mean that they don't mind if it is included (or not)? Where should we put more comments--since you wrote that we should not touch the poll?--Nino Gonzales 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the poll had a run of almost 2 months, it was supposed to end on Independence Day but I ended it yesterday. In any case, anybody can end his/her suggestion on the new straw poll. The older poll's decisions are final, but if other wikipedians insist on their own agenda, they can always add options to the new straw poll. --Howard the Duck 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we include the unopposed pictures? The voting is final I suppose but I don't think we ever agreed that pictures with neutral comments should not be included.--Nino Gonzales 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Okay, only pictures that have neutral and support votes will be included. Those with oppose won't, unless they provide a better public domain image. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Could we first agree on the principles that would guide us to select the appropriate pictures to represent the Ethnic Groups in the Philippines? Like I think it is important that it should have an equal number of men and women.
I made a separate page to list down these principles and perhaps be our scratchpad for the creation of the collage and other pictures. Right now it’s just some guidelines that I have proposed some months ago. Perhaps we could develop it to become some sort of guideline.
The page is located here: Ethnic_groups_in_the_Philippines/Pictures
--Nino Gonzales 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles

message: Please provide more info about the 'recent survey'--Jondel 06:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent survey

message: This is freely licensed. Any objections if we use this? --Howard the Duck 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could suggest sources of pictures we agreed upon in Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Pictures, plus some placeholders for the undecided pictures, I could make a new collage.--Nino Gonzales 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This collage 

message: "Around 900 CE, extensive trade had brought a people called Orang Dampuan from Champa (in present-day Cambodia) to the Sulu Archipelago where they have intermarried with the Buranuns, the original natives of Sulu. "
Can anyone explain such this quotation more explicit to me?The writer already based on which source to aver such commentary?Which region in present-day Cambodia used to be part of Champa ariund 900CE?
Thanks,
--Redflowers 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam or Cambodia? 

message: This was added by an anonymous user:
No such "Bisaya Ethnic Group"
Ethnic identity refers to the reality and the process through which people identify themselves and are identified by others as members of a specific ethnic group. Ethnic solidarity refers to the sense and degree of cohesion felt by members of an ethnic group. Levinson (1998)
There are numerous factors that decides an ethnic group, such as linguistic, cultural, economic, and political factors. These factors have different roles with varying degrees of weight in deciding what an ethnic group is and who the members are.
The three major groups, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Warays, (pre-colonial times) did not share common political, economic, linguistic factors, etc., nor were there shared ethnic identity among them, or a sense of and degree of cohesion among these three groups or ethnic solidarity. Thus these groups could not be a single ethnic group.
The Cebuano Group for instance was headed by a Cebuano Raja, with several Datus under him spread throughout Cebuano speaking areas, sovereign and independent of the Warays, Hiligaynons, just like the Tagalog Group, Bicolano Group, Ilocano Group, etc.
Predominantly Cebuano-speaking regions in the Philippines.
Predominantly Cebuano-speaking regions in the Philippines.
Tagalog in the North; Bisaya in the South.
Historically, Philippine regional cultural traits have been described with the dichotomy of “Tagalog” in the north and “Bisaya” in the south from the Spanish colonial period. Eric C. Casino, The Filipino Nation, The Philippines: Lands, and Peoples, A Cultural Geography (1982, Manila: Grolier International).
As a result in the past many people from Luzon simply label people from the south as Bisaya, while those in the south label those from the north as Tagalogs.
The traditional dominance of the Cebuano Group in Central Philippines (who associate themselves with the term Bisaya/Binisaya ) have led to a misinformed inaccurate generalization or idea that all ethnic groups in the region belong to Bisaya, a multilinguistic ethnic group. Thus, the group of islands in Central Philippines today is called the Visayas. Moreover, the north-­south ethnic dichotomy created a stereotypical image towards all low-land christian peoples of Central and Southern Philippines as belonging to the said Bisaya ethnic group.
Hiligaynon and Warays speak a language of the Visayas, but they do not identify themselves with the Cebuano Bisaya/Binisaya. To Hiligaynon (Ilonggo) and Waray, Bisaya refer to geography (Visayas).
Cebuano-speakers in Cebu refer to their language as Bisaya/Binisaya or Cebuano. While Cebuano-speakers from mindanao and all other islands (except Cebu) may refer to whatever their Cebuano dialect is, e.g. Boholano (a Cebuano dialect), to clarify that they are not from Cebu, but that they do speak Cebuano. Others though may choose to refer theirs as Cebuano or Bisaya/Binisaya.
Ethnic Groups of the Philippines - National Commission for Culture and the Arts (Manila)
http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about_cultarts/glimpses.php?bk_Id=1
There are 12 Ethnic Groups in the Visayas.
No such Bisaya/Binisaya Multi-Linguistic Ethnic Group. Only the Cebuano(Bisaya/Binisaya) Group.
Over all the Philippines have eight (8) major ethno-linguistic groups, they are the Tagalog Group, Kampampangan Group, Pangasinan Group, Cebuano Group, Waray-Waray Group, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo Group, Bicolano Group, and Ilocano Group.
To the wiki-keepers, please correct and update this page.
In summary, he is saying that the Bisaya should not be considered an ethnic group because:
* In prehistoric times, they did not share a shared identity feel a sense of cohesion
* The origin of the term was usage of Bisaya to mean people of the Philippine south
* Only the Cebuano speakers of Cebu use Bisaya to refer to their language
* The Philippine government (specifically its commission on culture) says so
Here's my take:
* Sense of cohesion: he probably deduced this from the accounts that tribes were warring against each other. But the Cebuano speakers were warring againts themselves. Does that mean that Cebuano should not be considered an ethnic group?
* It seems that people of the Visayas were calling themselves Bisaya before the 1521... the oldest source, it seems, is Padre de Alcina's Historia de las Islas y Indios de Bisaya...
* It seems non-Cebuano speakers also refer to themselves as Bisaya and their language as Binisaya
I'll just quote Chris Sundita, a linguist and Wikipedian:
Ilonggos, Warays, etc. have always been called Visayans. There are plenty of verified sources for this.  I have a copy of 1977 work by an American linguist who specializes in Visayan languages (and is fluent in Aklanon and Tagalog) by Dr. R. David Zorc.  He lists 36 known Visayan tongues as well as their alternate names.  
For Hiligaynon, he lists only Ilonggo.  However the three varieties of Waray-Waray all have Binisaya as an alternate name. Other groups that he lists as having Binisaya as an alternate name are Alcantaranon, Bantayan Visayan, Guimarasnon (this refers to 'both Hiligaynon and Kinaray-a!), the Cantilan dialect of Surigaonon, Kawayan Visayan (Negros Occidental), Masbateño, Naturalis dialect of Surigaonon, Pandan dialect of Kinaray-a, Semirara Visayan, Santa Teresa Visayan (of Brgy. Sta. Teresa, Magsaysay, Occ. Mindoro), Romblomanon, and the Jaun-Jaun dialect of Surigaonon. It would not surprise me that Binisaya would also refer to languages NOT listed by Dr. Zorc.
Also, in the 2001 work Facts about the World's Languages Dr. Zorc writes in the Hiligaynon article:
:The name Visayan was the Spanish rendition of the adjective bisayá’ referring to a person or item from the central Philippine islands and the verb binisayá’ meaning ‘to speak Bisayan.’ It applies to 36 different speech varieties, the most well-known of which include Cebuano, Waray, Hiligaynon, and Aklanon. Together, these groups represent over 40% of the Philippine population, almost double that of any other language in the archipelago.
I hope this helps. --Chris S. 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bisaya as an ethnic group

message: The Population History in this article conforms to H. Otley Beyer's theory of migration, which allegedly explains the populating of the Philippine Archipelago. In the Philippines, these has been duly proven to be mere imagination of Beyer and they now follow the theory of Bellwood (that Filipinos instead come from Taiwan). Hence, please do not revert the Population History to its' former state - instead, reqrite the history in accordance to Bellwood's theory. THanks. -- User:Matthewprc 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population History

message: Okay, who made the Spanish mestizos the seventh largest group? There's no such thing. Mestizos pervade in many other ethnic groups. Particularly highest among Cebuanos and Ilonggos with the former occupying most of Mindanao. Ever been to well-known private and respected public schools and universities in Davao City, General Santos City and South Cotabato? You'll see a lot of them. -Federmale 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, I think there is no genetic study conducted among Filipinos, so we still use that of the Stanford University's study that 3.6% of all Filipinos have Caucasian ancestry. Before this journal article became known to Wikipedians, the general consensus in the WP:TAMBAY is that it is 2%. Personally, I also agree with what you said. Based on non-scientific observations in my school, public places, and transportation centers, I would place the percentage of Filipinos who have Caucasian admixture at about 40%. While there are LOTS of Filipinos who really look Spanish or Caucasian, there are literally tons of Filipinos who actually have Spanish ancestry (as in direct from Spain), but don't look Spanish at all because of admixtures with the Chinese or extreme dilution. But for now, since there is no such study that confirms such presuppositions, Wikipedia uses 3.6% as the standard proportion of Caucasian ancestry among Filipinos. Indeed, there are many other pages who still report it to be 2%. -- Matthewprc 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That stanford study should not be used because it is based on only 6 people from the Philippines. The percentage should not be a result of consensus of Wikipedians. If all wikipedians agree that it is 90%, will we use that? Why don't we just say that there is no genetic study yet on the level of caucasian ancestry in the phil?--Nino Gonzales 10:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You people really haven't went outside in the real world do you? I have yet to see a mestizo in a squatters' area or in the provinces with no large cities. --Howard the Duck 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree this is ridiculous. Who decided they were the seventh largest ethnic group?! There is no clear definition of a Mestizo because that term crosses many ethnic and cultural boundaries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish group 

message: The Notes section of this article is very ugly.  Does anyone have any objections to my trying to make it less ugly with the  template? -- Boracay Bill 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went ahead and did it without waiting for discussion (see Wikipedia:Be bold). -- Boracay Bill 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section 

message: I have just reverted an edit to the table in the Rankings section of this article.  The reverted edit was by 23prootie, and had an edit summary of "(→Rankings - duh)".   I think that the edit would be useful if it were verifiable.  I am not reverting this because I have any argument with the validity of the edit, but because I am unable to verify that  validity is substantiated by the cited supporting source, or even from other material in this article (e.g., what substantiates the assertion that Masbateño are part of the Visayan ethnic group?). See WP:V and WP:RS. -- Boracay Bill 11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe this section would look cleaner if, instead of a bulleted list that says (first largest) (second largest) afterward, we had a list with numbers and at the top it says "from highest to lowest" something like that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.184.124 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings section table edit reversion 

message: I would just like to share my opinion after encountering an article "Jews in the Philippines".
On my thought on "Jews in the Philippines".. I think this article should not even exist. The Jews are in no way near a significant ethnic group in the Philippines, let alone a minority group! Having a page dedicated to Jews in the Philippines would be like having an article "Senegalese in Taiwan" or something as irrelevant as "Senegalese in Taiwan". Instead, more focus and material should be added on articles concerning important Philippine ethnic groups such as the articles on the South Asians, Arabs, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans - all significant ethnic groups.. And please I do not want to start hearing accusations of being a Holocaust denier or anti-semitism, as does often happens when the Jewish ethno-religious group is discussed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance on articles re: Philippine ethnic groups 

message: Many seem to hold the view that only Austronesian Filipinos are "Filipinos".. 
There is no "real" Filipino. Filipinos cross over racial boundaries. It is just pure selfishness to define non-Austronesian non-"native" Filipinos as "fake" Filipinos. If anything, the real Filipinos are the tribal groupings such as Aetas and Ifugaos. Labelling Chinoys and Kastilas as "fake" Filipinos out of hatred of them due to their perceived wealth is just nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define the word filipino if you define it as an ethnic group,the speakers of Philippine Languages as Filipino it will include the Gorontalo-Mongondow speakers,If you define it as a nationality it will include all the inhabitants of the philippines.Kasumi-genx (talk)
I agree. There is no Filipino "race". The majority race is Malay. Filipino is a nationality. I am originally from Germany, naturalised in  the Philippines. The law considers me a "natural-born Filipino". However, most people call me an American tourist! This is my home. I've lived here 15 years, and worked here too. I speak Filipino. muffins2000 at gmail dot com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.253 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is a Filipino? 

message: On the section Others regarding Germans I changed the numbers from 961 to 962 because my friend Alice (who is German migrant to the Philippines) just gave birth to a daughter in Germany 2 days ago and Alice is planning to take her baby with her back to Manila.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.198.66 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Germans

message: November 13 2008. I was suddenly surprised that this article so rich in sources and references suddenly had it's bibliography obliterated!! I'm reverting this to an earlier version. Someone must have been vandalizing the article.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted the article to Revision as of 19:20, November 7, 2008, restoring much sourced material which had been removed without explanation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who the flying fuck removed all the references!

message: The image :File:Abidin.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Abidin.jpg

message: I've tagged the assertion, "A plan formulated by the American government was to transfer all the African American in the Mainland United States to the Philippines," with  and  tags. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duboius assertion needs a supporting cite or removal. 

message: I recently challenged some questionable-looking edits on the talk page of the editor involved. I haven't seen either corrective action or feedback, so I'm repeating my challenges here.  My main concern is that some of the edits look like they may invalidate the support of cited sources. I don't have access to the specific supporting sources involved, and so cannot check whether my concerns are or are not valid.
My specific questionings were:
At one point, you inserted ", but a small-n study concludes that about 3.6% of the Philippine population has varied admixtures of European ancestry." immediately prior to a pre-existing cite of a supporting source. One wonders whether the cited source supports that insertion. If not, the info should be inserted after the cite, and should cite a source which supports the inserted info.
At another point you insert the word "partly" into a statement supported by another cited supporting source. one wonders whether the cited source supports the assertion as you have modified it.
At another point you insert information and cite the Joshua project as a source. I used to cite them myself from time to time, but I grew tired of repeatedly being taken to task for that by editors who argued that this is not a reliable source. I no longer cite them.
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits challenged 

message: -Philippine Languages Speakers/"Mainstream Filipino"
-Samal-Bajau Language Speakers
-Sangiric Language Speakers
-Dayak(in palawan)
I think the larger speakers of thev philippine languages are the ones called Katagalugan by Bonifacio...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasumi-genx (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Austronesian Ethnic Groups in the Philippines can be classified to four larger ethnic groups

message: This is the second article in a row where I have added a section with this heading to the talk page. The para currently reads:
#"In Mindanao, there are people who practice Islam." yes.
#"They are known as Moros." Well, some of the people in Mindinao who practice Islam are known as Moros; most (p[robably not all) people in Mindinao who are known as Moros practice Islam.
#"In the province of Bukidnon there is an ethnic group of mountain dwelling people called Binukid who speak the Binukid language. However these individuals do not practice Islam." That amount of detail probably does not belong in the lead. I'm guessing, though, that the Binukid are people in Miondinao who are known as Moros butwho do not practice Islam (mostly -- there are probably exceptions). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  second para of the lead needs rewriting 

message: I've removed the above text. It was added in this August 11 edit, along with some other text which has since been removed, ahead of a pre-existing cite of the paper on the mentioned research. The words up to the initial comma are superfluous and badly constructed and, as far as I can tell, the Stanford source does not support the suggestion here that 3% of Filipinos are of Spanish descent (It does say that 3.6% European introgression was evident in the Philippines). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. It doesn't seem written very (seems to me more of a conversation rather than encyclopedic material), the added text misquotes the source, and it makes assumptions. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: I noticed that this article had a badly located and garbled References section (see WP:GTL. I relocated the section and cleaned up the notes a bit in order to populate it. I left in an un-ref'd cite of the CIA Factbook but I took out an un-ref'd cite of the 1973 constitution (the current constitution is the 1987 one; the cite seemed to mention the article on Languages, but I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to support). I made a couple of other small changes. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009-10-12 cleanup 

message: I saw that Tasaday was not included in templates. I have put Tasaday in the Lumad template. I'll try to put it in the template below the article.--Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasaday is an ethnic group, not included in the template 

message: It seems that most wiki articles are written in American and British English. Why are most Filipino-related articles written in Philippine English? 
Granted, I can see the relation. However, it leaves the majority of English like myself wondering what the heck the article says...
muffins2000 at gmail dot com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.253 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which English should Wiki use? 

message: The Population history section began, "The first human remains discovered by anthropologists in the Philippines were that of the Prehistoric Tabon Man, [...]". Tabon Man was discovered in 1962. I found it difficult to believe that anthropologists did not discover any human remains in the Philippines prior to 1962, so I redid the wording of that assertion. My replacement wording might benefit from some tweaks. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redid assertion re Tabon Man 

message: I've reverted this edit, which introduced problems.
Re the governmental history, The period which might be termed "the American occupation" ran from the surrender of of Manila to American forces by the Spanish Governor General on August 13, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, until the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, in which Spain ceded the Philippines to the U.S. The Philippine Republic constituted itself as an insurgent government in revolution against Spain on January 23, 1899 (following without a break on two previous embodiments of that insurgency which had resumed May 24, 1898 after a break). After the cession of the Philippines by Spain, the Philippine Republic insurgency continued against America, and was ultimately unsuccessful.
Re official languages
*The constitution of the Philippine Republic did specify that the Spanish language would be used for governmental purposes until the matter of official languages could be addressed (see article 93 at Wikisource:Constitution o the Philippines (1899)), but that applied only as far as the control of that insurgent government extended.  
*Offhand, I don't know when The U.S. military government of the Philippines or, later, the civil government under the Taft Commission officially addressed the matter of official languages, or what might have been done. 
*The 1935 constitution specified English and Spanish as official languages. 
*The 1973 constitution specified English and Pilipino (with a 'P') as official languages. 
*On March 15, 1973, Presidential decree No. 155 specified that Spanish language shall continue to be recognized as an official language in the Philippines while important documents in government files are in the Spanish language and not translated into either English or Pilipino language. 
*The 1987 constitution designated English and Filipino (with an 'F') as official languages and mandates that Spanish and Arabic "shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis."
The material in the article after reverting that recent edit is not entirely consistent with the foregoing, and I may make further edits to try to correct that. Thinking about it, though, I don't think any of this belongs in the lead section, and it probably doesn't belong in this article at all -- It doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with the article topic. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material in the lead section re official language and governmental history 

message: The "only 3.6%" of Filipinos have European blood clause has been discussed over and over again across various forums in the internet and from reading on the various discussions about it one can gain the following conclusions. 
1) The methodology by which they concluded that only 3.6% of Filipinos are European is woefully inaccurate firstly because they only sampled 28 individuals from a single place out of an estimated 98 Million Filipinos. A sample size of 28 to represent a population of 98 Million doesn't even pass the margin of error requirement. 
2) The study was not meant to describe the whole genome of a population only the Y chromosomes of a select number of individuals [By which an average of 3.6% European admixture was culled from all the people they sampled ] Even if it were true for those involved in the study it isn't completely true because the mitochondrial and X chromosome genetic materials were summarily ignored.
3) The haphazardly done and minuscule-sampled study conflicts with historical scholarship. 
Books written in the Spanish era by Frenchmen and by Spanish census takers themselves record that at least 1/3 of the population of the island of Luzon (The most populous island) had varying degrees of Spanish ancestry [From Tornatras to full Peninsulares] their descendants would thus number among the millions today, a conservative 10-12 million. Yet the 3.6% assumption conflicts with that (Considering that most of the samples were taken in the south not in Luzon)
4) Other genetic findings conflict this. Genetic studies done by members of "23forme" Genome study group yield that 75% of Filipinos possess European genetic markers and the average amount of European genes  among the 75% is 4.8% of their total genome (The dilution of European genes among those who possessed it is understandable considering it was Latinos [Who were already mixed with Amerindians] who emigrated en masse to the Philippines not the Spaniards [Research Viceroyalty of New Spain])
Thus, considering this, I would like to request that we either remove the mythological "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood" in wikipedia or we update the information according to modern research.
Thank You Very Much.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A claim that only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood would probably be not only false, but unsupportable. However, this article makes no such claim. It would would probably be an improvement to update the article in this regard according to modern research as you suggest (observing WP:DUE, and citing supporting sources, of course). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood is false. It's a myth

message: Ethnicities should not be divided into 'indigenous' and 'non-indigenous,' not least because the indigenous peoples page classifies indigenes as being a politically or economically inferior group. The List of ethnic groups in China simply lists the main groups (given their population sizes) including 'non-indigenous' Koreans, Mongols, and Kazakhs, never mind if they were or were not living there before annexation by China. I'm not sure if the emphasis on Chinese here is due to 'Chinese' Filipinos, or Filipinos who don't know just how detrimental that behavior is to the reputation of all Filipinos, or non-Filipinos (i.e. whites or yellows), but it has to stop (everywhere, not just on Wikipedia); likewise for the constant pushing of European ancestry. Simply list the main ethnicities with their population size. 'Chinese' can either be kept 'Chinese' or can be turned into Hokkien. The number of non-Hokkien Chinese in the Philippines is insignificant. Same for Korean, American, Arab, Indian, Japanese, Jewish--those are insignificantly small populations that do not warrant mention on this wikipage. Hispanic perhaps should be, given the history of the Philippines. FYAYP (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Grouping for Ethnicities (no indigenous/non-indigenous) 

message: Kindly check this map here for your perusal: https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/a.582877705160388.1073741829.577653682349457/790531167728373/?type=1, https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/pb.577653682349457.-2207520000.1429983960./719098104871680/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F10350516_719098104871680_2325736201529867299_n.jpg%3Foh%3D89c6aea1b51e5a22e0a924d4d1b34b91%26oe%3D559CC1C3%26__gda__%3D1439955231_ce9fef02ca03a595b5bda22d5c3dea04&size=512%2C511&fbid=719098104871680, https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla?fref=photo
regards,
62.209.16.40 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong with the Demographs regarding the Zamboangueño Ethnolinguistic Nation"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ethnic groups in 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/20110607035509/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20061011f1.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20061011f1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111070218/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html
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) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ethnic groups in 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/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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is wrong to subdivide them into three categories. The correct term or name of their Ethnicity is "Cebuano" or "Sugbuanon". there is no such thing as Bohol-anon Ethnic or Bisaya Ethnic but there is only Cebuano Ethnic, and they can be found from Cebu to Negro, to Bohol, to parts of Mindanao.
I am sure that whoever did this is an Imperialist/Colonialist-Tagalist/Tagalogist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cebuano, Bohol-anon, Bisaya

message: [[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/Filipinas2_zpsqj4tvloh.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/Filipinas2_zpsqj4tvloh.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]]
[[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Solamente1_zpswqumkacq.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Solamente1_zpswqumkacq.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]]
[[[URL=http://s112.photobucket.com/user/Arrrrron/media/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Entero1_zpspdbaumx3.jpg.html][IMG]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Arrrrron/ESTADO%20FEDERAL%20ZAMBOANGUENO/EstadoDeZamboanga%20Hermosa_Entero1_zpspdbaumx3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]]]
The current map showing therein for the location of the predominant Zamboangueño Ethnic is WRONG. Therefore the map has to update, especially as this is being seen many people and by not correcting them it will eventually become correct in the eyes' of the beholder who knows nothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Zamboangueño Ethnolinguistic Nation Map

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic groups in 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020151535/http://www.littleindia.com/news/132/ARTICLE/1346/2006-10-12.html to http://www.littleindia.com/news/132/ARTICLE/1346/2006-10-12.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110813010129/http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/asia/20070802/1_297.jsp to http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/asia/20070802/1_297.jsp
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) 05:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic groups in 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/20070809094700/http://www.hawaii.edu/cps/fil-community.html to http://www.hawaii.edu/cps//fil-community.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819055403/http://kagayanenmovement.webs.com/ to http://kagayanenmovement.webs.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819055403/http://kagayanenmovement.webs.com/ to http://kagayanenmovement.webs.com/
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) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified