Talk:Philippines/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The messages below were archived on September 10, 2006.

---

History

Howard the Duck, let the facts of Philippine history be presented. That's a NPOV. Covering-up the facts is not a NPOV. You don't have to feel embarassed or be hostage to a colonial mentality. Simply labeling something as nationalist is not a NPOV.--Amante de la Paz 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic tone is POV. Check out the posts above (and you haven't even replied there?) Also, the history section is meant to be a summary. If you'd want a detailed history, go to History of the Philippines (until 1521) for a detailed account. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Howard the Duck, you're just seeing nationalistic ghosts. A colonial mentality POV is not a NPOV. The history section should be a summary. That, I agree. But, there should be enough information or links to point to the detailed articles.--Amante de la Paz 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I pushing for colonial POV. You see, the History section is long already, adding blow-by-blow accounts won't help. Again, the History section in this article should be a summary. Cut the POV, colonial or nationalistic. --Howard the Duck 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets see your proposed changes:

Your version: The Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, sailing for the Spanish king in an expedition to sail around the world, first set foot in the archipelago on March 18, 1521. He established diplomatic relations with some of the local chieftains and attempted to make them submit to Spanish sovereignty. On April 14, 1521, a Catholic Mass was held and about 800 local inhabitants of Cebu, including the wife of the ruler of Cebu, were converted to Roman Catholicism. However, Magellan was killed in the Battle of Mactan when he invaded Mactan, an island ruled by Lapu-Lapu, one of the chieftains who resisted the Spanish conquest. Magellan's remaining crew led by Juan Sebastián Elcano returned to Spain on the ship Victoria and brought news about the islands and the new route to the East Indies through the Pacific Ocean. The occupation of the islands began on April 27, 1565 with the arrival of the Spanish conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi and 500 soldiers in the island of Cebu. On the same year, the first Spanish settlement was established after Legazpi defeated the ruler of Cebu who tried to defend his homeland from the Spanish invasion.

Versus this:

The Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, sailing for the Spanish king in an expedition to sail around the world, first set foot in the archipelago on March 18, 1521. He established diplomatic relations with some of the local chieftains and converted some of them to Roman Catholicism. However, Magellan was killed in the Battle of Mactan when he attacked Lapu-Lapu, one of the chieftains who opposed the Spanish conquest. Magellan's remaining crew led by Juan Sebastián Elcano returned to Spain on the ship Victoria and brought news about the islands and the new route to the East Indies. The occupation of the islands began on April 27, 1565 with the arrival of the Spanish conquistador Miguel López de Legazpi and 500 soldiers in the island of Cebu where the first Spanish settlement was established.

In essence, your version just lengthens the paragraph. the mention of 800 local inhabitants and the wife of the local ruler is unnecessary for this article. They should fit in one of the History of the Philippines subarticles. Also, Lapu-Lapu did not only resist "Spanish conquest" but also the other Cebuanos on the Cebu island. If you'll mention "Spanish conquest", mention too that Lapu-Lapu opposed the Cebuanos from the Cebu island. Or better yet, mention them in another article, not here, because it is unnecessary. What was important was Magellan attacked Lapu-Lapu, and Magellan died.

Another. 500 soldiers of de Legazpi is unnecessary detail. What's next, the number of Japanese who conquered the islands? --Howard the Duck 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you equating the Spanish conquest with the local conflicts? That's clear evidence of colonial mentality POV. There's not much difference in length between the articles you compared. Both needs more trimming. However, it seems like you're mostly trimming down what the Filipinos did or how they reacted. Need you be reminded that this article is about Philippines. Maybe you should write in the article about Spanish history. It is important to mention that the Filipinos, like the people of Cebu and Mactan resisted the Spanish conquest. Is it your intention to potray the Filipinos as passive actors. Why are you not trimming down the paragraph about the country's name? The number of Legazpi's soldiers is significant because it shows how so few conquered so many.--Amante de la Paz 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There were local conflicts. If we'll include the Spanish conquest, then we ought to include local confilcts. But since this is a summary, they should go to the appropriate sub article.

The fact that your version has a bigger width means that there is much difference in length. And even though your version has a bigger width, it still is longer than the trimmed version.

The SUMMARY should include who made it happen, what and where it happenned. Adding how gives you POV. POV in favor of the Spanish, Cebuanos, etc. Ang lengthens it. If tou'll present the local POV, you might as well present the foreign POV, but not here, because it is a WP:SUMMARY. You can add your contribs to the Battle of Mactan article, if you want.

How did you know my intention? Can you read minds?

The country's name has no subarticle. And even if it has a subarticle, it would never grow and stay as a stub, that's why it's here. Don't tell me the country's name is imperialist...

Again, Legazpi's number of troops isn't necessary here. Then you must include the number of Japanese who invaded, the ships sunk on the Battle of Manila Bay, the list is endless.

If you'd want to add your contribs, please do so at the appropriate subarticles. Some aren't even that long. There are even no articles about the Cavite Mutiny, Hermano Pule, etc. --Howard the Duck 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your criteria would actually make the article longer. The entire article needs to be more concise. What is the NPOV issue of mentioning the Spanish conquest? It is just a summary. A colonial mentality POV is a distortion of history and not a NPOV. Detailed discussions about a subject should be in a separate article.--Amante de la Paz 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The new version is better now. Please add your comments at the following section. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 10:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the Post-Marcos era of the history section. It sounds harsh and pessimistic.--23prootie 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've re-read the history section and found it disturbing. I mean calling Aguinaldo a dictator without considering the support of the people during his time as well as negatively portraying Post-Marcos history without considering positive achievements doesn't seem nuetral to me.--23prootie 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well in essence Aguinaldo was the first dictator (even dictators can be well-liked). I've edited the post-marcos era. Is it good enough? --Howard the Duck 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Its better but the Third Republic section needs some work though, again too much pessimism. And could you add something positive for Marcos, I mean even though he's a crappy president he still did something good, right?--23prootie 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The brand new 2006 Philippine history section, loaded with power windows

Cleanup the history section for good. If you have any problems with it, discuss it here first. Thanks. :) --Noypi380 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At first read, it looks pretty good. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was edited again, without discussing here. --Noypi380 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many errors and inaccuracies. Discussion first before major edit. No rush. --Amante de la Paz 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What major inaccuracies? what errors? I request the editors to view the history page as off 01:53, 2 August 2006 of Ramirez72. Nevermind, I'll revert it, and there's nothing wrong with it, just being bold! I strongly say that it is better. Thanks. Perhaps, we can vote on it? :) Noypi380 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This one's more readable so I guess it's fine--23prootie 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No votes, but consensus. If there are errors, they should be listed here where they can be discussed. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Noypi wrote that Marcos was disbarred. Is that true?--Amante de la Paz 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that part. The 1935 constitution limits presidents for only two successive 4-year terms. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noypi edited out the Katipunan. Another example of colonial mentality POV.--Amante de la Paz 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Andres Bonifacio is there already. We don't have to add every organization and every person. --Howard the Duck 03:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• To: Matdem. Please do not add more information in history section. It's good now. thanks! Please discuss it here before making changes! thanks! --User:Ramirez72

• I reverted it back to Noypi's version. --Howard the Duck 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction: changed "open trade" part from "1870's" to 1834. International trade really grew in the 70's but officially the actual opening was on September 6, 1834 (Manila) by royal decree. --Noypi380 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion section

It is getting long too. But I was afraid I will alienate somebody big time. Any suggestions? --Howard the Duck 09:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the specifics on Christianity, and the other details. Those should be placed in the main article. Does that solve it? :) --Noypi380 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The condensed section is OK for me. --Howard the Duck 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a link at Iglesia ni Cristo? --Howard the Duck 10:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I found this on http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/general.asp (official website of the republic of the Philippines (note: this is as it is displayed on the site)

Predominantly Christian. Catholics - 82.9% Protestants - 5.4% Islam - 4.6% Philippine Independent Church - 2.6% Iglesia ni Cristo - 2.3%

Historically, the Filipinos have embraced two of the great religions of the world - Islam and Christianity. Islam was introduced during the 14th century shortly after the expansion of Arab commercial ventures in Southeast Asia. Today, it is limited to the southern region of the country.

Christianity was introduced as early as the 16th century with the coming of Ferdinand Magellan in 1521.

Protestantism was introduced by the first Presbyterian and Methodist missionaries who arrived with the American soldiers in 1899.

Two Filipino independent churches were organized at the turn of the century and are prominent today. These are the Aglipay (Philippine Independent Church) and the Iglesia Ni Kristo (Church of Christ) founded in 1902 and 1914, respectively. Recently, the Aglipay signed a covenant with the Anglican Church. The Iglesia ni Kristo has expanded its membership considerably. Its churches, with their unique towering architecture are landmarks in almost all important towns, provincial capitals and major cities.Lenticel 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tourism

Should we add tourism??? - insanedrivers

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries for the standards set up for country articles. --Howard the Duck 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to edit this: Philippines travel guide from Wikivoyage --Howard the Duck 03:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed 'The education system is efficient and based on the U.S. curriculum'

Education in the Philippines may have been based on the U.S. curriculum a long time ago, but that's definitely no longer the case. Efficiency is disputed by this document from the Department of Education. --Edward Sandstig 13:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rizal inspired by Don Quijote in French version

In the French version, Rizal was supposed to have been inspired by Quijote and was considered the D. Quijote of the Philippines and thus executed. Was Rizal inspired by Don Quijote?--Jondel 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where'd they got that? --Howard the Duck 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Who knows what they are saying in other language versions. Maybe in Asian history books in France, this is how Rizal is protrayed.--Jondel 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rizal did travel alot in Europe, so he should be more than aware of the european literature, and was perhaps inspired by such. Dunno how to verify that though --Noypi380 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Island nation or archipelagic nation?

hey guys i just wanted to ask if the Philippines is an island nation or an archipelagic nation??? just tell me which is correct because in the article it says that its an island nation... Insanedrivers

The article Island nation will give you the answer. --Howard the Duck 07:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Transportation

There is no mention of transportation in the Philippines. What about the airport in Manila? Who flies there? What about Philippines Airlines. I thing there needs to be some links

Well, do your share and create the link! But there might be issues too. There is a wikitravel site to promote tourism in the Philippines.--Jondel 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be adding these... if get industrious enough haha --Howard the Duck 15:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)