Talk:Filipinos

message: The Total population figure asserted in the infobox has been undergoing changes recently. A few days ago, it was "~120 million", with no supporting source. Then, it was changed to 92,337,852 (2010 Census), citing that census. Now it says,  116 million, with "Combination of Filipinos living in the Philippines and Filipinos living abroad (OFW)" in a footnote which provides no verifiable support for that figure.
Here, I just edited the Overseas Filipinos article in an attempt to improve the assertions there abut the size of that population. My calculation there gives a figure for "Total Filipinos (2010)" of ~101.79 million. That does not include an estimated 3 million additional which this 2003 source (cited in the lead paragraph of this article) asserts were then working illegally abroad.
Unless sources are identified which support something different, I plan within the next few days to change the Total population figure in the infobox to agree with the "Total Filipinos (2010)" figure of ~101.79 million which is currently given in the Overseas Filipinos article. I will probably also add a mention of the additional 3 million reported by that 2003 source to be working illegally abroad over in that other article, and that may spark discussion over there which results in the population figure reported there being adjusted. Adjustments there might result in further adjustments here, but in any case these two articles ought to be kept in sync. Contradictions between articles can lead to messy resolution involving .
Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total population 

message: Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment about the RfC not being opened correctly has been challenged by several other editors. To my eyes there seems to be nothing wrong with the RfC. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. --T*U (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups 

message: There are issues with the infobox. A comment from an uninvolved user would be more helpful rather than edits wars nor reports to the admin notice board. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are the issues, please? BushelCandle (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask User:PacificWarrior101. According to them, there are "personal preference" issues with the images. This seems to be unavoidable. Only human. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. I have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines and the gist of my comment was that discussion should commence here first and, only if it is unsuccessful or inconclusive, then move to other fora. BushelCandle (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thanks. That person is probably an inexperienced user so there must be good faith as well. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Are there rules for infobox galleries? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, there is! After a long discussion (mentioned in another section above) it was decided today(!!) that such galleries shall be removed from ethnic infoboes, see WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --T*U (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Filipinos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130826150806/http://www.monsterandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1371134.php/Philippines_monitors_condition_of_Filipino_workers_in_Pakistan to http://www.monsterandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1371134.php/Philippines_monitors_condition_of_Filipino_workers_in_Pakistan
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Filipinos. 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/20090420130205/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=215578 to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=215578
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201232156/http://www.royalsulu.com/history.html to http://www.royalsulu.com/history.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
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) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've reverted this edit, the edit summary of which asserted that Filipinos are "not a single ethnic group". I see that the Ethnicity article defines that term as "a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences." That article also says, "Larger ethnic groups may be subdivided into smaller sub-groups known variously as tribes or clans". Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Filipinos are NOT a single ethnic group!
They have over 150 different languages. 
Come from many different races. 
Many different cultures.
Most people at least classify the Philippines into 3 separate ethnicities between Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. My wife is an ethnic Hiligaynon. 
Also, you cannot cite wikipedia!HeinrichMueller (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino ethnicity 

message: Haplogroup R1b is Western European. There is no way Filipinos have 13.33%! 
That would make Filipinos 1/8th German/French.
My wife is Filipino, and according to her results from 23andme she is 00.1% European! HeinrichMueller (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not 1/8th Spanish? --81.43.251.129 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA 

message: The opening states:
"Filipinos (Filipino: Mga Pilipino) are a nation and ethnic group native to the Philippines that share a common Filipino culture and speak the Filipino language or one of the Philippine languages."
The majority of the population of the Philippines are not native to the Philippines. Native Filipinos account for a tiny percentage of the population. 
"Filipinos are a nation" does not even make sense in English. 
And "Filipino" is NOT an ethnic group. It is a nationality. Within this nationality, there are MANY ethnic groups and many cultures. 
This needs to be changed, as it ruins the entire article.
HeinrichMueller (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is vandalizing this. For example, I am a Filipino, but am of German culture, and German ancestry. The Philippines has MANY different races, cultures, and ethnicities. Saying that there is one race and ethnicity and culture is RACISM! HeinrichMueller (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Filipinos. 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/20141113203531/http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854 to http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mangyan.org/tribal/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214223039/http://hpgl.stanford.edu:80/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filipinos. 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/20131213192314/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_01_0002_00061.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_01_0002_00061.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) 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit just caught my eye. Please see the discussion at Talk:Ma-i#huang vs. wang. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''huang'' vs. ''wang'' 

message: The whole of Zamboanga Peninsula is NOT Cebuano "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippine_languages_per_region.png"
The only area that are majority Cebuano Ethnic are Zamboanga del Sur and parts of Zamboang del Norte. whereas the Independent and Chartered City of Zamboanga is predominantly Zamboangueño Ethnic while Zamboanga Sibugay are comrpises of Zamboangueño Ethnic, Subanon Ethnic, Cebuano Ethnic and Ilonggo Ethnic, and that also includes those areas of Zambooanga del Norte near the boundary of Zamboanga City.
Hopefully the Map should be corrected!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.36.89.238 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Zamboanga Peninsula

message: These recent edits by an anon caught my eye. I don't want to get caught up in yet another tiresome Tagalog vs. Filipino language naming debate, but I thought I would mention this here. Also, it seems to me on the basis of Article XIV, Section 7 of the 1987 constitution that if the Spanish language is mentioned the Arabic language ought also to be mentioned.
(emphasis added above by me) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages: Filipino vs. Tagalog, Spanish, Arabic, etc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Filipinos. 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://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090206-187868/No-foreign-workers-layoffs-in-Malaysia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306090850/http://www.poea.gov.ph/stats/stats2007.pdf to http://www.poea.gov.ph/stats/stats2007.pdf
*Added  tag to http://philembassy.nl/default.asp?iId=KHKDG
*Added  tag to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view_article.php?article_id=3947
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pasay.gov.ph/About%20Pasay/History.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit caught my eye. It changed "other Spanish territories" to say " Spanish territories in Americas" in the lead sentence of the Hispanized caste system section. No edit summary was provided to explain the change and no supporting source was cited. The edited paragraph is tagged . I don't see any point in focusing there on Spain's American colonies; in fact, narrowing the focus of that sentence seems to put it at odds with the sentence which follows it. I have reverted the edit, per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. The edited paragraph needs a supporting cite. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanized caste system 

message: This edit caught my eye. Out of curiosity, I checked the source cited and took a look at the article's edit history
.
Source assertion 	...; we also observed a modest amount of European genetic ancestry in individuals self-identified as Filipinos.
Initial insertion	According to genetic study done by the University of California (San Francisco), Filipinos posses moderate amounts of European DNA coming from the Spanish settlers.
As edited        	According to a genetic study done by the University of California (San Francisco), Filipinos possess moderate amounts of European DNA coming from the Spanish and American settlers.
The link in the source citation goes to a copy of the cited source which only has the abstract viewable. I found the full text of the source viewable online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574246/. I don't fully understand the gobbledegook there, but I could not find support there for the ancestry history asserted by the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Filipinos. 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/20080907134426/http://www.ops.gov.ph/switzerland2007/backgrounder.htm to http://www.ops.gov.ph/switzerland2007/backgrounder.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111164841/http://www.kazembassy.org.my/kaz_phi.htm to http://www.kazembassy.org.my/kaz_phi.htm
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) 17:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Filipinos. 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://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090206-187868/No-foreign-workers-layoffs-in-Malaysia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423231541/http://www.poea.gov.ph/stats/statistics.html to http://www.poea.gov.ph/stats/statistics.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218121832/http://comonca.org.cn/ssa/2002ISASFU/017.pdf to http://comonca.org.cn/ssa/2002ISASFU/017.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727083352/http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=733&feed=rss to http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=733&feed=rss
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) 13:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filipinos. 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/20120425030359/http://www.scientists.org.nz/files/journal/2005-62/NZSR_62_3.pdf to http://www.scientists.org.nz/files/journal/2005-62/NZSR_62_3.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) 13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Following on this edit, I have changed "native to or identified with" to "native to or citizens of" in the WP:lead sentence of this article in order to remove the disagreement between the lead sentence and the WP:short description. Both "native to" and "identified with" are slippery terms, so this is a pretty slippery definition either way. Regardless, the two definitions ought to agree. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipinos, for purposes of this article 

message: This is a WP:BRD discussion.
*This WP:BOLD edit by  removed English from the Languages section of the infobox, leaving "Primarily Filipino, and other languages of the Philippines" as its content, saying Neither widely or natively spoken.
*I reverted this here, saying English is an official language of the Philippines -- so says the 1987 Philippine constitution
*89.164.136.128 undid my reversion here, saying It may be an official language of the country but this is the article about the ethnic group? The vast majority do not speak English even fluenty, let alone count bit as one of their native languages; it is taught as a second auxiliarily language; might as well add it to the Germans and Japanese people articles
At that point, I created this talk page section. I will let the unreversion stand for now, but I expect to reinsert English there in a few days unless persuaded otherwise by discussion to follow here. There is no user talk page for 89.164.136.128. I will create one and place notification of this discussion there, though I have little confidence that the anonymous editor involved will see that notice. 
I don't have an axe to grind here, but I think that English belongs in the Languages section of the infobox. I note http://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Opinion-No.-14-05.pdf, which appears to be a 2015 opinion by the Department of Education on the topic of the K-12 education program in the Philippines (see also http://k12philippines.com/). In there, it says:
That reinforces my impression that English has a bit more relevancy in Filipino society than German and Japanese. 
Also, though I do not currently live in the Philippines, I have spent a couple of recent decades in the country and I remember  a number of prominent national and local newspapers there in English and don't remember seeing any in either German or Japanese. 
Also, while living in the Philippines, I observed that many Filipinos who had never left the Philippines had a good English language conversational ability. My wife and I lived mainly in the Visayas. She is from Luzon and her main languages, in order of preference, are Ibang, ilocano and Tagalog; English was her fourth language. Her Visayan is limited to what bits of Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Romblon she picked up from contact, and she remarked to me that she often used English in day-to-day conversations with Visayan Filipinos because that worked better as a common language than Filipino/Tagalog.
Also, I note some assertions in the Wikipedia Languages of the Philippines article, including:
*"While Filipino is used for communication across the country's diverse linguistic groups and is used in popular culture, the government operates mostly using English."
*"Filipino is an official language of education and also the major language of the broadcast media and cinema, but less important than English as a language of publication (except in some domains, like comic books) and less important for academic-scientific-technological discourse."
*and mention of "the prevalence of code-switching to English when speaking in both their first language and Tagalog."
Also, I note the following in a 2016 paper titled The Philippines, English, and Philippine English
For these reasons, it appears to me reasonable to include English in the Languages section of the infobox.
" Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the IP in question but I propose a compromise. It shouldn't read either English nor Filipino as those are not native languages of the majority. It should only simply read "Langauges of the Philippines". You misunderstood the might as well add it to the Germans and Japanese people articles part I meant, you might as well add "English" to the Germans and the Japanese peoples' articles, as if those ethnic groups speak English widely as well. For all other similar articles only the universally spoken, or assumed to be such, language(s) is/are listed. German article for example does not list Low German, nor does the Japanese one list Ryukyuan languages. 89.164.195.248 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that more specificity than that is needed. template:infobox ethnic group/doc describes the expected content as "List of languages spoken by group.", leaving the question of what persons comprise the group open. This article defines Filipinos as "the people who are native to or citizens of the country", leaving the definition of "native to" open (generally, persons with citizen forbears are citizens -- who else is "native to"?). It doesn't look to me as if a solution is to be found by going down that road looking for specificity. As an aside, this discussion here has led me to dipute some related assertions in the Languages of the Philippines article, with discussion here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I wandered off point above when I got sidetracked into that other article. Generally, I think that English ought to be mentioned among infobox Languages here -- or perhaps Philippine English. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages listed in the infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* WTNaga BAHALANA A13.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Here, I corrected a mismatch between a snippet quoted in the article from a cited source and a copy of the source cited that I downloaded via the provided link (). The mismatch involved changes to some of the percentage figures thre. Apparently, that mismatch came from this anonymous edit. (the foregoing has been redone for clarity) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent twiddling of figures in a quote 

message: There’s absolutely no credibility or accuracy to this  . 
“121]
From Latin America	Edit
There was migration of a military nature from Latin-America (Mexico and Peru) to the Philippines, composed of varying races (Amerindian, Mestizo and Castizo) as described by Stephanie J. Mawson in her book "Convicts or Conquistadores? Spanish Soldiers in the Seventeenth-Century Pacific".[122] Also, in her dissertation paper called, ‘Between Loyalty and Disobedience: The Limits of Spanish Domination in the Seventeenth Century Pacific’, she recorded an accumulated number of 15,600 soldier-settlers sent to the Philippines from Latin-America during the 1600s.[123] These 15,600 Latinos sent to the Philippines supplemented a population of only 667,612 people.[124] A 2015, Y-DNA compilation by the Genetics Company Applied Biosystems, using samples taken from all over the Philippines, resulted in a 13.33% frequency of the European/Spanish Y-DNA R1b which was likely taken from Latin-American soldiers who settled in the Philippines who had Spanish fathers and Amerindian mothers.[125]” Jason1993wa (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple references for this section. To substantiate your statement that this has "no credibility or accuracy" you need to explain why you think the references are either not reliable or why they do not support the statements made. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is fake information being posted? 

message: if you want to cite the similarities and differences of Filipinos and Jpanese, which non-linear text are you going to use? 120.29.76.177 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Look up the facts if what a Christian is. Very offending to call them christian. 98.27.222.50 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many of them religions that you had listed as Christians were not. 

message: Gumawa ng talata kungkol sa covid virus gumamit ang payak,maylapi,tambalan,inuulit? 58.69.123.232 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino 

message: epekto ng pagkakaroon ng NCII sa mga mag aaral 180.195.231.49 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCll