Talk:Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Archive 1

message: Please comment(violently or otherwise) at WP:TAMBAY.--Jondel 02:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Hi. If no one complains, I plan to do the following when I have the time:
Principles:
*Proportionality. Larger (e.g., Tagalogs) or significant (Chinese commercially, Spanish historically) should get more space than almost invisible minorities like Indonesians or Malaysians
*Filipino is beyond ethnicity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity)
Outline
*Intro (broad description) 
*History (move from Demographics of the Philippines)
**Check with sources, put references
*Ethnic groups (north to south? for each group: size; location; language/s; culture; some special thing about them… e.g., commercial role of the Chinese; a picture of a member of that ethnicity)
**Ilokano (pic of Marcos)
**Kapangpangan (pic Arroyo?)
**Pangasinense (pic of Ramos)
**Tagalog (pic of Rizal)
**Bikolano (Raul Roco)
**Bisaya (Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Waray, etc.) (Pedro Calungsod)
**Moro (A datu)
**Mountainfolk (Igorot, Lumad, etc.) (a Negrito, a Lumad in traditional garb)
**Chinese, Chinese mestiso (Lucio Tan and Kris Aquino)
**Spanish, Spanish Mestiso (An Ayala and a mestiso actor)
**Other minorities (American, Koreans, South Asians, etc)
Please join the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines#Clean-up --Nino Gonzales 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 

message: I placed a POV tag on the article because it seems that:
*It is written from a Pilipino racial nationalist POV, based on its categorization of ethnicities; on what it deems to be “Filipino” and “foreign”
*It is written from a Tagalog/Manila-centric POV, based on its selection of information to include for each ethnicity
I also placed a improvement tag since:
*It is too long
*There are too many controversial claims without any reference
*The POV issues
--Nino Gonzales 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and Clean-up tags

message: Due the controversy associated , frequent reverts and as requested, editing this article will be limited to and prioritize registered users.--Jondel 04:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block:Limited to registered users only

message: *Filipino
There are different definition. I admit that some define Filipino in terms of race, but I don’t know of any mainstream scholar who defines Filipino in terms of race. Agoncillo and Nick Joaquin does NOT define Filipino in terms of race. I suggest we avoid defining it; neither explicitly nor implicitly (through some sort of segregation). If we insist in defining it, the several generally accepted POV’s should be represented.
*Ethnicity
From its wikipedia article, it does not (only) mean race, or linguistic grouping
**Ok! Pero, American (120.000), South Asian (50,000), and Korean (22,000) are very large enough to warrant their own section. Do you think so?
:::If the major ethnic groups get a section and they are in the millions (even the "full blooded" Chinese are in the millions), maybe ethnicities in the hundred thousands or ten thousands could get subsections in a "minorities" section... or get several sentences... particularly the Americans due to their role in Filipino history, or South Asians due to some Hindu influence in Filipino culture, or to Koreans who have lately been very visible due to English schools and Koreonovelas... how does that sound? --Nino Gonzales 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms

message: If we want to make this article quick and crisp, I think we need to select what are the most important details we would want to include. I think all ethnicities should have the following details:
*location
:Maybe better to make it broad (e.g., Ilocanos are the inhabitants of the lowlands and coastal areas of northern Luzon. vs. The Ilocano are found in the original Ilocano provinces of Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, La Union) 
*language/s and number of speakers
*religion
And for specific ethnicities
*Ilocano
:tendency to migrate
:presence in Hawaii
:Philippine Independent Church
*Kapampangan
:The Tagalog-Kapampangan role during the Spanish era
:reliable soldiers of the Spanish colony
*Tagalog
:Manila
:The national language
:Role in Philippine history
*Bisaya
:The largest are the speakers of Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray-Waray
:Bisaya vs. Binisaya
*Moro
:The largest groups: Tausug, Maguindanao, Maranao
:Unconquered by Spanish
:Continuing struggle for various degrees of self-determination?
*Tribal groups
:Coldillera, Palawan, Mindanao hilltribes
:Least influenced by Islamic, Christian, Hispanic and American cultures
*Chinese
:Commercial role
:Chinese mestizo role in the development of the Filipino nation
*Spanish
:Christianity
:Cultural influence
:A lot of mestizos in former agriculture centers, showbiz?
What do you think?--Nino Gonzales 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of detail

message: This erroneous use of Austronesian in any other context than a linguistic one must STOP TODAY! People keep on asserting in the article "the Austronesian waves from southern China and Taiwan" (fair enough), the Indonesian Orang Bandjar that came later and intermarried which the article found the need to stress were also "Austronesian". The assertion that the Austronesian migrants displaced the Aeta Negrito (True enough that they did), but the Negrito Aeta ARE also AUSTRONESIANS!!! They speak Agta, an Austronesian language.
In fact, there is no indigenous Filipino language or group (whether they be the first wave, second or third and most important wave from which the bulk of Filipinos belong to) that isn't Austonesian. From the Negrito Aeta, to the Orang Dampuan, Tagalogos, Visayans, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They are ALL so-called "Austronesians"
I'm am going to propose a BAN on the use of "Austronesian" on Wikipedia on anything other than in linguistic context (it's only context). Al-Andalus 12:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Btw, for conciseness and proportionality's sake, I am removing the mestizo and foreign ethnic groups sections. I'll also remove the "ethnic Filipino" section. (This proposal has been around for more than a week and no one opposed). Instead of these sections, how about one for chinese/mestizo, spanish/mestizo and a section of the rest of the minorities. How does that sound? If you don't agree with this, I would be great if we could discuss the best way to improve this article.--Nino Gonzales 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No! Negrito Aeta ARE NOT Austronesians. They speak an Austronesian language, but they are not Austronesians. Negritos are akin to the Andamanese islanders, and they have an extinct language called Katabaga. Why ban the use of the term Austronesian? If you refer to 'Indo-Europeans' to Indians and Europeans, why not use Austronesian?--User:Matthgewprc 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Austonesian AGAIN!!!

message: Could anyone add a portion for the Ivatans, Ibanag and other related groups. There are highly underrepresented for a people of almost a million. - Isao
:How does putting them under tribal groups sound? Maybe noting that Ivatans are Christians... we might also have to do that for the Igorots of the Coldirrieras... many of them, it seems, have embraced Episcopalianism...--Nino Gonzales 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, maybe you could help out... just create an account...--Nino Gonzales 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivatan and Ibanag