Talk:History of the Philippines

message: As a trained historian I can tell you that this page has a major problem.  It doesn't understand what history is.  History is the study of human past through written records (inscriptions, documents and literature).  It is the study of change through a humanistic (subjective) epistemological lens, since objective human experience is not much different than those of chimpanzees or orangutans.
History, then, cannot be "607,000" years old in the Philippines.  What you mean to say is that "evidence for presence of proto-human life has been found dating to..." 
But you cannot use the word "history" for that period.  The reason why we historiographically call the period of civilization "history" and pre-civilization "pre-history" is because the people before the invention of writing cannot tell us by themselves who they believed they were. 
Therefore, history begins roughly 5500 years ago (ergo Hebrew calendar is year 5780) when writing with a proper ductus begins in Mesopotamia, and after that we have records of humans who were able to tell their story (the logos) and tell us who they were.
Everything before roughly 3500 BCE is thus pre-history, and is subject to speculation.  Modern humans only emerge roughly 200,000 years ago, so the population of proto-human who lived on the Philippines 607,000 years ago is NOT related to the modern humans, and certainly not the anatomically modern humans who emerged some 25,000 years ago.
You can see how by your overzealousness who combat against the idea that stems from personal insecurity rather than anything any genuine scholar would ever believe, you inadvertently prove the opposite of what you intend - the intention is to demonstrate a continuity of culture of the Philippines as being ancient and thus stand on its own as a legitimate civilization of the islands before European arrival, but instead, if you're alleging that the population today has continuity of existence with the people from 607,000 years ago, you're saying that the Philippinos are a different human species than the other modern humans.
Be careful what you write and how you write it.  
"Evidence of some habitation by a species related to humans in the Philippines has been found dating to a period of ...."
But it cannot be "history of the Philippines" - as history requires the continuity of social, political and urban organization together with writing.  Oral history is fine, but it's very problematic and unreliable, so history in the Philippines begins when writing is introduced, and not before.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiaantiqua (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Problem

message: The recent vandalism of this section by $antander has been reversed. 
Although the British only occupied Manila and Cavite and some small areas around, the British controlled Manila Bay and the government. After the short siege of Manila, the Spanish government of the Philippines surrendered and formally ceded the whole of the Philippines to the British. 
Legally, the British ruled the Philippines, even though the only oidor outside Manila, Don Simon Anda y Salazar, was very active in Pangasinan resisting British occupation.
It might be considered an unhappy fact that the British managed to take over the government of the Philippines from the Spanish. And although it was only for about 18 months, and in the context of the Seven Years War, it nevertheless is a very relevant fact for Philippines history. 
Gubernatoria (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British Rule

message: :$antander, has once more vandalised the British Rule section.  He has once more changed all the dates from British format to US format. The British format was the original format for this section of the article, so $antander is in breach of wikipedia language guidelines. Do not do it again $antander or you will be reported for multiple vandalism. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At 02:19, 2 December 2008 $antander again vandalised the article.  He has been repeatedly warned.  Since this is a repeated violation for the same thing, after repeated warnings, I request administration to bar him from editing this article again. Administration is also invited to consider all his other recent "corrections" in light of this latest action. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the governing consideration here should be consistency throughout the article. See WP:ENGVAR (particularly the Consistency within articles and the Strong national ties to a topic subsections there) and Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full date formatting (particularly the Format consistency subsection there). Overall, this article has, IMHO, stronger national ties to America than to Britain—arguing for standardization on American vs. British standards of spelling and date formatting. A separate article on British rule in the Philippines (1762-1764) might be argued to have stronger ties to Britain. A differently-slanted article on The Philippines under British rule (1762-1764) might be argued to lack those ties. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Boracay Bill, dates in Philippine-related articles should be in US format. TheCoffee (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: It's the New Year and tons of new historical states and various archeological findings have been discovered about the Philippines recently, pushing the limits and breaking molds of traditional information. This new information is suddenly and haphazardly inserted to a structural framework that doesnt sync with it at all! This renders the current version of Philippine history moot and outdated. It's time for a radical overhaul.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Philippine History Page And All Associated Articles need a Radical Overhaul

message: The enlarged illustrations appear to have been intentionally superimposed to give an impression that America was the most cruel colonial power in the Philippines -a common Anti-American mantra or hate campaign among communists in the Philippines.  You cannot see the same tenor towards Spain and Japan here in this article.  Spanish and Japanese atrocities are at most described at a minimum. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Issues in the Philippine-American War section

message: The image portraying Jacob H. Smith's order is quiet problematic. First, it is misleading as it tends to project to the reader that killing children was the official and prevailing U.S. policy at that time, which is not. The alleged order only came from the mouth of a single officer and purports to a single incident which was never officially sanctioned nor given any official approval. This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent to the alleged events, court martial proceedings were directed against those who committed the alleged acts. Second, the image is irrelevant because nowhere in the text of the section is the incident specifically described. Furthermore, an article has already been written for that purpose (Balangiga massacre). It is there where the image should find utmost relevance. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was restored in this edit with an edit summary of "Restore image. No consensus for removal." I don't see any tie-in for the image content in the prose of this section. A smaller-sized version of this image is present in Philippine–American War#War crimes, which is linked as a  article in this section. I think that the inclusion of this image there is much more appropriate than the inclusion here. Given the brevity of the summary style Philippine-American War section prose in this article, I think that the inclusion of the image here gives undue weight to its content. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Wtmitchell. Images must be reflective of what the section says.  Since the section purports to be a summary of the Philippine American War, images used must be descriptive of that summary. In this particular case, it is not. Rather, it only points to a single incident which does not reflect the over-all nature of the war itself.  It misleads the reader into thinking, that killing children above ten years old was the general and over-all direction of the war. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed misleading and irrelevant image that properly belongs to another article 

message: I removed the tags and local links inserted in this edit. First because the whole paragraph (where the tags were placed) is supported by a credible and verifiable source, and second because the editor did not provide an equally credible authority to dispute the paragraph's assertions(one which would justify the insertion of the aforesaid tags).  Having thus failed to provide an equally credible source that disputes the factual assertions made in the aforementioned paragraph, the tags are therefore unnecessary.
On the issue of a healthcare, It would be unnecessary to point to a particular event when the system was established because this took a series of steps such as the establishment of the Military Board of Health in 1898, the Civilian Board of Health in 1901, the Bureau of Governmental Laboratories also in 1901, and the establishment of a plethora of health centers all throughout the country (both by government and the private sector) such as the Philippine General Hospital (1907),"History". Philippine General Hospital. Retrieved 2010-06-26. St.Luke's Medical Center (1903),"About Us". Saint Luke's Medical Center. Retrieved 2010-06-26. Iloilo Mission Hospital (1901),Klein, Amanda (1915). The Union Mission Hospital at Iloilo, Philippine Islands. The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 227-229 the Dumaguete Mission Hospital (1901)"Silliman Medical Center". PC(USA). Retrieved 2010-06-26. and many others.
On the issue of education, again no clarification is needed because that aspect of Philippine history is already well-established, particularly on the coming of the Thomasites, a group of teachers sent by the American Government which eventually resulted in the growth of the Philippine public school system. Prior to this period, education for the most part was limited to the moneyed elite. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: United States territory: Removal of unnecessary tags and misplaced local links

message: This article has fallen from it's featured status into bad quality because of the rash of bad editors who has degraded it's quality. However, this is not totally bad in that, it gives us a chance to change it and make it even better than before. So to jump start the resurrection process. I propose that all of us start to contribute. I for one would like to add the Sultanate of Lanao and the Aponate of Irraya to expand into the history section (Will work on it in the coming weeks) while we also need people to help streamline the lead section to make it shorter. 
It's time for REVIVAL! Who's with me? We shall once again reclaim the featured status! We can do it, if Philippine history has taught us anything it is that the Filipinos are experts at Resurrection. Our nation has been burned, flooded, earquaked, landslided and warred upon so many times but we always manage to revive, stronger than before. Therefore, I would like to call forth that spirit once again and ask our contributors to help facilitate the next wave of revival.
Yours Truly
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LET'S RESURRECT THIS ARTICLE! 

message: This edit added a section named The  Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics.  The assertion "The Americans had to war ..." there strikes me as being oversimplified to the point of incorrectness, though I have not seen the source cited there to support it. Also, the word heroic in "Despite heroic resistance from these three republics against American rule" strikes me as being neither NPOV nor encyclopedic.
The final paragraph of the section preceding this new one makes the point that shortly after the Americans ceased hostilities,  a Philippine Constabulary was organized to deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement and gradually assume the responsibilities of the United States Army. There were, however, some instances of direct U.S. military action subsequent to the official cessation of hostilities (see Campaigns of the Philippine-American War#Post-war period). I've rewritten this section in this edit. It may need more work. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics 

message: Upon its review on August 8, 2015, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, , , , etc, or large numbers of , , or similar inline tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.   I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.. (Specifically, the article contains a number of  tags and a  tag.) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I was wondering if anyone else would like to help me fill in the blank between early neolithic settlement and 1000 BC when four distinct groups formed. Recent research is showing that the Jade discovered in the Philippines is evidence of communication with other prehistoric Southeast Asian communities. There are also a few pieces of bronze or copper artifacts dated to this time period, but not enough to suggest a "bronze age". Any and all help or contributions would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine "Jade Age" in Prehistory 

message: This edit, which changed a wikilink to China to go to China proper instead, caught my eye. Neither of those articles relates well to the historical period being discussed where the changed wikilink appears, but I couldn't think of an improvement.
After looking at this, I browsed through this article and eventually came across the The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section, which sparked this comment. That section says,
Regarding the first sentence there, according to the Tagalog Republic article, that term refers to two completely different insurgent revolutionary organizations styling themselves as governments: one formed by Bonifacio in 1896 and another under Sakay in 1902 (or maybe 1904 -- both years are mentioned, but the First Philippine Republic existed from 1899 to sometime in 1902 prior to the establishment of Sakay's breakaway republic). As far as I can see, it is incorrect to assert that either Bonifacio's or Sakay's "Tagalog Republic" was briefly formed "during the First Philippine Republlic."
In the second sentence there, I came across the bit about Aguinaldo's "gift to the USA" (see this January 2014 edit by an anon). WTF??? This appears to be a bit of unsupported unencyclopedic editorial opinionating -- a dig at the USA or a slap at Agunaldo, or perhaps both.
The The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section needs a rewrite. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative writing 

message: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans." Well indeed. When else might it have begun? Constant Pedant (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Big 'duh'. You're cutting off a sentence in the middle just for a laugh. But actually it goes: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats at least 67,000 years ago" which is not that all that trivial.  –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The silliness of the sentence is not altered by adding the second half, it still says that the history of the Philippines began with the arrival of the first humans, regardless of how and when they arrived. The problem is solved by stating it like this: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun at least 67,000 years ago, with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats." Constant Pedant (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like nitpicking what is or is not properly defined as history. How about leaving that unargued here and just starting with something like "The first humans in the Philippines arrived [...]"? (arrived vs. are believed to have arrived is another matter, best left to a separate discussion) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitpicking is how we get things right. I wasn't going to get into the question of whether what happened 67,000 years ago is properly called "history" (It's actually prehistory - history begins with written records.) But I approve of your solution, so we don't need to discuss that :) . Constant Pedant (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Stating the obvious

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This edit caught my eye, and led to a comment I've made at Talk:Manila galleon#Size of the ships. I thought that it was more useful to make that comment there than here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the Manila Galleons 

message: Refer to this edit by Chipmunkdavis. The first humans (early modern, Austronesians) to arrive by boat in the archipelago (Scott, Barangay Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society 1994 as one of the cited source in the article) are not same humans/hominins (premodern or archaic) whose evidence of activity 709 000 years were discovered by Ingicco et al (2018). Austronesians only started migrating to the Philippines at around 7000 years ago. 709 000 years ago was Middle Pleistoscene, where sea levels was low that travel by "land bridges" was possible. Though possible, premodern humans arriving by boat to the Philippines is not based on any source or evidence but mere speculation from misinterpretation.  It is suggested separating "the arrival by humans/Austronesians/Filipino ancestors by boat" and "the discovery of earliest hominin activity" as the time gap between these events is at least 700  000 years. Tagaaplaya (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my edit precisely, but the above text is unrelated to the primary issue with your changes, which was removing information about the timeline of modern human settlement. CMD (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no evidence that the first hominins (archaic humans, not Homo sapiens) arrived by boats and rafts in the archipelago. 300 000 years ago, modern humans were still probably in Africa where the earliest fossil was found. The sources provided was based on W.H. Scott, who actually referred to modern humans not archaic humans. Archaic humans were not the ancestors of Filipinos. And this why I suggest to just separate them as different events not hastily combined as if they occured at the same time.  Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment in passing: I'm no anthropologist -- I don't recognize the name Larena, but I note that it is mentioned neither here nor in the article containing the edit at issue here. This isn't the place for scholarly debate -- see WP:TPG. If there are disagreements between academic sources which ought to be mentioned, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation of Scott (1994) and Ingicco et al (2018) on the arrival of first "humans" 

message: Why is the introduction/summary stopped at 1946, no summary on post-independence, Marcos era and 5th Republic. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the introduction cut too short? 

message: Do you have access to the source "Tiele (1877 - 1887)"? It looks as if you have copied the reference unchanged from note 52 in :Babullah of Ternate, where the citation appears next to the statement . The format of the citation is really bad, but I was able to locate the source in the correct volume of the Bijdragen: . I am not quite sure how pages 161-162 of that article support the statement which you have inserted: . The source does not speak of a political league of Sultanates of Maguindanao and Lanao with Ternate, but just mentions that the area which payed tributes (schatting opbrachten) to Sultan Babullah of Ternate extended from Mindanao to Bima. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But the entire text is totally unconnected to the source. 1. "As the Ternate Sultanate returned to Islam": The Sultans of Ternate were Muslims without interruption. 2. "...and rebelled against Spain": Babullah kicked out the Portuguese. Spanish occupation came later. 3. During the Babullah era, Mindanao was already mentioned as part of the Ternatean influence sphere. Maguindanao and Lanao may have specifically joined forces with Ternate against Spain, but that was a century later. I have removed the text, you may restore it with a source that actually supports it. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was mistaken with the source, I was slightly drunk when I wrote that, what I meant to use as source is this paper from Academia.edu. Check it out, it stated the full extent of the Maguindanao Ternate Confederation/league/alliance. https://www.academia.edu/38617032/MAGUINDANAO_AND_TERNATE_CONNECTION_AND_DISCONNECTION_DURING_THE_AGE_OF_EUROPEAN_COLONIZATION_AN_OVERVIEW Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source. Best to find the sources cited therein, and see what they say. CMD (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I'll do a "Source"-ception, looking at the sources in the sources lol. Thank You. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just commenting that it's not usually necessary or desired to look at or to question or to express wonderment about what sources RSs are basing their observations or interpretations upon. However, if the reliability of a source cited to support an article assertion is questioned, one way to address that might be to look at underlying sources which might be more reliable, paying careful attention to the extent of support present there for the article assertion at issue. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  These sources are promising, (1)"Antonio de Morga, in Blair and Robertson, The Philippines Islands, XV, Pages 97-98" (2) Cesar A. Majul, Muslims in the Philippines  (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press,1999), 128-129. I'll cite those in the reworked paragraph Austronesier said I can do as long as the sources are aligned. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiele source 

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) 05:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Can we settle on which to use, pre-Hispanic or precolonial (no dash)? Though both are correct, isn't "precolonial" the term mostly used in academe and the government? I don't agree with the claim (reason by the editing user)  that "pre-Hispanic" is more accurate as Manila used to be a colony by Brunei. Manila and Sulu were never under direct Bruneian political hegemony in the 15th and 16th centuries. This debunking is supported by contemporaneous European and Chinese texts, Sulu oral genealogies, and archaeological evidence.. What do you think?Tagaaplaya (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Hispanic vs Precolonial 

message: This was prompted by the removal of a  tag here. The tag was added here, by me, and had a malformed reason parameter, which would not have stated the reason well even if correctly formed. My edit summary stated the reason more clearly, but that did not endure in the article. The tag intended to call attention to two perceived problems involving the term mulatto and an asserted high desertion rate among non-Spaniards. The edit summary of the edit removing the tag addressed the term, but not the desertion rate. High desertion rate is mentioned twice in that paragraph, and I still don't see support for that. I'm not questioning it but I don't see support for the article assertions about it. If sources cited do provide support for this, I've missed seeing that. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. While it is true that the number of soldiers who were to arrive was underwhelming, the source cited is not clear for the reason behind it. We cannot be certain if it is because of high desertion rate. Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support re desertion rate 

message: The section Fifth Republic (1986–present) seems to focus largely on political history (economic history seems lacking), and we already have a dedicated article Political history of the Philippines (which in itself contains a well-written summary). If this section should contain only political history (or if a more comprehensive summary cannot be written for now), we might as well just use an  from the dedicated article. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And/or review relative depth of coverage and significance of covered info for these two articles with WP:SS in mind, adjust as needed, and  list that detail article as a  for this section. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth Republic (1986–present) section 

message: I have WP:BOLDly moved the final paragraph from the The First Philippine Republic (1899–1901) section of the article here for discussion. That paragraph reads as follows:
That paragraph presents two isolated - possibly cherrypicked - statistics, apparently expecting the reader to draw some conclusion about the First Philippine Republic from them. This article is a high-level article about Philippine history. IMO, such information, if presented, ought to be in a detail article and ought to be accompanied by source-supported information about the meaning of those pretty raw statistics in the context of that detail article.
Incidentally, I haven't seen the cited source for the stat about GDP per capita, but the support for the stat about wage rates is on page 16 of the cited source, available online here. I invite editors to read that page and opine here about what that stat means means in relation to the First Philippine Republic. 
I propose that this paragraph not be restored to the article. 13:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who inserted the wage information to support the previous statement on GDP per Capita, although I am of the opinion that its' factual as the statistics was published by the University of the Philippines. I also am of the opinion that the article is oversaturated or TOO LARGE already, so maybe this information is more aptly belonging in the Economy of the Philippines article or any of the Economics related articles pertaining to the Philippines rather than our very long and very saturated Philippine History Article. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph moved here for discussion