Talk:Philippines/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Philippine Islands vs Philippines

The etymology section implies that there was an evolution from "Philippines Islands" to "Philippines." But based on the Google news archive, it would appear that "Philippines" was newspaper usage all along. Kauffner (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. I may rephrase to capture the subtlety. I would note further, however, that a Google News Archive search from 1890-1895 would show that the phrase Philippine Islands has more hits. It seems that it is only with the greater attention brought by the Spanish-American War and its aftermath that the more cogent Philippines came into greater usage in the press. So the earlier statement is still pretty much correct; it is when the Americans started having a greater interest that the term Philippines started to replace Philippine Islands as the preferred term.

As for the "Government of" statements, they do not belong in the etymology section. What is being described is the territory, country, or state—not the government. Bringing in the court case is redundant and merely adds length to an already long article. In any event both your examples pretty much use Philippine Islands which is what is stated more succinctly in the earlier version. In the interests of article brevity I will remove the addition on any further update I may make. Do you have any other reasons for preferring your additions? Lambanog (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why include "Republic of" and "Commonwealth of", but not any equivalent term for the Insular Government? Of course, there isn't a single, directly equivalent term. But the issue should be addressed somehow. "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" is a standard legal phrase found in various U.S. Supreme Court cases of this period. When the Philippines was obscure, newspapers used "Philippine Islands" the benefit of readers who did not know they were islands. In the 1909 Carino case, which I cited earlier, the opinion uses "Philippines" and "Philippine Islands" interchangeably. The Jones Act of 1916 uses the two phrases interchangeably as well.[1] Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is already addressed: "Philippine Islands". As I explained earlier referring to the name of the government is faulty parallelism. "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" refers to the government; "Philippine Islands" refers to the country. Earlier more succinct version is consistent with all pertinent points. Lengthening the section unnecessarily does not help the article. Lambanog (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Insular Government" refers to a government while "Republic" and "Commonwealth" refer to what? The distinction you are making eludes me. The use of the word "Islands" in the name was an explanatory flourish; It does not relate to the legal status issue or distinguish the insular government from other Philippine governments. Your own source admits that "Philippines" is used in the Jones Act, i.e. the insular constitution. Coinage and postage of this period was often marked "Philippines" or "Filipinas."

Now you've replaced "insular" with "colonial". This replaces a word that is official, contemporary, and precise with a one that is highly emotional, but vague as to exactly which period is being referred to. In the Philippine context, "colonialism" has always been that thing in the past that we've advanced away from, or perhaps that bad thing that my opponent is proposing for the future. Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not what your point is. You want the term insular included in the etymology section? It doesn't belong there. The etymology section gives a description that follows the development of the concept and identity of a group of islands to that of a nation through its changing appellation. The form of government is not the point; focusing on that is a distraction. If the question is posed "Why is the official name Republic of the Philippines and not Republic of the Philippine Islands?" stressing the term insular gives no enlightenment, nor do the text of the Jones Law and the court briefs. The Quezon article does. In any event I have included mention of the insular status under the U.S. in the history section where it is more appropriate so I have no idea what your issue is. Lambanog (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You repeat points again and again and refuse to engage. If you don't think the etymology section should refer to forms of government, what is "republic", "colonial", and "commonwealth" doing there? Quezon quotes the text of the Jones Law, yet you cite Quezon as a basis for claiming that this text is irrelevant. So I must ask: Have you read the sources that you cite? In Tydings-McDuffie, the long-form name of the commonwealth is repeatedly given as "Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands."[2] Finally, to say that "Philippines Islands" is translated from Spanish doesn't explain anything. In Spanish, you can say either Las Islas Filipinas or Filipinas. Kauffner (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How about rewriting what is now the final paragraph of the Etymology section to something like the following:

The official name of the country's government has changed several times. During the period when the Philippine Revolution and Spanish-American War were proceding concurrently, the U.S. established a military government from August 14, 1898 in the parts of the country under control of U.S forces, but did not immediately proclaim any official naming nomenclature. On June 22, 1899, the Malolos Congress promulgated the Malolos Constitution, which established of the República Filipina (in Spanish) or the Philippine Republic (in English). After the Spanish-American War was ended by the Treaty of Paris, the Philippine-American War ensued, ending in American victory on July 4, 1902.

In 1902, the Philippines became a colony, or insular area, of the United States. Until 1935, the country's government was generally spoken of as the Philippine Government, Government of the Philippines, Government of the Philippine Islands, or Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (the latter usually when speaking or writing formally or officially). In 1935, a new Philippine Constitution specified that the government be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines until final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, and thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines. Formal independence and withdrawal of U.S Sovereignty occurred on July 4, 1946.

During the American period the name Philippines began to appear and it has since become the country's common name. Since independence the official name of the country has been the Republic of the Philippines.

References

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Object. All these changes have the effect of turning the etymology section into a history section. It has been asked why the "Republic of the Philippines" is there. That's the official name currently. Why is "República Filipina" mentioned? To show an earlier antecedent with a similar name that has in some ways inspired the current name and to differentiate the two lest they be confused. Why is "Commonwealth" there? It's a fairly common formulation one may encounter that may be confused with the more well-known British Commonwealth. Why is "insular" not included? Because the most frequent form you can find refers to the government of the time and Philippine Islands is the pertinent term that is sufficient in itself to cover that time and more and is the term that contributes much to raising and answering a question such as "The Philippines are or is?" What etymologically related question is answered by discussing the insular government? None that I can see. Lambanog (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have debunked the idea that "Philippine Islands" was a regime name more than once already. It is just not true that PI was "the most frequent form." Both PI and "Philippines" appear in the Jones Law, on coinage, postage, and in newspaper accounts of the insular period. The only source you cite is Quezon, who does not support the claims you are making. But I think I have figured out where this mythology comes from: The Constitution of 1935 uses PI to refer to the pre-1935 period. But in real world usage, you don't see PI used to refer to a specific regime, not even by post-1935 writers. No one says "Philippine Islands period" or "Islands period". Kauffner (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Philippine Bill seems to refer to Philippine Islands exclusively when referring solely to the land. If your point when you say that Philippine Islands isn't a "regime name" means it wasn't an "official name" then I can probably accept that. But the conclusion to be drawn I would say is that there wasn't an "official name"–and if you were to ask me given the circumstances intentionally so. Phrasings of "Government of" refer to the government. Government is a distinct political concept from state or nation. Saying that is the official designation would seem to indicate that the Americans had an official name for the state. I do not think that conclusion can be reached with the evidence represented. One can just as easily conclude the issue was avoided or obfuscated. Lambanog (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When I say a "regime name", I mean a name used to distinguish the Insular Government from the Commonwealth, Republic, or other regimes. PI and "Philippines" were both official names under the Insular Government, and both were used in the Jones Law. I'd compare it to "United States" vs. "United States of America", i.e. the longer version got trotted out on more formal occasions. On Google books, "insular" and "Philippine" gives you a staggering 240,000 hits, the vast majority referring to the 1901-1935 regime. Writers at the time weren't avoiding or obfuscating the issue -- they knew what the regime name was. Kauffner (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not in unofficial writing but in the official documents and titles it would seem there was inconsistency. I do not see anything like Insular Territory of the Philippines used with any regularity. The pointed omission of such a term equivalent to a state and reference instead to the government is notable. The only consistent phrase I see in the examples of official documents you have provided is Philippine Islands. Phrases of the form Government of as I have stated would introduce faulty parallelism as a phrase like Government of the Government of the Philippines clearly shows. Maybe you should try wading into arguments about Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland, Great Britain vs. United Kingdom, and People's Republic of China vs. Republic of China vs. Taiwan to gain a better sensitivity of the parsing of names. While my feeling is that the use of Philippines Islands vs. Philippines is not as fraught as those there are still subtle differences in implications that go beyond mere formality as the article by Quezon shows. Lambanog (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of the "insular" was to avoid using the word "territory" since that usage might imply constitutional rights, hence the Insular cases. As for official usage, this is from the 1901 Sedition Law: Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands...[3] Googling "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" gives you over 8,000 hits. I agree with you about Government of. As this example illustrates, it is not meant to be part of a proper name, even when capital "G" is used. Kauffner (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fighter10's edits

Any thoughts and comments on Fighter10's edits? If I'm not mistaken some spelling errors have been made and I'm not sure any of the additions or replacements are improvements. Maybe the economic infobox is okay but the section probably should not have 3 items there cluttering it. Addition of language to language hyperlinks is likely good so edits are probably done in good faith. Still what we are left with is not my preferred version. May clean up if it is clear he's finished with this round of edits, but may revert as well. Will wait a little to see what others think. Lambanog (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The last string of edits made by Fighter10 left text sandwiched between two opposing pictures contrary to MOS:IMAGES and lessened its attractiveness and I have restored an earlier version for that reason. Fighter10 can restore to one closer to what he was working on and continue editing if he wishes but frankly I find most of the changes being made do not add to article content. Lambanog (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend expanding that section so that the table he created can be of some use. It may actually be better than the map, which could be placed elsewhere in the article. Maybe a short section of the history of the divisions, and an explanation of the regions/provinces roles and powers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The table was already there and correctly formatted as seen in the last version that you yourself edited and that I have restored. The one that was replaced had it messed it up. Lambanog (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting formatting technique. I still believe the section would be better with some expansion. The current table look better to me, formatwise anyway, so the revert was good. Also, just saw <!--Please suggest changes through the talk page. Thanks.-->, so sorry if I edited without discussing first. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Makati City Skyline Pic edit

Probably not one of the more serious needs of improvements, however I feel, as having seen much more lively panorams from night shots, I feel that the skyline pic should be improved to one thats from night and shows off the more livelier city, the pic as shown was taken at a dull kind of setting, despite the nice quality.

I just feel that, since we're showing off Makati, the financial center after all we should do a better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.9.90 (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

EDSA redirect. Otr500 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone change EDSA, that is a redirect to "Epifanio de los Santos Avenue", to the complete name in the first instance of use? It is located in the 2nd to last paragraph under "History". Otr500 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Truflip99's grammar edits.

Truflip99 requested I justify my reversion of some of his grammar edits, so here's my explanation. I think the inserted instances of "arrive to" unnatural and incorrect. While the construction arrive infinitive is fine, that is not the usage in the instances I changed back. "Arrive in" is better. Saying the arrival of Negritos is "inaccurately" dated introduces imprecision by presupposing that an accurate date is known yet an inaccurate date is still in use. Trade brought foreign influences, not the maritime peoples. It could be said there were political entities to govern the islands—it's just that they weren't able to do so. Some of the dates in the McAmis source refer to Islam in Sulu in the 14th century. Using "During the 15th century" instead of "By the 15th century" makes a more definitive claim that is not made by the source which leaves the door open to it having been established earlier. I don't remember mention of a "Holy war" in the source, but if you can cite the exact page maybe the reference can be included. Other corrections may have been optional but usually tended to use less words so as to reduce article size. If there are no objections I plan on changing the article back in a day or so. Lambanog (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Lambanog

• "Arrival to" is the correct term. In context, "arrival in" would work when saying "their arrival in the Philippines was not welcomed [by the inhabitants already living there]." Whereas "arrival to" can be used in "Upon my arrival to the Philippines", which is the correct form of use for the particular context. Also note that the word used was "arrival" and not "arrive".
• "Innaccurately dated" will be replaced by "unknown".
• The phrase I used was "The maritime-oriented peoples that traded with other Asian countries during the subsequent period brought influences from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam" which in simple form states "maritime-oriented peoples brought influences from Hinduism..." You evidently read it wrong.
• The idea of the edit regarding the "unifying political state" was to merely replace the word "encompassing", which, in my opinion, is better represented by the more relevant "to govern". Your justification is completely out of place and is not supported by any concrete detail.
• "During the 15th century..." -- Agreed. However, the maintained sentence:

By the 15th century, Islam was established in the Sulu Archipelago and by 1565 had reached Mindanao, the Visayas, and Luzon.

ultimately sounds redundant and requires rewriting. Also, since the word "reached" was used to signify the maximum extent of the influence of Islam, it is proper to state the ONE place in which the maximum boundary was achieved. Proposal:

During the 14th century, Islam was established in the Sulu Archipelago. By 1565, it had expanded to as far north as the island of Luzon.

• The mention of a Holy War can be found in the text which states, "In the northern island of Luzon... the Spanish were able to drive out the Muslims" (21). Also, "... Islam was spreading in the northern islands when it came into conflict with the Spanish in the latter half of the 16th century. This was the beginning of a "holy war" that lasted for over three centuries" (24). The reference will be included as it also functions as a transition to the next paragraph which is on the arrival of the Spanish.

Thank you for the peer editting. I will now restore my previous edit. --Truflip99 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you edit war over an article, you're both likely to get blocked. I hope you realize that.

I reverted to Lambanog's version for two reasons: his English/writing was better, at least in most instances (Truflip makes some good arguments above), and there was no reference I could see that was added for 'holy war'. (Not that I doubt it, but that kind of thing needs to be cited.)

If I made an error in the latter, my apologies, as I only glanced over the article, but I figured a soft revert (to essentially what the article was before the edit war started) and a warning was better than protecting the article or blocking the two of you. Please come to agreement here rather than disrupting the article any further. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Look. I made this as rational as possible by asking for justification which he DID provide, but nonetheless I believe I proved wrong. Regardless, he then reverted it again out of his own preference. Just because he thinks it's right doesn't mean it is. For example:

By the 15th century, Islam was established in the Sulu Archipelago and by 1565 had reached Mindanao, the Visayas, and Luzon.

If you honestly believe that that sentence is grammatically flawless, then you definately do not have proper knowledge in English. Why? I explained it above. Also the Holy War was cited as per the last bullet in, again, my first response, so please read all of it. My basic intention was to address "to do" list as posted above since this article evidently needed it. The injustice of essentially undoing nearly my entire work especially with improper grammar is appalling. --Truflip99 (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Philippines

In the English language any nation's name that happens to be plural is denoted with "the." The Philippines is the name of the nation (in English) rather than Philippines. The Philippines and The Netherlands both need to be preceded by the article when written in English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.115.135 (talk • contribs) 04:29, December 12, 2010

The official name of the country is "THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES". See [4]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical section

This link The Philippines before Magellan will be useful in the historical section.Bcs09 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This quoted from the article

“ In an extension of the fighting of the Seven Years' War, British forces under the command of Brigadier General William Draper and Rear-Admiral Samuel Cornish briefly occupied the Philippines. ”

However, the country was not occupied entirely by Great Britain, only Manila and the Sangley Point in present-day Cavite City. I would recommend re-phrasing that fact.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox content

In the official languages section, I put English before Filipino for alphabetical order accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this -- the constitution places Filipino first:

"For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English."

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Change

Please change the population estimates, GDP estimates, and all other statistics dated 2009 with statistics/estimates from 2010.

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there even any 2010 statistics out yet? We're barely two weeks into the new year. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Some others do have already.

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier if you gave us the links to the sources. Also, 2010 Census statistics are not out yet. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have the link for the 2011 GDP estimates, but thanks for saying that the 2010 census is not released yet [5]

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mervynbunique's edits

Mervynbunique's recent edits have been to add a tourism section to the article. Several problems with this. Among others it is unreferenced, it does not follow the standard country template, and it provides redundant information in an article that is already pushing the limits of the WP:LENGTH guideline. A link to the tourism article I think would be appropriate but the cut and paste from that article lowers the quality of this one. Lambanog (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's unsourced it shouldn't be there. If it helps, there used to be a section on Tourism in the Malaysia article, but it was eliminated in the GA process. Just a wikilink in a sentence of economy is left, probably all that is needed here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a tourism promotion website. --Truflip99 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Zamboanga City or Pagadian as regional center

Am posting this article here for reference due to the change made by Wowzamboangacity that I had to check up on: RDC IX picks Zambo City as regional center. Lambanog (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Trajan21, 7 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} i want to edit something in the article about philippines. i want to add spanish name of the philippines (Republica de las filipinas) because of the enforcement of spanish language since 2008.

Trajan21 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This is already in the Etymology section.—C45207 | Talk 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

there basically black ppl in asia

african decendent ppl as well many philoppinos consider themselves black and the look black yet they classified as asian decendents of taiwan last I check asians aren't black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Filipinos are not of African descent. The continent Africa itself is far from Asia, and Philippines is almost at the edge of it. The average stereotype of Asians only refer to those of East Asia. Philippines may not have the "yellowish skin" or not all Filipinos have the epicanthic fold, but that doesn't mean they are "black" just because they are darker in color. Filipinos share the same trait as the Indonesians, Malaysians, some people of southern Taiwan, Bruneians, and other south east Asian country. They are darker in color in contrast to the light color of the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. Indians are darker than Filipinos and they are Asians. The term "Asians" used here is the stereotypical term. "Asians" refer to all people living in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachirisu222 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of university to use

I prefer the picture of the University of Santo Tomas. UP is getting double representation with Philippine General Hospital run by UP also being displayed. Education relies on private entities as well as public. Lambanog (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What about changing the picture for the hospital instead? Like replacing it with St.Luke's. After all it's a very reputable hospital in the Philippines. Aclarado (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

largest city stated is quezon - causes some argument

quezon is the largest populated area, not largest city. largest city means area.. and that is Davao City. this info causes some arguments and if i may, would love for you guys to clarify it.. thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.112 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The template seems to refer to largest city by population on other country articles and I would assume that is the default implicit expectation. I might include a passing phrase that Davao City is the largest city in the Philippines by land area if a very good source can be found. I read there is some controversy over whether Davao City or Puerto Princesa is the largest. That should be clarified. Lambanog (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Largest city" almost always refers to the most populous city. It wouldn't make sense comparing cities by land area, as cities are characterized by urbanization. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Philippine Eagle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philippine Eagle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclear sentence about celebrities

I think this sentence is vague and should be rewritten, but I don't know how because I don't understand what the writer meant or know enough about the country's culture to correct it:

"In recent years it has become common to see celebrities flitting between television and movies and then moving into politics provoking concerns."

By "provoking concerns," do you mean that celebrities become the champions of specific political causes (e.g. AIDS awareness, environmentalism, etc.)? Or do you mean that cultural critics are concerned about celebrities' entrance into the political sphere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.154.104 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Business districts

Metro Manila is the financial, commercial and industrial center of the Philippines. It accounts for 33% of the Philippines' GDP. It has a third of the country's bank offices but over two thirds of its deposits. Makati is the financial and economic hub of the metropolitan area and the country. Its central business district (CBD) hosts many of the Philippines' largest corporations including the Ayala Group of Companies and the nation's major banks as well as the main Philippine offices of many multinational corporations.

File:Metro Manila.png

Skyline of Metro Manila. On the left, The Gramercy Residences under construction. It will become the Philippines' first supertall building, and will also be the highest.

Skyline of Makati City.

Skyline of Ortigas Center.

The fifty tallest skyscrapers in the Philippines (inc. two structures) are located in Metro Manila like the PBCom Tower and G.T. International Tower. The skyscrapers of Metro Manila are, for the most part, clustered in many locations although three areas are distinct for having the largest clusters in the metropolis. The first and biggest is the Makati Business District, followed by the Ortigas Center Business District in Pasig. The newest to rise is the Bonifacio Global City Business District in Taguig.

The Makati area is built around the former Nielsen Air Base, an American installation during World War II, and its runways now form the district's main roads, which cross each other at the Makati Triangle, home of one of the two trading venues of the nation's stock exchange. Ortigas Center is the second most important business district in Metro Manila. Situated in Mandaluyong and Pasig, it is home to the headquarters of several major Philippine companies such as San Miguel Corporation and Meralco, and hosts many shopping malls and hotels. It also hosts the Asian Development Bank's headquarters and the Philippine Stock Exchange's trading floor at Tektite Towers.

New developments seeking to become vibrant business centers of their own are Bonifacio Global City in Taguig; Eastwood City in Quezon City; the Manila Bay City Reclamation Area in the cities of Pasay, Parañaque and Las Piñas; and Alabang Estates, Madrigal Business Park, and Filinvest Corporate City in Muntinlupa. Triangle Park in Quezon City is the latest addition to the list. The traditional business center of Chinese-Filipino businessmen and the country's CBD prior to the development of the Makati CBD was the Binondo District in the City of Manila. Escolta was the central street of commerce during the time of the Spaniards up until the development of the Makati CBD when Ayala Avenue superseded it.

Shopping centers

In the early 1980s there were not that many shopping malls in Metro Manila, but ever since Henry Sy a Chinese-Filipino businessman started putting up his "megamalls" through his SM Group of Companies, Metro Manilans have taken eagerly to them. Three of these monuments to shopping are among the largest in the world. The largest mall in the country is currently the renovated SM City North EDSA in Quezon City. It is expected to become the nexus for three metropolitan rail lines once the terminal station next to it is fully completed. Previously the SM Mall of Asia in Pasay was the country's largest mall, and before it the SM Megamall in Ortigas Center in Mandaluyong held the distinction from 1991 to 2006. Various other SM malls dot the metropolis.

File:SM Mall of Asia wide pan.jpg

Panoramic view of the SM Mall of Asia in Pasay from the east

Ortigas Center, located along intersection of the boundaries of Mandaluyong, Pasig, and Quezon City, is the site of many other shopping centers including Robinsons Galleria, Shangri-La Plaza, and The Podium. Recently opened in Pasig is a new development called Frontera Verde, which currently hosts Tiendesitas, a tiangge-style shopping center; SM Supercenter Pasig; and SilverCity AutoMall, the first mall in the Philippines that is dedicated to the automotive market. In the Makati central business district, Ayala Center comprises other commercial developments, including Glorietta and the upscale Greenbelt shopping arcades. Also in Makati in Guadalupe is the Rockwell Center.

File:SM North Facade.jpg

SM City North EDSA in Quezon City, the largest mall in the Philippines and the 3rd largest in the world

PBCom Tower, the country's tallest building.

File:GT International Tower.jpg

G.T. International Tower, the country's second tallest building.

Bonifacio High Street and Serendra are in Bonifacio Global City. In the City of Manila proper, the largest malls include SM City Manila, Robinsons Place Manila, and the older Harrison Plaza. Cubao is Quezon City's central commercial area and has five malls including the Gateway Mall at the Araneta Center. There is also Eastwood City, located along Libis; SM City Fairview, in Novaliches; and TriNoma, Ayala Land's newest mall, in front of SM City North EDSA. Muntinlupa hosts the Festival Supermall, Alabang Town Center, and Metropolis Star Mall, all in Alabang.

Before the advent of the air-conditioned shopping centers, Metro Manila had the palengke, the Filipino-style open-air wet market and there are still many of them. One of these is the Central Market, in Sta. Cruz district of Manila. Another known for its bargains is the market in Divisoria, in Manila. Cloverleaf Market in Balintawak, Quezon City supplies much of Metro Manila's fruit and vegetable products.

Navotas Port Market supplies most of Metro Manila's fish products. Other smaller markets include the Cubao Farmers Market, EDSA Central, Nepa-Q Mart, Novaliches Talipapa, and those found in Muñoz, Balingasa, Galas, Santa Mesa, Baclaran, Pasay Libertad, and Pasay Cartimar, the latter also being one of the finest pet markets in the Philippines.Midway between a mall and a market are the tiangges, or airconditioned markets selling goods such as clothes, shoes, accessories, computer parts, mobile phones, CDs, VCDs, MP3s, iPods, and DVDs. Examples are Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan and St. Francis Square in Mandaluyong.

Wealth extremes

Metro Manila is a place of economic extremes. Many high-income citizens are concentrated in gated communities in places such as Forbes Park, Legazpi Village, and Dasmariñas Village in Makati, Ayala Alabang in Muntinlupa (all three initially developed in part by the influential Zobel de Ayala family), Valle Verde in Pasig, La Vista in Quezon City, Greenhills in San Juan or in high-rise developments in or around central business districts, such as Rockwell Center in Makati, Eastwood City in Libis, Quezon City and Fort Bonifacio Global City in Taguig, or along Roxas Boulevard overlooking Manila Bay.

In sharp contrast to these residences are the slums and illegal settlements scattered across the metropolitan area, often found on vacant government land or in districts such as Tondo. Illegal settlements have been concentrated on land adjacent to the tracks of PNR lines; but with efforts to rehabilitate the railway system, steps have been taken to clear these areas and relocate the squatters to other areas.

---

A LOT here is missing in the WikiPage about the Philippines. For example the SM Mall of Asia and A LOT more.--Mervynbunique (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This single page can not possibly cover every single thing about the Philippines. It is meant to be a summary, per the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guideline. Furthermore, everything you have placed above can not at the moment be included, due to the lack of sourcing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

YES SURE! But there are maybe 5 things in there, (about Malls, Buildings, Landmarks (on the Metro Manila page there's even a section of it), Metro Manila itself and more) what's missing. All we need to do is editing it to a summary w/ 10-20 sentences.

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Trying to fit all of it in would likely make the article look crass. Lambanog (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Population July 2011 estimate

According to CIA World Factbook, the population of PH is now 101,833,938. SOURCE: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html --93.82.95.102 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Mervynbunique (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that, which is an estimate. The Philippine gov't's own 2007 census was 88,546,087 [6], and their estimate for 2010 was 94 million [7]. Reaching 101 million in a few years doesn't seem very reasonable. The UN estimated 93 million for 2010 [8]. This is why I've reverted it in the world ranked list...Smarkflea (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Population figure

I'm questioning this edit, which I have not reverted. The edit summary said, "CIA population data is unreliable. See Brazil for example. See also International population data base, data is way off the Philippine censuses".

The edit replaced an estimate of 101,833,938, supported by the CIA Factbook (the Factbook notes, "(July 2011 est.)"), with a differing estimate of 94,013,200, which is a "medium assumption" estimate for the year 2010 done by the Philippine National Statistics Office (Philippines), based on the year 2000 census.

This appears to be a judgement by a wikipedia editor about which of these two sources gives a truer estimate of the population figure. In this regard, please see the initial paragraph of WP:V.

Regarding its population estimates, the CIA Factbook says at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#P

Population

This entry gives an estimate from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics registration systems, or sample surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends. The total population presents one overall measure of the potential impact of the country on the world and within its region. Note: Starting with the 1993 Factbook, demographic estimates for some countries (mostly African) have explicitly taken into account the effects of the growing impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These countries are currently: The Bahamas, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

It appears to me that WP:DUE might apply here. Possibly both figures should be used as a range for the estimated population, and a clarifying footnote provided. I'm currently connecting online from a boat which is docking and don't have time to do that myself just now. Perhaps I'll come back and do something like that. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:DUE does not apply here. The CIA like every other source uses data from one source which is the statistical office of each country. It's quite obvious that the U.S. Census bureau is using either old data information giving unreliable data or have at least some sort of statistical error. This is why we don't use CIA data at List of countries by population. Furthermore, that population is in an outlier (see below). No other reliable source I've found even come close to that figure.

Let's do a slight comparison between the official census vs. CIA data

Year	Philippines Census	U.S. Census Burea/CIA
1980	48,098,460	50,940,182
1990	60,703,206	65,087,720
1995	68,616,536	72,597,432
2000	76,504,077	81,222,082
2007	88,574,614	94,157,465

You can look at other years too. The Census bureau/CIA hasn't adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I already checked other multiple, verifiable, reliable and widely used, sources to confirm that the CIA has unreliable population data:

Philippines Stats Office: 94,013,200 (2010 and Medium variant)

United Nations: 93,261,000 (2010) (UN data seems to be the most widely used I've seen)

World Bank: 91,983,102 (2009)

IMF: 95,834,000 (2011) and 94,013,000 (2010)

World Gazetteer: 93,897,444 (2010)

I can probably find more if you wish but this is what I have off hand. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though the World Bank estimate is 2 years old, using this from the World Bank, we can probably make our own prediction that population is around 93.5 million for 2010 and around 95 million for 2011. This is pretty close to the other 4 sources. In comparison we have 5 sources saying the population is around 93-94 million for 2010 with only one source saying it's around 100 million (see 2010) which I would like to say again, has a large difference for two different censuses. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like you are suggesting that editors owning this article engage in WP:SYNTH -- combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. To do that would be original research, and contrary to WP policy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See what I wrote this above, under "Population July 2011 estimate"Smarkflea (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even granting all of the above (and I have no reason to doubt it), this seems to flout Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is summed up in its lead sentence as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. " Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that there are several verifiable sources here. One of them [CIA]is way off, so it's hardly reliable...Smarkflea (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What editor's think is something that is not disregarded. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a page called Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which is included in WP:V. The term "reliable" is relative and is different from person to person. So reliable in this context is different for each us. Taken from the second paragraph: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. This is exactly what was being done here. In general, not everything a publisher produces is reliable. Editors have to first make sure the direct source itself is reliable. So comparisons are made with other sources. Sometimes though this is not possible. Here's an example, the Dewey Defeats Truman story. The publication came from a considered reliable source. However, the official data (similar to the censuses) and many other news organizations (I'll treat this as the estimates as a comparison) said otherwise. After comparing other reliable sources, you find out that the Chicago Tribune was basically wrong. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And the Dewey Defeats Truman story wasn't either ignored at the time or consigned to the trashbin of history. It was given due weight at the time, and is still given due weight today. I'll also point out here that WP:IRS is a content guideline, and WP:V is a policy. I'm not going to argue further here over this, though I do see it as treading perilously close to the edge and, IMO, it flouts WP:V#What counts as a reliable source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the point I was trying to make here in a wider venue over at WT:NPOV#V:SOURCES vs. RS in DUE; policy vs. essay; slippery slopes. I think the wider point is better discussed there. I've mentioned this discussion there as an example. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

One million deaths?

That the suppression of Philippine resistance to American take-over in 1898 was a bloody affaire, is a fact that is generally aknowledged. Until recently generally a figure of 200.000 deaths was mentioned. Now it has become 1.000.000. How serious is this figure? I consider it quite likely that this is a fabulation from people with a political agenda: getting a claim for more financial compensation.

Lignomontanus (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That particular assertion was apparently added to the article in thisDecember 2009 edit, citing the presumably then-current CIA Factbook article on the Philippines at this now-dead link. Sometime between then and now, the source cited was apparently replaced with the currently-cired supporting source which, at a very quick reading, does not appear to support that particular assertion. The current edition of the CIA Factbook article on the Philippines does not appear to support the assertion. Something should be done about this but I am about to rush out the door just now and don't have time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"They were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples ..."

Re this revert, saying, "Uncomfortable with Breyer getting specific mention in the lead especially since his theory is discredited. Discuss on talk page if necessary".

As you say, Beyer's Wave Migration Theory is discredited. The reverted edit added info that several other models of early human migration to the Philippines have since been proposed, but the revert removed that info. I'm not defensive about the wording I used -- feel free to improve it -- but please don't leave the article saying, "They were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I recall we've discussed this before. From my reading "successive waves of Austronesian peoples" would describe most of the migration models except the core population theory. In any event there is a hyperlink to the more detailed article. Can you suggest an improvement? A reference to Beyer in the lead is way too much undue weight. Lambanog (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a past discussion on this, but you might be right. I'm currently packing for a trip and don't have time to spend on it just now. I may revisit this when I have more time. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Should this be noted? Lambanog (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's just political jockeying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Political jockeying or not, it is notable. Because this is the article on the Philippines, Philippine perspective and usage is given greater weight than it would be in other articles. Mention of both terms strikes me as the most balanced. Compare with the article on Vietnam. If other editors express a desire to have it reintroduced I will support its inclusion. Lambanog (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that mention of this alternative usage here which is specific to the article topic is warranted. I suggest "... South China Sea, also referred to in the Philippines as the West Philippine Sea, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Philippine government's perspective does not get greater weight here than other articles, just like the Chinese government's perspective does not take precedence on articles about China (or the PRC as it is called on wikipedia). That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. As for the Vietnam article, there is a statement in the lead about how the vietnamese name is directly translated to East Sea (which doesn't even appear in the body). At any rate, the vietnamese name has been around as long as the Vietnamese language has, while West Philippine Sea was only made recently by a government declaration. There is no evidence it is referred to in the Philippines as West Philippine Sea yet outside government and other official circles, although this may change in the future. Mentioning it now would seem to be a political point against the spirit of NPOV. It is already covered on the South China Sea article, where it is appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Different Philippine news sources have been using the term. Not including a significant viewpoint would also be a violation of WP:NPOV. For other comparison if a building, company, institution, or country changes its name the article on it reflects it promptly. Many of the names attached to public buildings in North America are little more than advertisements (e.g. Qualcomm Stadium). Propaganda concerns should be noted but that in itself does not disqualify certain terms from inclusion. Lambanog (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So far they've almost all been in reference to the government declaration. There simply hasn't been enough time for a newly invented term to become a significant viewpoint. If you're looking for an example of a country changing its name and then wikipedia not following, simply look at Burma. It isn't propaganda that disqualifies it from inclusion. Basically there is a body of water, which in English is basically completely known by a single name. When one country invents another name for it, that doesn't suddenly change the most common name. Given time it is likely that the Philippines may achieve a large global recognition of the name, as Korea did with its East Sea, especially with the huge Filipino diaspora. However, that hasn't even come close to happening yet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A large global recognition of the name isn't necessary. A significant local recognition is sufficient. In any event it is already arguable that the world recognizes that the Philippines thinks of the body-of-water as the West Philippine Sea. Since this is the Philippines article and the Philippines is the closest and largest English-speaking country next to the said body-of-water, what it calls the body-of-water is significant enough to be included in the article. Regarding the Burma article, it includes the name Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Lambanog (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This encyclopaedia is meant to deal with an international audience, not Filipino one. One very recent name creation does not alter common english usage. If anything, this information belongs in information about the Philippine's foreign relations. The Philippine government has decided to change the name of the body of water, and likely local common usage will follow. However, it has been just under a month since the Aquino government first officially used the time. Placing the name in a prominent position would be a good example of WP:RECENTISM. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An international audience includes a Filipino one. It may well be of interest to a foreign audience as well. I don't see the matter only being of transient effect. If a place is renamed, I would expect the article on it to be updated quickly to reflect the change. How much time would you expect to pass before it becomes appropriate to include such a change? Six months? One year? Five? Ten? One hundred? The choice of time frame would be arbitrary. Now is as good as any. A recent name creation can most definitely alter common English usage. Czech Republic and Slovakia replaced Czechoslovakia very quickly. Lambanog (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Czech Republic and Slovakia are completely different places to Czechoslovakia, covering different areas of land. It wasn't a name change, it was a new area. As for the article on it, South China Sea has already been updated to reflect the change. Details on the naming disputes on articles not directly about those areas should really only be included in context. When West Philippine Sea begins to see usage in international tertiary sources, as East Sea has in recent years, then it would be worth including. As for time frame, I don't know how long that would take. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You acknowledge in your edit summary this isn't a passing fad so recentism isn't the grounds on which you are objecting. Please make clear then what your issue with the term is. You say it must be used in international tertiary sources; aside from the fact it has been used in such sources, that isn't required. Context is fine since this is the article about the Philippines. As far as I can tell there is no one else who says that inclusion of the term is inappropriate. Lambanog (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The incident in question was at the time very recent, even newswise. In terms of the English language, it's still very much a Neologism. I think it will take years, if not decades, to get a great deal of attention in the wider world, but that's crystalling. I say it should enter the mainstream as an alternative word to even consider usage here. And you're correct that this article is about the Philippines, not about the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea. It discusses things especially pertinent to the Philippines, and it does so in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It does not, however, present things from a Philippine point of view, or express things in Filipino terms. The common name for the body of water in the English language is the South China Sea. We do not note in this article that East Timor is also called Timor-Leste. That would be extraneous information. Similarly, there is no need to note the South China Sea is also called the West Philippine Sea. In a Summary Style article of the Philippines, such detailed information of its foreign affairs is extremely unwarranted. This is true of the body, and even more so of the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A company can be renamed and the article on it can be renamed accordingly very quickly. There is no need to wait. Indeed pretty much all Philippine news sources both public and private have noticeably switched to WPS. While the article should not present an exclusively Philippine perspective, neither should it omit it. You are also incorrect to say the article should not use Philippine terms: British usage takes precedence in British related articles and American usage takes precedence in American related articles, likewise Philippine usage is more applicable in Philippine articles. Timor-Leste is not given in this article because it is not the subject of article but it most definitely should be noted—and it is—in its own article. Summary style is applied with editor discretion and I see no reason why the term should not be mentioned. Moreover I see more people in favor of its inclusion, not to mention that the WPS is a potentially major flashpoint in the country's international relations so that its presence in the lead is justifiable. Unless there are more comments I will add WPS to the article. Lambanog (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Companies name changes usually quickly reverberate through the english language, being legal etc., but anyway, you're always welcome to try and move South China Sea to West Philippine Sea. You're right that most Philippine sources have switched, I've seen that myself. However, your wrong that this article needs to treat the Philippine perspective with more credit than others, that breaks NPOV. Most of the British/American issues surround spelling, and at any rate, South China Sea/West Philippine Sea would fall under WP:COMMONALITY. Timor-Leste is not the subject of this article, neither is the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea. There is currently nothing in the lead about the Philippine's international relations, so clearly it's not that important. Do not edit this in, use WP:DR if you must. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no one except yourself holding this position. I will give a day for others to weigh in but if there is no further comment discussion on this talk page would suggest inclusion is in order. We are already operating under dispute resolution guidelines. If you are unsatisfied with the talk page discussion you may bring the issue up elsewhere. Lambanog (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has reverted, and discussion on this talk page suggests nothing of the kind. Please read the guidelines. If consensus is not achieved, do not make the edit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll edit, then if someone else other than you reverts I will take your statement as true, otherwise I won't. Lambanog (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which statement? If I see that edit, I will revert it. It's against editing guidelines to make an edit disputed on the talkpage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Darkroom45, 26 June 2011

Please change South China Sea to West Philippine Sea. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/13833/‘it’s-west-philippine-sea’

Darkroom45 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done South China Sea is the common english name, wikipedia does not follow the Philippine Government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis has expressed his opinion but it can be overturned. I support inclusion of the term. Lambanog (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Transportation pic edit

I just want to request for change in Transportation section, the File:Strong Republic Nautical Highway sign.jpg will be change into File:Manila-jeepney.jpg, because i think jeepney is a national icon, instead of a signage of the project of former administration, i wish that my request be granted. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree that I'm not crazy with the current picture of a sign post. But what to change it with?

or something else? Lambanog (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the second one, good to see a jeepney about to veer out of its lane. A true representation of Manila's roads. If not that one, maybe the first one, showing a jeepney and a bus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I select the first one, because it shows jeepney in motion, it also the most colorful among the images. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 09:11, 01 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional revision

May i request to change in the infobox. to change the Recognised regional languages (from Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Ilokano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, Waray to 120-175 Recognised Languages) and Population (2010 estimate: 97,976,603) 121.54.2.91 (talk) 010:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources need to be provided for both. I think the population figure can be changed easily enough but the languages info needs to be based on a superior source than the one the current information is based on (an old version of the official government website). Lambanog (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Following are useful sources, where i got my idea.

• Languages of the Philippines - just like the Recognised regional languages of Mexico, my purpose is to include several unknown dialects. to serve as one article.this are another source.

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

None of those would be considered acceptable sources much less superior to the current source. Recognized in this template box's sense is recognized by the Republic not recognized by linguistic researchers. I don't think you're going to be able to make a convincing case to change it. Lambanog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Demographics of the Philippines - Infobox in the left side, that is updated for july 2010 estimate - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 012:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't look but an update to the population figures is likely okay. Lambanog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, i wish to replace [File:HOR Philippines Session Hall.jpg] to File:Philippine government.png to include all government branches, I hope that my request be granted - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the chart suggested would be completely inappropriate for this article. Consistency among Wikipedia country articles is one goal in editing and such a chart would be unusual and garish in comparison to other country articles in my opinion. Lambanog (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your opinion is wrong, Why China and India has chart has on their country articles. i think my reason is enough.121.54.2.91 (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please update information on the page, i.e. http://business.inquirer.net/6245/forex-reserves-hit-record-69b-in-june foreign reserves are now US$ 69 billion, please the data on the page is already very, very old. Thanks ~ajml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.202.13 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As i search further to internet and Wikipedia, i found this photo.File:UP Ikot.JPG. I think this is the most appropriate and suitable to the article, the photo in which now stated in the article seems to show traffic problems in the Philippines, this also show transport vehicles was dense in the roads.

Also in the Flora and Fauna section the photo of File:Bohol Tarsier.jpg, must be reverted to File:Sir Arny(Philippine Eagle).jpg. Philippine eagle is one of our national animals and tarsier is only one of the unique animals found in our country, I think National symbol must be place in this article to emphasis their meaning and symbolism to the readers.

please revert the following photos...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Timotheus1, 19 September 2011

Please change Optional languages to simply "Optional Languages" because it can be confused as a hyperlink. Timotheus1 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, its weird that it was even like that in the first place--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Between five and ten what? Percent?

Between five and ten of the population are Muslim, most of whom live in parts of Mindanao, Palawan, and the Sulu Archipelago—an area known as Bangsamoro or the Moro region.[136][137] Some have migrated into urban and rural areas in different parts of the country. Most Muslim Filipinos practice Sunni Islam according to the Shafi'i school.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.27.35 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, percent. Good catch. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article at es:w

Just that, since its semi-protected, i can´t do it myself. Thanks, Cheveri (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What? --Mervynbunique (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do help @ Baguio_(disambiguation)

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of warriors

The article should include at least this picture of which I am about to link, it is also from the boxer codex, and tells of warriors in the Philippines who had their own guns. Much information would be given to many people here if added.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav/common/navigate.do;jsessionid=363E88AC3DF8ACA9540BBA548BB93520?pn=183&size=screen&oid=VAB8326 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangacha (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's not under a creative commons or similar free license, we can't add it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm... See info at here. File:Naturales 4.png is from page 112, vs. the image mentioned above from page 183. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... again. The Boxer Codex article says that exactly 15 of the 75 drawings in the Codex deal with Filipinos. A supporting source for that is cited, but it's not viewable online. There's a picture gallery of 17 images in the article. The titles of the 17 images break down into groups of "Naturales" 1-5, "Visayans" 1-4, "Cagayan Warrior" 1, "Cagayan Woman" 1, "Negritos" 1, "Zambals" 1-3, "Chinese Migrants in the Philippines" 1, "Japanese inhabitants in the Philippines" 1. Some Codex image labels match the image titles, some not; some of the images in the gallery are not labeled in the Codex. The image you mention is not in the gallery and is not labeled in the Codex. The image immediately preceding yours in the Codex is on page 176, and also shows a man with a firearm. That image is labeled "Malucos". "Malucos" in Portuguese apparently means "Crazy", if that means anything here. It doesn't look to me as if we have a sound basis here for concluding that the image you point to tells of warriors in the Philippines who had their own guns. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminal 3 is not the main gateway to the Philippines

That is terminal 1. Terminal 3 is domestic flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.83.116 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "main gateway to the Philippines" phrase was actually referring to NAIA in its entirety, not any specific terminals.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

country with the 4th longest coastline in the world (not the 5th)

Please edit the phrase: "Its 36,289 kilometers (22,549 mi) of coastline makes it the country with the 5th longest coastline in the world." Under the Geography section to: "Its 36,289 kilometers (22,549 mi) of coastline makes it the country with the 4th longest coastline in the world." Thank you. source: List of countries by length of coastline

Koji143 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I count four countries on that list with longer coastlines. That list really sucks, they don't even explain why some countries are unnumbered and italicized. — Bility (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

technically, it's 3 countries and one autonomous area, which is Greenland. So I still think that if we refer to the countries alone, Philippines should be the 4th longest. Anyways, I agree - that list does really suck. — Koji143 (talk 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not "Philippines" until after 1543

When Magellan arrived it is not proper to say "In 1521, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the Philippines...". Magellan named one island (present Homonhon) Las islas de San Lázaro. It wasn't until 1543 that Ruy López de Villalobos dubbed just two islands (present Samar and Leyte) Las islas Felipenas. Even then, it was only two islands, and it is difficult to determine when "Filipenas" could have been applied to the entire archipelago. Dangnad (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Census 2010!

Results have been certified. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the article. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

South China Sea typo

I have no idea if I'm entering this correction correctly. The article currently states "West across the Philippine Sea sits Vietnam." The Philippine Sea is to the East. It should say "South China Sea" or something else.

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Philippine v. Filipino

I’m confused about the usage of “Philippine” v. the use of “Filipino”. Many New York Times articles I’ve read refer to the “Philippine Navy” or the “Philippine ambassador” or whatever. I can find these if they are required. Also, we have articles here on the Philippine Navy and Philippine English. If this is the case, why does this article not even mention “Philippine”, only using Filipino? Furthermore, why does the info box, on the demonym line, not include “Philippine”? I’ve heard of Philippine people, or someone referred to as a Philippine (which was the way I was taught in school), similarly to the way in which people from the Argentine are called Argentines. Filipino, while I know it is increasingly popular, does not seem entirely appropriate, nor even the standard in formal written English. While I’m okay with the idea of using Filipino primarily, I think some mention of “Philippine” ought be included. RGloucester (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Filipino" means "Philippine person" (or, secondarily, "Philippine language"). So you wouldn't say "Filipino Navy", because it's not the navy of a Filipino, but the navy of the Philippines. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If that’s the case, doesn’t that mean that “Philippine” should be listed as an appropriate demonym, not just “Filipino”? If there is such a thing as a “Philippine person”, then I think it should...RGloucester (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a lexicographer, but the term Filipino to me looks like one of those things destined for unending confusion.

• the dictionary.com primary definition says, "a native or inhabitant of the Philippines." They give Pilipino as a secondary definition, and the definition they provide for that term has been outdated since the current RP constitution came into effect in 1987.
• the wiktionary definition says,

• as a proper noun, "A Philippine language used in the Philippines, based on Tagalog.", saying incorrectly by way of clarification that Filipino is "One of two national languages of the Philippines".
• as a noun, "A native or inhabitant of the Philippines."
• as an adjective, "Of or pertaining to the Philippines or its people." or "Of or pertaining to Tagalog, the language of the Philippines."

• the Merriam-Webster definition says, "1: a native of the Philippine Islands", "2: a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines", "3: the Tagalog-based official language of the Republic of the Philippines".
• Etymonline.com describes the term's etymology as "Filipino (n.) 1898 (fem. Filipina), Spanish, from las Islas Filipinas "the Philippine Islands".

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Filipinos are the most religious

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: In the Philippines the most faithful living. Interestingly, the University of Chicago study shows that 84 percent of Filipinos believe that God exists, at least until the believers, only 4.3 percent in Japan. On average 33 percent of the planet are believers, and believers have in most Catholic countries.78.2.65.232 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourist Bias of Article

Is it just me, or this is article painfully biased? There's no mention of the abject poverty that's the main catalyst behind the decades-long Filipino diaspora nor is there a fair treatment of the "insurgency" that the Philippine government is fighting. The neutrality of the term "insurgent" is taken for granted, when there are more than enough evidence out there that both the U.S. influenced term and "war on terror" in general are much more than neutral. Retrospector87 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Monument To Immortality.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Monument To Immortality.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Monument To Immortality.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Trading Partners

"Major trading partners include the United States, Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Germany, Taiwan, and Thailand.[5] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (₱ or PHP)." Sorry, but calling China a major trading partner of the Philippines is really BS. China should be erased in the sentence. 49.145.72.212 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

China trading partner as BS? Show your proof, otherwise, we're not editing the page out of anti-Chinese sentiment...--70.134.69.89 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The article cites a supporting source which gives 2009 data ([12]). 2011 data from another source ([13][14]) also lists China as a major trading partner. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on country names

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macclesfield Bank#RfC. CMD (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regional Center in Zamboanga Peninsula

Ciudad de Zamboanga is the and still the Regional Center of Zamboanga Peninsula. also the University-Belt, Commercial - Industrial Center of Zamboanga Peninsula. by Acer_Cyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.59.176 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't the regional center, but the commercial and industrial center by virtue of law. See Zamboanga_Peninsula#Regional_center_issue. Xeltran (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

after Gloria Macapagal has ordered the transfer of regional offices to Pagadian, it was later stop and were re-transfar back again to Zamboanga City at the present time of Noynoy Aquino thru special elecetion among important head of the regional departments and et.al.

please read links: http://www.zambotimes.com/archives/28568-RDC-chooses-Zamboanga-City-as-regional-center-of-Region-9.html http://neda9.net/attachments/category/101/Resolution No. IX-008-11.pdf i'll be posting here another source stipulating that Ciudad de Zamboanga still the regional Center of Zamboanga Peninsula aside from industrial, commercial and university belt center of regiona IX and part of ARMM i.e. Basilan.--83.136.61.69 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Philippine's World War II participation

please add some details or another section about the participation of the Philippinees in the second world war, ex; Corregidor, Caballo & other islands, battle of the Leyte Gulf (being the largest naval battle of World War II) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeFapOnymous (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not within the scope of the article. See instead Commonwealth of the Philippines and Military history of the Philippines during World War II.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012

Under "National Language" in the column on the right-hand side of the page, please change Filipino and English to just Filipino. Only "Filipino" should be listed there. While it is true that both Filipino and English are the two Official languages of the Philippines, the only National language, according to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, is Filipino. Also, the "Tagalog" Wikipedia page states that Filipino (not Filipino and English) is the National language of the Philippines. Furthermore, the following is stated in the second paragraph of the "Filipino" Wikipedia page: "Filipino is a prestige register which is based in Tagalog language in sentence construction and is designated as the national language of the Philippines and as an official language (the other being English).[2]." Thank you.

Actually the original request stating that only Filpino should be listed is inaccurate. Per article XIV section 7 states Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthlesspno1 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Rmgomm (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC) " Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • PRE-SPANISH PHILIPPINES;

The Philippines before the Spanish arrived was named by its Ruling Class Family Clan as "Maharlika". However, was referred to by the outside world as the "Muslim National Archipelago" which extend from Selurong-Luzon, Vigaya-Visayas, Maguindanao-Mindanao, Soolok-Sulu, Bulungan-Malaysia, Johore-Singapore and extending to Ladrones/Guam-Marianas islands, Carolines Islands up to Havaii-Hawaii, and Its Religion was Islam. The Tagean or Tallano as by the Italian Traders were the Ruling Class Family Clan of Luzon with consanguinity-kinships with the Ruling Class families of said territories;Raja Sulayman of Selurong, Raja Humabon of Vigaya, Aliwya of Maguindanao, Makdum of Soolok, and so on to King Kamehameha of Havvaii. Unofficially, The Tagean Clan eventually agreed of Spain's colonization in exchanged for ownership recognition of the said islands substantiated by the worldwide Torrens System on land Titles of America, one and only worldwide. However, America in competing for colonization, bombed its own naval vessel, the USS Maine, docked at Spanish colonized Cuba and blamed Spain the it was an act of War. As restitution, Spain and America signed the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898 officially Spain ceding the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico to America. Tacitly agreed by the Tagean-Tallano and Bolkiah consanguinity-kinships to Nakodas Angging and Sangkalang (Taup-Arpa, America paid 20M in Gold coins, handed to Don Benito Tallano who in turn paid Spain for the supposed ceding. America concurred the ownership as well, as by tacit agreement in the ceding and as by the Torrens System, the Title of ownership to the said Ruling class Family Clan and certified thru court the certification, "Return Of Sherri ff". Now being a Philippine Republic, land titles are in "deed of Absolute Sale", however, stipulated and endorse at the back of the titles is cited the endorsements of then court officials of their certification as derived from it original rightful owners of said islands.The essence of ownership still tacitly falls to the Tagean-tallano, Bolkiah and Arpa heirs, along with other consanguinity-kinships. When Maharlika (covering the present Philippines thru Guam, Caroline Islands and to Hawaii) at pre- colonial era, its sovereignty was based on ruling class uphold by the Sri Vigaya sattellite Country of the Majapahit Empire of Maharaja Pamirawasa of India to the Tagean ruling class and family clan. Spouses of this ruling class, no doubt as in Seri (present capital of Brunei) family ruling class was Zein Ul-Abidin who was married to Iskander the daughter of the Majapahit Empire's Sovereign Head, Maharaja Pamarwasa. Naturally, we foresee that Zein Ul-Abidin was the first Vigayan Ruler who had overall authority for his father inlaw throughout the Satellite country state (later referred to as Malayas) wherein relatives were the ruling class family clan throughout Maharlika comprising of the Philippines, Malayas, Caroline Islands and far reaching Hawaii. After the fall of the Majapahit Empire in the 12th century, The son inlaw, Zein Ul-Abidin, in Seri established the first Sultanate of Bruney (Brunei) seated as Sultan Mohamad Shah with continuing dominion throughout Maharlika through the ruling class family clans who were His Inlaws. In turn His son Sultan Hassan Bolkiah had suzerainty throughout Maharlika then comprising of Selurong (Luzon) and or Manilad (Manila), Visayas, Maguindanao (as by the Maguindanao Family clan daughter married to Aliywa (Karim Ul-Makdum-Kabungsuwan) the brother of the Brunei Sultan; and far reaching the Malayas which included North Borneo-sabah and likely thru far reaching Guam, Caroline Islands and Havvaii (Hawaii). Raja Sulayman in Luzon, Raja Humabon in Visayas, Sultan Aliywa Kabungsuwan seated both in Malabang Lanao and in Dulawan Cotabato for the island of Mindanao, Sultan Shariful Hashim of Sulu who also took over the political authority of his Father inlaw-Raja Baginda Ali, Ali Panjungan in Kota Kanibalu, Johore in Sempurna, Gandjungan in Kaula Lampur and other relative ruling class family clan far reaching Raja Tulofufu of Guam and King Khameahmea of Hawaii. Over centuries of changes in government systems influenced by colonial encroachments and administration, the Tagean ( or Tallano as referred by prior trade visitors from Italy) family clan of the Bolkiah dominion, entered into agreement recognizing the Tagean as being the owners of the said lands, respective of other relatives throughout the former Maharilika country Estates. These colonial administrations ratified the recognition of ownership thru the already worldwide established Torrens System. Recognition by Spain, then the United States and thru the present Philippine republic. The Tagean/Bolkiah clan wanting of recognition for the protection of the Clan and the people that foreign powers may negotiate their intents and purposes of colonization thru the clan, while foreign powers recognition of the clan owners may have c0onsensus affect upon their doings during colonization stints. Thou under the Torrens System, it is stipulated that land titles thru absolute Deed of Sales are to the sole ownerships of the land buyer then legally as by the Torrens System, said lands are tacitly still belonging to these Family Clans, as by consanguinity-kinship. Yes, there are many present heirs from all over the former Maharlika who tacitly owns these. Tacitly, because ownership is now only within the purview of the TORRENS SYSTEM and the sovereignty of the country state can only be recognized as by the 1945 founding of the United Nations Organization and as by charter membership, only. Thus this said country state no longer legally a sovereign country as it was before. The only proof as being then a legally sovereign state is by treaty agreement, wherein none was made official. However, proof of such agreement between two countries is the "Torrens Title of lands" issued. Yes, the rightful owners are indeed the owners only tacitly, while may be constitutionally existing owners whenever these owners/heirs organized themselves of a central government, and with UN charter membership, their lands may be then recognized as sovereignty country-states. The only barring of this notion is the established Torrens System administering these lands under the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other sovereign states, otherwise. We can only be proud to say that we are tacit heir-owners of their lands and country-states. And we shall stand tall as being th elite class of society. HRH. Sharif Maulana Paduka Ahmad Carpenter Arpa-V ibni Maharaja Adinda Taup Angging (Anddin) Zein Ul-Abidin Al Marhum Sultan Sharif ul-hashim Abu'Bkr Mohamad Shah. www.royalsultanate.weebly.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.64.77 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)