Talk:Philippines/Archive 3

message: The date 1898 should'nt be mentioned in association with independence. 1898 was the year when the Treaty of Paris (1898) was held. Indepedence did not officially occur until 1935 with the Tydings-Mcdufie Law or Philippine Independence Act. 
  
Some anonomous editor have added July 4 as the Independence day. How many times, do we have to tell the our anonomous editors that the Philippines do not celebrate independence day in July 4. We never have and we never will. Everybody knows that by now. We celebrate our Filipino independence from Spain on June 12, 1898.  Gonzalo 8:30, 27 August 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Philippines did celebrate independence day on July 4 until 1962. And besides, nobody is saying we celebrate independence on July 4... it was just in the infobox because that's actually the day that the Philippines became independent. Even the United States article has separate dates for when their independence was declared and when it was recognized. Coffee 05:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence

message: Just thought I'd explain some of my recent edits - I'm cleaning up the article to make it more in line with the specifications put forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and so it's up to par with the article on India. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is way too long for a country article. It should be condensed to about half to two-thirds its current size. Let's try to emulate Featured Articles like Australia, Cambodia, India, People's Republic of China, Cambodia, South Africa, and Hong Kong. Coffee 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the reduction should also apply to the Culture, Demographics and languages sections as well. The politics section could be trimmed down a little. The landmarks section could be forked off into a related article or turned into a category. Approval from some other editors would be necessary to make such huge edits though. In addition, some of the info on this article isn't in the main articles that are being wikilinked. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the languages section is fine. It's short enough and plus there's a pointer to the main languages article.  Agree with the others. Anyone up for it? :-) --Chris S. 19:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the Languages subsection could even be expanded and break out into its own main section, talking about roles and issues between the languages. Same with the Religion subsection.. it could talk about how the Catholic Church plays a role in people's lives and in government, and how Islam affects things in Mindanao. And the landmarks sections is too subjective and arbitrary-- it should be converted to a tourism section or just removed entirely. Coffee 06:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh , how about converting the tourism section to historic sites , remove purely tourism and subjective sites. If articles are too long , people get tired, I think the 'See main article' should take care of comprehensive treatment of the subject. The Language section is fine but one or more sentences would'n hurt.I might add something about how Islam affects things in Mindanao but feel free to edit or add yourself. --Jondel 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up 

message: Are you the proprietor of this site? Your quotes are noted. 
:No I am not. You can quote me if you want. I am not going to remove your 'salabat' edits. Knock yourself out . I'm outa here.--Jondel 10:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Please understand in exactly the same manner, I also have opensoursce rights to remove your entries.You are free to add, I am free to delete. I encourage you to work together. You can't force anything here!!--Jondel 10:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&curid=23440&diff=25366315&oldid=25356966 Cuisine]

message: hey whoever you are could you please stop removing the word "philippine archipelago" The philippines is in itself an archipelago!!!
:But that gives a good description that the Philippines is an archipelago.--Jondel 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for contributing to this article. I do agree that the lead could use additions like those, but remember to try to keep things concise as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries has a good outline about what the ideal country article should contain. It was previously agreed upon that a similar, comprehensize format modeled on Featured articles India and People's Republic of China would be used for this article as well. See the above discussion about clean up for details. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with seav's edits. Though we want to keep things concise, the lead section needed expansion. The India and China articles also have 3-paragraph lead sections. Coffee 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro paragraphs

message: According to the infobox the Second Republic came before the Third Republic and the text doesn't help. Sumahoy 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of the Republics

message: The article mentions:
::About 94 % of all Filipinos are Christians. 83 % belong to the Roman Catholic Church.The other 9 % belonging to various Protestant denominations.
83+9=92... what's the other 2% if 9% are the various protestant denominations? -- Mang Kiko
Consider also Iglesia ni C(h)risto, Aglipayan, and conventional protestants :Baptists, Union Church, Methodists, etc. also unitarians:Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, etc.--Jondel 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't these groups all fits the description of "various Protestant denominations"? I don't know if you'd agree with my understanding that protestants are generally non-Catholics. --Mang Kiko 05:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two interpretations . Traditional Catholics consider non-Catholics as protestants. Historians consider Christian groups that historicaly protested or antagonized the Catholic Church as protestant, these are typically Lutherans and affiliates. Are the Greek ,Russian and Coptic Orthodox Churches protestant?They have only been geographically separated and developed that way . They maintain many sacraments seen in the Catholic Church. Also Christian coalitions have core requirements like acceptance of the Divinity of Jesus as the Son of God, Holy Trinity, Ressurection and Salvation through grace, personal relation to J.C. etc. Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, etc, don't accept all of these. Mormons have their own bible which they purport as the 'true word of God'. Even the Catholic Church accepts (I believe) certain groups as Christian even if they don't recognize the Pope as long as the fulfill these Christian requirements. Since this is an encyclopedia, we need to distinguish these forms. --Jondel 06:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can group non-Catholic Christian associated groups as Protestant depending on the legal or government interpretation or understanding.e.g. even if a person does not believe in God but enters 'Catholic', Protestant or whatever in applying for passports , marriage certificates, etc. whether the person believes or actually maintains the faith or not.--Jondel 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Perhaps we can add on the main article who is the current president and vice president, and perhaps add their pictures, just like in the Australia article. Circa 1900 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current leaders

message: I reverted an edit by an anon, 210.1.87.16. I don't know if I over did it. Please check his version against my revert.
Mikereichold 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  210.1.87.16  

message: I am considering that this article be blocked permanently to anons considering multiple vandalisms and the article is fairly mature (?)..--Jondel 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -Mang Kiko 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporary semi-protection might be necessary if the article is being constantly attacked by multiple new or anonymous users, but pages are rarely ever protected permanently. In fact, the only main namespace page that is permanently protected is the Main Page. Even George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are left susceptible to vandalism most of the time. --TantalumTelluride 05:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. When its 'vandalism season' , I'll block for about 2 days to a week as appropriate. I'l remove the anon block now.--Jondel 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was already unblocked by Woolkitty.--Jondel 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realize you were an admin. Anyhow, I think you meant to say it was already unprotected by Woohookitty. :-) --TantalumTelluride 05:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes, unprotect. (Uh I think I'm the one under a mental block... :)   )--Jondel 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block anons permanently?

message: Independence did not occur until 1935 with the Philippine Independence Act. The treaty of Paris was held in 1898. The treaty provided that the Philippines be ceaded to the United States. As of 1898 the Philippines belonged to the U.S. I request that the article be unprotected on substantial grounds.
:June 12, 1898 was the declaration of independence from Spain forming the First Philippine republic. It is immaterial that the United States and Spain did not recognize such an act of declaration, since it concerns only the unalienable Rights of the Filipino people to declare themselves free. The Filipinos, through the representation of its First Republic lobbied against the treaty, but the US Congress ratified the treaty believing that the Filipinos are incapable of self-rule and require American guidance. Independence from the United States did not happen until July 4, 1946. Philippine Independence Act (Tydings-McDuffie Act), approved in 1934, established the Philippine Commonwealth and promised independence within 10-years. -Mang Kiko 08:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is historical evidence that Spain put a lot of effort into not wanting to appear to loose to Filipino guerrillas. Thanks of course to the Americans, and many independence movements like that of Cuba, Spanish forces were very weak in the Philippines. Filipino revolutionists were not informed of the handover. Americans were allies at first .--Jondel 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *“The declaration of independence from Spain was done no less by the Filipino people” – which makes the declaration all the more valid because it was done by the Filipino people. As free people, they do not need the consent of the Americans or the Spaniards. Independence is not about winning, it is about recognizing that you no longer wish to be governed by someone else and that you will take responsibility for yourself no matter how short lived that independence may be. It is true that the declaration was never recognized by any national government, but that does not make it any less of a declaration. In reality, if you read the first few parts of the United States Declaration of Independence, it should have been very fundamental for the Americans to recognize such a declaration, but the American people opted to force its government onto another without the consent of the soon-to-be governed. Mang Kiko 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the British did not recognize the American declaration of independence and instead (mis)interpreted it as subversion. This is similar to situations of colonizers and the colonized nations initial independence movement everywhere. --Jondel 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The United States themselves granted independence in 1946, thanks the lobbying of Quezon. Is this a request to unprotect the Philippines article?--Jondel 05:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1898 Independence? 

message: Can somebody make an entry as to the etymology and root of this word? is from the Greek?
:First it's Philippines and Filipino. The word "Philippines" came from King Philip II of Spain. 58.69.104.232 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greek etymology of Phillip itself comes from 'Phili'  and 'Hippo' which is love of horses. --Jondel 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of the word Phillipines/ Phillipino

message: first of all, to one of the posters that suggested that Marcos was not well loved in the Philippines, you are wrong. He is/was well loved. He was demonized in the United States, but here in the Philippines, he was actually fairly well liked, though regarded perhaps as difficult towards the end of his rule. His wife is actually more or less blamed for the ills of "the Marcos era"......
Not true... Marcos exiled, imprisoned and, executed (ie. rubbed-out) lots of people (politicians, media moguls, journalists etc.) on mere suspicion of subversion which is unrealistic for a country which has a tradition of freedom of speech. How can a man of that stature be admired.  It is true that he was a brilliant man and is popular in his hometown province but to say that he is, "well loved", needs to be clarified.    
Also, I think "booming economy" is a bit of a stretch. There is a real problem here with the economy, and it has been like this for some time. 
````Joaquin Kline
:Some people love him, some people hate him. The economy is improving but there are still many problems.--Jondel 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a couple of points on the article that were mentioned previously 

message: Epidemics in the Philippines after American occupation seem to be one of the favoured stries for anti-vaccinationists to spread around.  From other sources it looks as though there were frequent epidemics despite vacciantion efforts in the Spanish occupation/rule, then a period of confusion and failed supply when there was a war, then an improvmeent.  1) is there any great detail available to people who've made a study of the area and the times - say 1730 to 1977 but with core interest around 1880 to 1920?  2) does it seem to be a big deal - are the Americans blamed for introducing Ssmallpox or spreading it with vaccination?  I notice there isn't a health article AFAICS, I wonder if it is a reasonable part of a country article?  (I'm a doctor, so might be expected to think that)Midgley 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox (and health)

message: I think the article should be edited and "reformatted" and I will be in charge. Sorry Jondel for that but when I looked at the WikiProject Countries section, it seems that the article doesn't follow the standard format the section gave. - Obin 3391 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Format (just like the show Change of Heart!) 

message: at the table entry is wikilinked to unitary state. Don't know if this is correct or not. However, the article at democratic republic says d.r. is 'largely meaningless. --Jondel 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For political science buffs, it's unitary-presidential republic, as opposed from parliamentary and federal forms. Would I change it? Howard the Duck 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic republic

message: I would like to see a definition of this term. It appears that this is not a common term; it is not in most dictionaries.
:Maybe this should be Frairicracy or something like that.--Jondel 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frailocracy 

message: :During the Iron Age, Austronesian-speakers came from South China and Taiwan via land bridges and settled in the Philippines
I can hardly believe that one could walk from China or Taiwan to the Philippines during the iron age - the ice age was long over and sea levels were approximately where they are today. Icek 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They had Jesus! LOL! Or was that Moses? __earth (Talk) 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Bridges? 

message: Not on the Philippines per se but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth (Talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive 

message: This section is not appropriate for the main article and should be transferred to the subarticle Philippine Navy. Polaron | Talk 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy of the Philippines section 

message: Philippines and Filipino...Ph vs. F - ippi vs. ipi
what is the history behind this different? why not The Filipines? Why not Philippino? Kingturtle 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of different languages.  The name comes from King Phillip, which in Spanish is Felipe. It's like English philosophy and Spanish filosofía. --Chris S. 06:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: that doesn't answer my question. why does English come away with the English spelling for the name of the country, but the spanish spelling for the name of the people? Kingturtle 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: hmmm. you don't seem to get the gist of my question. i know where the two different spellings come from. one is an English spelling and one is a Spanish spelling. my question is....how did it evolve in the English language that we have one term with English spelling origins and another spelling for Spanish spelling origins. Why don't we spell it Philippino? Kingturtle 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think only a linguist can authoritatively answer your question. There's probably no question about the term "Philippines" since the Philippine Islands did become one of the U.S.' colonies, and there's a wide perception at that time that English has supplanted French/Spanish as the global language. As for the term "Filipino," I guess, there's no good way to derive a noun from the term "Philippines" to refer to the citizens. The adjective "Philippine" sounds incomplete when used alone to refer to people. So the old Spanish term stuck. I don't think there's any precedent in the English language for the "Philippines" to "Philippino"/"Philipino" transformation. "Philippinian"/"Philippinese"/"Philippinish" are all more logical English transformations based on examples from other countries. But why use those when there's a perfectly usable term to import into English already? Personally, I really, really hate seeing the term "Philippino"/"Philipino". It looks so dumb and ignorant. --seav 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the history behind the spelling? 

message: Hey, someone is vandalising this article. I think he's turning the section for Islam in the Philippines into a 'security issue'- .--23prootie 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I only saw the diff and thought you had removed a section header. I now see that it shouldn't be there in the first place. Sorry about that. Polaron | Talk 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Is it me or are the pictures are blatantly biased towards Metro Manila? --Howard the Duck 06:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures (again) 

message: I've converted the infobox parameters to use a new set of variable and deleted several entries concerning the historical constitutions.  I left a link to Constitution_of_the_Philippines and the date of the current constitution.  The point of the infobox variables is make the various rows of the infobox actual rows in the resultant HTML table so the infobox data can be understood by someone using a screen reader.  The technique of making "virtual rows" spanning cells within a row makes the information extremely difficult to understand if you're not able to see the presentation. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  constitution history in infobox 

message: This keeps being added so I'm adding this section, please feel free to discuss here. To be honest it should probably say, 3rd largest Nation whose citizens can but don't speak English. Come on. In the Philippines at home with friends or interacting in daily life, people speak Tagalog or  Cebuano, Ilocano etc. English is spoken only in school, government, business, church or formal occasions, etc. English is also used in the media, entertainment, etc. The mainstream don't speak English at home or with friends. Wrong information will cause many problems.  --Jondel 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! --Jondel 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But not English-speaking ? There is a useful reference:Philippine English. English is for textbooks like calculus, and company and governement procedures, memos etc. But in informal occasions, English is avoided.--Jondel 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Largest English Speaking Nation